When the Texas Attorney General’s office announced its first arrest under Texas’ abortion laws, the court filings and press statements painted a shocking picture.
Maria Rojas, a Houston-area midwife, was portraying herself as a doctor and using untrained employees to perform illegal abortions for cash, pushing unwitting women into terminating wanted pregnancies, the records said, citing a monthlong investigation involving surveillance, search warrants and first-hand witnesses.
ALSO READ: The new guy in charge of USAID doesn't believe in foreign aid
But at a court hearing Thursday, Rojas’ lawyers got their first opportunity to tell their side of the story. They described an above-board telemedicine-based medical practice that offered a range of services, including maternal health care appropriate for a midwife, and argued the state’s investigator has no first-hand knowledge of Rojas performing the acts of which she is accused.
The investigation was marked with “complete shoddiness and lack of thoroughness,” and the arrest affidavit was filled with “conjecture,” “wild conclusions” and “rank speculation,” Marc Hearron, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the judge.
Lawyers for Rojas also have raised concerns about irregularities in the criminal case, including that she was held on an arrest warrant, rather than a criminal complaint, which is much more common. She has not been indicted yet by a grand jury.
“I would believe if the attorney general had a solid case, they would have filed charges,” said Nicole DeBorde Hochglaube, who is representing Rojas in her criminal case. “They have yet to do so.”
Rojas posted bond Wednesday, but was held until today, her lawyers say, for reasons that were unclear to them. After some back and forth at the hearing, she was released with a tracking device.
Thursday’s hearing was on a narrow legal question about whether Rojas’ clinics could reopen. Waller County District Judge Gary Chaney sided with the state, granting the temporary injunction to keep the clinics closed.
Chaney also will hear the criminal case if and when the state brings formal charges. He said he would move as fast as possible, but indicated that this whole process could take a long time to be resolved.
“I assume this won’t be a short trial,” he said, apologizing in advance for any scheduling delays. “I might get to your case in three years.”
“Just joking,” he added.
A contentious, drawn-out fight
In some ways, Waller County seems an unlikely place for this first major criminal clash in the abortion wars. A rural county of less than 65,000 people, it's best known for Prairie View A&M, and, this time of year, the lovely wildflowers you drive past on U.S. 290 between Austin and Houston.
There are signs of the county’s growth, quite literally, as advertisements for new subdivisions, land for sale and enticements to Build On Your Lot litter the side of the highway. But it retains the informalness of a rural community, evident in the family home-slash-dentist’s office, the double-wide trailers converted into churches and the storefront offering tax and salon services.
Among this crowd, Clínica Waller Latinoamericana doesn’t stand out. It’s a boring gray building, standing alone alongside 290, with a small shingle hanging out front advertising the range of medical services offered.
Rojas and her husband opened this clinic, and several others across the Houston area, according to court documents. Rojas has said she was a licensed doctor in her home country of Peru, and in the United States, became a midwife in 2018.
Earlier this year, someone filed an anonymous complaint with Texas Health and Human Services, alleging that she was performing abortions in violation of the state’s abortion ban. The OAG investigated, and in early March, arrested Rojas and one of her employees on charges of practicing medicine without a license. A few weeks later, they arrested them both again, this time on the abortion charges.
In Texas, the attorney general does not have independent prosecutorial authority and must be invited in by a local district attorney if they want to bring criminal charges. And this is where Waller County starts to make a bit more sense.
While several district attorneys in the state’s largest counties have said they do not intend to bring criminal abortion charges, Waller County DA Sean Whittmore is a former employee of the Office of the Attorney General who previously worked in the law enforcement division that investigated this case. He was appointed to the Waller County role by Gov. Greg Abbott in December 2023, and won reelection last year.
Whittmore told The Texas Tribune that the OAG brought him this case and he agreed to deputize them to prosecute it. The case will be heard in Waller County, and as Chaney is the only judge, he’ll hear both the civil and criminal cases.
If this first hearing is any indication, both are expected to be contentious and drawn out battles.
The all-day hearing started slowly, with Chaney stepping away to read last-minute filings, pulling out books to consult court precedent and refereeing fights between long-time adversaries from the OAG and the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Assistant Attorney General Amy Hilton called only one witness, Rojas, grilling her for hours. To each question, the midwife pleaded the Fifth in a lilting Peruvian accent, sometimes faster than her lawyers could object to the question.
"You perform abortions, correct?"
"I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment."
"You have ended pregnancies, haven’t you?"
"I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment."
"You’re not a physician, are you?"
"I invoke my rights under the Fifth Amendment."
The only interruption to the barrage came when Hilton asked Rojas about whether she’d used forceps to perform an abortion and, her voice rising to a crescendo, alleged the midwife was smiling on the stand, and “seems to be enjoying herself.”
Rojas’ attorney leapt up and snapped an objection, and the usually affable Chaney let out a sigh.
“Y’all are playing theater here,” he said, adding a plaintive, “Let’s play nice.”
After nearly an hour, Chaney called a 90-minute lunch break. He had a stack of case law each side had asked him to review, and, frankly, he had better places to be.
“My wife will kill me if I don’t eat lunch with her,” he said.
Questions about bond and charges
Rojas was brought to the courtroom from the jail Thursday morning in a pink jumpsuit and orange slide sandals, much to the surprise of her attorneys, who said they didn’t realize she would be in attendance.
During the hearing, she was informed she could be discharged on bond, and her lawyers asked if she could return to the jail to be processed out. When she returned to the courtroom after lunch, she had changed into a blue tracksuit. After the questioning from Hilton, she was escorted home by her lawyer.
Rojas had been held on a $1.4 million bond, which is surprisingly high, said Eric Davis, chief of the trial division at the Harris County Public Defender's Office.
“Somebody with no prior criminal history, on a non-homicide case or a non-child sex assault case, it’s really unusual,” Davis said. “It signals to me they may be thinking about charging her with something higher. That bond we’d expect with murder or a high charge like that.”
Davis has worked as a defense attorney for 30 years, and said the high bond isn’t the only unusual thing about this case. He has rarely, if ever, seen someone arrested and held only on an arrest warrant, as Rojas and her associate were.
It’s standard practice for a criminal complaint to be filed, laying out what someone is charged with and allowing the defense to begin requesting discovery. It’s so uncommon to hold someone on just an arrest warrant, several defense attorneys said they couldn’t even speculate on why Paxton’s office might be taking this path. Davis said it could mean they’re gathering more evidence or deciding exactly what charges to bring to a grand jury, but he couldn’t be sure.
“It doesn't take much to file a complaint, so why are they waiting?” he said. “It’s standard practice.”
DeBorde Hochglaube told reporters this lack of clarity has made it hard for her and fellow lawyers to begin preparing their defense.
“We don’t even have the charges you would ordinarily have in a criminal accusation,” she said. “It’s simply an arrest warrant, nothing more.”
Thursday’s hearing was only on the civil case, and while her lawyers said they were disappointed by the outcome, they noted it was an interim step and wasn’t determinative of the outcome of the larger case.
Chaney seemed to agree, noting after his ruling that if her lawyers brought witnesses or other evidence, the case “might have a different result.” He seemed eager to stay out of the fray on this hyper-politicized, closely watched first criminal abortion charge.
“Y’all are really worried about the abortion issue,” he said, but added, “I’m more worried about someone out there being a doctor that shouldn’t be a doctor.”
