Houston attorney Nicole DeBorde Hochglaube sat flabbergasted at her desk in early October. A press release from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had just touted the arrest of eight people affiliated with a network of Houston-area medical clinics alleged to have practiced abortion care in violation of the state’s extreme ban. Paxton, currently a U.S. Senate candidate as well, labeled the individuals a so-called “cabal of abortion-loving radicals” and denounced their actions as “evil,” amid an ongoing case. The sensational release served as an update to his office’s earlier announcement of the arrest of the clinics’ founder, 49-year-old midwife Maria Margarita Rojas, last March.

“A prosecutor who is truly interested in justice does not blast out a public press release like this to the media while a trial is pending. Nothing has been proven in court yet, and this inflammatory language is just meant to fan the flames of public outcry and poison a jury pool before the facts are heard,” Hochglaube, who serves as Rojas’ criminal defense lawyer, told the Texas Observer. “It’s unethical and irresponsible.”

Rojas is believed to be the first healthcare provider criminally charged for abortion care after the fall of Roe v. Wade in 2022, and she is certainly the first in Texas. The unprecedented prosecution marks a sharp escalation of Paxton’s zealous ongoing attacks on reproductive health providers—and signals his desire to expand his powers to go after those he believes are in violation of abortion law. Paxton’s office is prosecuting the criminal cases, after the Waller County district attorney referred them over, and his office also initiated a separate civil case to shut the clinics down; a status hearing in Rojas’ criminal case is scheduled for early June, while oral arguments in the civil case, which is on appeal, are set for Thursday in Houston. 

Hochglaube said Paxton’s “desperate” attempt to smear charged individuals is indicative of the state’s overwhelmingly flimsy argument against the medical workers. 

The building that formerly housed Clinica Waller LatinoAmerica (Mary Tuma)

On March 17, Paxton announced the arrest of Rojas for purportedly providing an illegal abortion as well as practicing medicine without a license at her network of low-cost clinics in the Waller, Cypress, Katy, and Spring areas of the Houston metro. The next day, he announced the arrest of one of her employees, Jose Ley, on the same charges—specifically noting Ley’s status as a Cuban immigrant paroled in under Joe Biden’s “open borders policies.” To date, a total of nine arrests have been made in the case. Texas enforces one of the strictest criminal abortion bans in the United States, with no exception for rape, incest, or severe fetal abnormality. Only recently did lawmakers provide clarity about when doctors can perform emergency abortion care, and even that measure hasn’t satisfied reproductive health advocates. If found in violation of the law, Rojas could face up to life in prison, while practicing medicine without a license carries a penalty of up to 10 years in prison. 

“Texas law protecting life is clear, and we will hold those who violate it accountable,” Paxton said in announcing Rojas’ arrest.

However, Rojas’ attorneys say the accusations against her are baseless. In a case conducted with “complete shoddiness,” the state has offered paltry evidence to show that Rojas or her colleagues participated in abortion care at all, said Marc Hearron, interim associate director of litigation with the Center for Reproductive Rights, who serves as Rojas’ attorney in the civil case, which has resulted in an injunction that’s shuttered Rojas’ clinics for nearly a year now.

“There’s an almost shocking lack of evidence around these abortion care accusations,” said Hearron. “What you’re seeing is an attorney general grasping at straws and rushing to indict anyone during an election year.” 

A native of Peru, where she practiced OB-GYN care, and a certified midwife in Texas since 2018, Rojas has overseen more than 700 births in hospital and community-based settings, including at one of her clinics, the Houston Birth House. In January 2025, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission received an anonymous complaint claiming two abortions were performed at another of Rojas’ clinics, Clinica Waller LatinoAmerica. This spurred the Medicaid Fraud Division within the attorney general’s office to investigate. Investigators surveilled Rojas’ clinics for months and say they identified a patient (named as “E.G.” in court documents) who claimed to have been given abortion pills under Rojas’ care after being told her pregnancy had a low chance of viability. Investigators also say they found a medicine bottle containing misoprostol, a drug that can induce abortion. 

In an 84-page appeal—part of the civil case, which state attorneys have successfully transferred into an appeals court custom-made by the GOP Legislature in 2023 for litigation involving the state—Rojas’ attorneys criticize investigators for their lack of medical expertise and point out their surveillance was limited to outside the clinic: “Investigators never observed any medical practice by anyone inside the clinics,” they write. Moreover, without any tangible proof, E.G.’s statements to the investigator amount to hearsay, a conclusion Republican Waller County District Judge Gary Chaney—who issued the injunction in the civil case and is also presiding over the criminal case—has appeared to agree with so far. As for the misoprostol, the low dose found (one-fourth of what would typically be given) is “inconsistent” with abortion care. The drug can be prescribed to patients for a range of medical purposes including treatment of ulcers, miscarriage management, or to prevent hemorrhaging. Investigators also didn’t find mifepristone, which is given in combination with misoprostol as part of a two-drug abortion medication regimen. 

“[State investigators] did not report finding mifepristone, the tools that would be used in a surgical abortion, or patient records indicating that any patient had received an abortion,” the attorneys write. “They did not find any documents anywhere indicating that abortions were being offered at the clinics.”

While the state is trying to criminally charge Rojas with practicing medicine without a license, lawyers point out she never claimed to be a physician, but rather a midwife, someone who offers holistic reproductive healthcare during pregnancy, labor, delivery, and postpartum. She was licensed as a midwife, and midwives like her are allowed to provide prescription drugs under a licensed physician, as she did.

“None of the state’s arguments add up, yet Paxton has labeled Rojas and her colleagues ‘abortion-loving radicals’ and said ‘Let’s just throw them all in jail’,” said Hearron. “It’s ridiculous.”

Attorneys also point to the many unusual aspects of the case that underscore how Paxton has disproportionately penalized the provider: For example, Rojas had to pay a $1.4 million bond and must wear a GPS ankle monitor. A friend of hers asserts that when she was initially arrested, she was “pulled over by the police at gunpoint and handcuffed” and that the officers “wouldn’t tell her what was happening.” During a March civil hearing, Rojas faced more than 200 questions from aggressive state attorneys.

Rojas’ case also lays bare Paxton’s desire to usurp civil and prosecutorial power. For instance, it is typically the Texas Medical Board’s role to seek an injunction to close medical clinics, not the attorney general’s, defense lawyers stress. And while the AG typically lacks the power to enforce criminal law, he can work around this barrier if a local district attorney requests it, as happened in Waller. While many of the DAs in Texas’ most-populous counties like Travis and Dallas have vowed not to criminally prosecute abortion care, Paxton was able to base this case in the domain of a more conservative district prosecutor: Sean Whittmore, who served in Paxton’s office from 2018 to 2020 within the Houston Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.

“When it comes to attacking abortion rights, Paxton has a long history of trying to abuse his power, when in reality he has pretty limited authority,” said Joanna Grossman, professor at the Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in Dallas. “But he does often get the complicity of the legal system by way of politically aligned judges and prosecutors.” 

Even when a Texas court ruled in 2023 that Kate Cox, a Texas woman with a non-viable pregnancy, could undergo abortion despite the state’s strict bans, Paxton threatened to prosecute “hospitals, doctors, or anyone else” who would assist in providing the procedure with first-degree felonies. The anti-abortion AG has also successfully sued the Biden administration to fight against protections for Texas doctors who perform abortions in emergency circumstances. In 2024, Paxton filed a civil suit against a New York doctor for allegedly sending abortion pills to a patient in Texas, and he most recently filed suit against a Delaware-based abortion pill provider. Since 2022, taxpayers have footed at least $400,000 for Paxton’s legal war on abortion rights, according to open records requests filed with the attorney general’s office by the Observer.

Grossman said the litany of aggressive actions from Paxton is meant to create a climate of fear for healthcare professionals. Now stripped of her midwifery license and her livelihood, Rojas’ fate could have a chilling effect on other providers. 

“The rule of law and the actual evidence aren’t as important to Paxton. With this case he’s more interested in sending a threatening message to anyone who is providing reproductive healthcare—especially to those in low-income communities: ‘We can come after you, shut down your clinics, and ruin your lives,’” said Grossman.

Ken Paxton speaks during a campaign event in February. (AP Photo/Julio Cortez)

Evy Peña, director of advocacy with the Women’s Equality Center, a reproductive justice organization that focuses on movement-building in Latin America, said it’s “no coincidence” that the first person prosecuted under the Texas abortion law is a Latina midwife. Paxton’s public statements have been not only anti-abortion but laced with superfluous anti-immigrant descriptions.

“Ms. Rojas was serving low-income, Spanish-speaking patients and was a trusted resource for this already marginalized community,” said Peña. “State-led intimidation actions like this disproportionately impact vulnerable people, especially at a time when there is increased fear among immigrant communities.”

The lead investigator in the AG’s office on the Rojas case, Lieutenant Eddie Wilkerson, is also an enthusiastic Trump supporter who has made several “Blue Lives Matter” and pro-MAGA social media posts that include strong anti-immigrant sentiments, according to his LinkedIn profile. For instance, Wilkerson has said on his LinkedIn that the “only reason” non-U.S. citizens are counted in the U.S. census is to “keep Democrats [in] power” and suggested that “We should stop giving tax money to illegals.” Wilkerson also laugh-reacted to a comment that suggested “Just shoot them,” referring to undocumented immigrants who commit sexual abuse.

Wilkerson and the attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

In its response last June to Rojas’ attorneys in the civil case, the AG sought to paint the midwife as an unlicensed doctor who performed illegal abortions. Rojas’ attorneys rebutted this, saying the state lacked any credible evidence of wrongdoing.

As the cases play out, Rojas’ clinics remain closed. Clinica Waller LatinoAmerica, a nondescript gray building, sits on a strip of land along Highway 290 in northwest Houston, flanked by a mix of residential homes and small businesses. With a faded storefront sign, the modest-sized building now hosts an unrelated mental healthcare provider. Nearly 20 percent of the largely rural Waller County population is uninsured, making the former clinic, which helped the low-income Spanish-speaking community through a range of medical services, a valuable—and missed—resource. 

Rafael Silva, a nearby resident, told the Observer he visited the clinic when he cut his finger last year and received compassionate and timely care. His mother visited every year for her annual exam. 

“They really helped us, and it’s strange that they are just gone now,” he said. “We don’t really understand why.”

The post Ken Paxton’s ‘Shoddy’ Prosecution of a Midwife Is Part of a Strategy to Expand His Power. Low-Income Houstonians Are Paying the Price. appeared first on The Texas Observer.

La demanda se presentó en nombre de varios neoyorquinos a quienes les vaciaron sus cuentas EBT mediante skimming, un tipo de fraude electrónico en el que se roban los datos de las tarjetas.

Una tienda en East Gun Hill Road, en el Bronx, sábado, 4 de octubre de 2025. (Adi Talwar/City Limits)

Este artículo se publicó originalmente en inglés el 11 de febrero. Traducido por Daniel Parra. Read the English version here.

Una mañana de enero, Crystal Carrero fue a su supermercado habitual en Crown Heights. Pero cuando fue a pagar, el cajero le dijo que no había dinero en su tarjeta de Transferencia Electrónica de Beneficios (EBT por sus siglas en inglés).

“Imposible”, recuerda haber dicho, porque no había utilizado ninguno de los fondos y recientemente los había recibido: $923 dólares, sus prestaciones mensuales del Programa Federal de Asistencia Nutricional Suplementaria (SNAP por sus siglas en inglés), que ayuda a las familias con bajos ingresos a comprar alimentos.

Carrero, de 38 años, seguía atónita cuando regresó a su apartamento a revisar su cuenta. En seis transacciones diferentes realizadas en la madrugada su cuenta fue vaciada. El dinero que utilizaba para alimentar a sus dos hijos y mantener a su nieta había desaparecido.

Su tarjeta EBT había sido clonada (skimmed), un tipo de fraude electrónico en el que se roban los datos de la tarjeta. Miles de neoyorquinos han sido víctimas de este fraude en los últimos años, sin posibilidad de recuperar lo perdido. El gobierno federal ya no reembolsa los beneficios robados después de que la legislación que autorizaba esos reembolsos expirara en 2024.

A pesar del aumento de los robos de tarjetas EBT en todo el país en los últimos años, el Departamento de Agricultura de los Estados Unidos (USDA por sus siglas en inglés), que supervisa la normativa del SNAP, sólo reembolsa los robos de tarjetas físicas, no los fraudes por tarjetas clonadas. En 2023, un grupo de neoyorquinos a los que les robaron sus prestaciones del SNAP presentaron una demanda colectiva contra el USDA.

Un juez federal desestimó el caso en agosto, pero las dos organizaciones que representan a los neoyorquinos afectados, Legal Aid Society y Freshfields—un bufete de abogados internacional—presentaron una apelación la semana pasada.

Esencialmente, el caso se centra en si las normas que se crearon cuando aún se emitían cupones de alimento en papel se aplican a las nuevas formas de robo electrónicas, y cómo las protecciones estipuladas por el Congreso cuando se realizó la transición del papel a las tarjetas electrónicas se aplican en esta nueva era. Con los cupones de papel, el USDA sólo reembolsaba los cupones robados de la correspondencia, antes de que fueran recibidos.

“Pero si llevabas los cupones en el bolsillo y te los robaban de camino a la tienda, no se reemplazaban”, explicó Ed Josephson, abogado supervisor de Legal Aid. “La teoría era que, al menos, si los llevabas en el bolsillo, tenías cierto control sobre tus cupones y podías cuidarlos, pero obviamente no tenías ningún control cuando estaban en el correo”.

Hoy en día, clonar tarjetas permite a los estafadores acceder de forma remota a una cuenta comprometida, incluso inmediatamente después de que la cuenta recibe fondos. La demanda sostiene que esta estafa moderna es similar al robo de la correspondencia, ya que los beneficios se almacenan en una cuenta del gobierno y se roban antes de que el destinatario pueda ejercer control sobre estos.

Los demandantes también afirman que la normativa del USDA no cumple el requisito de “derechos similares” de la ley de la era del papel. Cuando el Congreso cambió de cupones de papel a tarjetas EBT hace décadas, dijo que se debían mantener los mismos derechos y que las normas para recuperar el dinero debían ser “similares” a las normas para los cupones en papel.

“Así que lo que argumentamos es que la intención del Congreso era que ningún grupo de beneficiarios del SNAP saliera perdiendo como resultado de la transición del papel al EBT”, dijo Josephson. “Y lo que ha hecho el USDA es excluir a esta enorme categoría de personas, que son las que pierden los beneficios antes de tenerlos, antes de recibirlos”.

El USDA no respondió a la solicitud de comentarios.

Josephson también dijo que la política de reembolso actual de la agencia es demasiado restrictiva e ignora por completo el clonado de tarjetas. Uno de los objetivos de la demanda, explicó, es que el USDA actualice o publique una nueva norma que tenga debidamente en cuenta las pérdidas por clonado.

El Congreso aprobó anteriormente un proyecto de ley que permitía cierto reembolso por las pérdidas por clonado de tarjetas ocurridas entre el 1 de octubre de 2022 y diciembre de 2024. Pero ya ha expirado.

Josephson dijo que este caso tardará varios meses más en resolverse. Mientras tanto, muchas personas siguen siendo víctimas y deben recurrir a los bancos de alimentos para llegar a fin de mes y compensar la diferencia, entre ellas Carrero.

A falta de cambios a nivel federal, algunos estados han intervenido para implementar el uso de tarjetas modernas con chip, que son más seguras. El mes pasado, la gobernadora Kathy Hochul anunció la tan esperada actualización de las tarjetas EBT de Nueva York para incluir chips, algo por lo que los defensores han presionado durante mucho tiempo.

La Oficina de Asistencia Temporal y por Discapacidad del estado (OTDA por sus siglas en inglés), que administra el SNAP en Nueva York, publicó el año pasado una convocatoria de propuestas para que un nuevo proveedor de tarjetas EBT llevara a cabo el cambio. La oficina no proporcionó una fecha de implementación ni los costes estimados del cambio, pero dijo que la gobernadora quiere implementarlo lo antes posible, y se espera más información pronto.

“Dado que los programas de nutrición financiados con fondos federales, como el SNAP, están siendo objeto de ataques en Washington, la gobernadora Hochul se ha centrado en proteger los dólares de los que dependen los neoyorquinos y en garantizar que puedan acceder a los recursos necesarios para mejorar su situación y la de sus familias”, dijo un portavoz de la OTDA en un comunicado.

La OTDA instó a los usuarios a que estén atentos a la clonación cuando utilicen las tarjetas, a cambiar el PIN con frecuencia, a comprobar que los terminales de las tiendas no tengan teclados o lectores de tarjetas sueltos, a bloquear la tarjeta cuando no la utilicen y las transacciones fuera del estado a través de la aplicación (disponible en Apple App Store y Google Play Store) o del sitio web ebtEDGE.

Para ponerse en contacto con el reportero de esta noticia, escriba a Daniel@citylimits.org. Para ponerse en contacto con la editora, escriba a Jeanmarie@citylimits.org.

The post Grupos legales apelan para que el gobierno federal reemplace fondos de SNAP robados appeared first on City Limits.

MOSCOW (AP) — The Cuban foreign minister visited Moscow on Wednesday as the island faces blackouts and severe fuel shortages worsened by a U.S oil embargo.

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez held talks with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov and was set to meet later in the day with President Vladimir Putin.

Related Articles

Envoys signal no breakthrough on bridging Russia and Ukraine’s political and military differences

Today in History: February 18, Veteran FBI agent accused of spying for Russia

What climate change means for Greenland’s traditional Inuit lifestyle and the world

Lunar New Year prayers, robots and festivities usher in the Year of the Horse

A look at Ramadan and how Muslims observe the holy month

Lavrov urged the U.S. to refrain from blockading Cuba, which has struggled to import oil for its power plants and refineries after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened any nation that sold oil to Cuba with tariffs.

“Together with most members of the global community, we are calling on the U.S. to show common sense, take a responsible approach and refrain from its plans of sea blockade,” Lavrov said during the talks with Rodriguez.

He promised that Moscow will “continue supporting Cuba and its people in protecting the country’s sovereignty and security.”

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov also noted that “Russia, like many other countries, has consistently spoken against the blockade of the island.”

“We have our relations with Cuba, and we value these relations very much,” Peskov told reporters. “And we intend to further develop them — of course, during difficult times, by providing appropriate assistance to our friends.”

Asked whether sending fuel to Cuba could derail a recent warming of ties with Washington, Peskov responded that “we don’t think these issues are linked.”

Putin has praised Trump’s efforts to mediate an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and Moscow and Washington have discussed ways to revive their economic ties.

Venezuela, one of Cuba’s main oil suppliers, stopped selling crude to the island in January after the U.S. captured then-President Nicolás Maduro in a pre-dawn raid and flew him to New York to face drug trafficking charges.

Mexico also cut off oil shipments to Cuba in January, after Trump issued the tariff threat.

Russia’s Izvestia news outlet last week cited the Russian embassy in Havana as saying that Moscow was preparing to send humanitarian fuel shipment to Havana in the near future. On Monday, Russian ambassador to Cuba, Viktor Koronelli, said that Moscow was looking into details of organizing assistance to Cuba but offered no specifics.

Cuba’s fuel shortages already have forced Russian tourist companies to halt the sales of package tours to the island after the Cuban government said that it will not provide fuel to planes that land on the island.

By MATTHEW DALY

WASHINGTON (AP) — A coalition of health and environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday, challenging its determination last week that revoked a scientific finding that has been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

Related Articles

Many Democrats are still down on the Democrats, a new AP-NORC poll finds

Late-night host Stephen Colbert isn’t backing down from public dispute with CBS bosses

Judge blocks deportation of Palestinian activist who led protests at Columbia

Trump administration backs Kalshi, Polymarket as states move to ban prediction markets

Pennsylvania man cleared after 43 years in prison for murder denied bail during deportation fight

A rule finalized by the EPA on Thursday rescinds a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding that determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The Obama-era finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.

The repeal eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks and could unleash a broader undoing of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, experts say.

The legal challenge, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asserts that the EPA’s rescission of the endangerment finding is unlawful. The 2009 finding supported common sense safeguards to cut climate pollution, including from cars and trucks, the lawsuit says. Clean vehicle standards imposed by the Biden administration were set to “deliver the single biggest cut to U.S. carbon pollution in history, save lives and save Americans hard-earned money on gas,” the coalition said in filing the case.

After nearly two decades of scientific evidence supporting the 2009 finding, “the agency cannot credibly claim that the body of work is now incorrect,” said Brian Lynk, a senior attorney at the Environmental Law & Policy Center.

“This reckless and legally untenable decision creates immediate uncertainty for businesses, guarantees prolonged legal battles and undermines the stability of federal climate regulations,” Lynk said.

The case was brought by groups including the American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment and Physicians for Social Responsibility, along with environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club.

The suit named EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA itself as defendants.

President Donald Trump said in announcing the repeal that it was “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far,” while Zeldin called the endangerment finding “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach.”

The endangerment finding “led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry,” Zeldin said. “The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.”

Environmental groups described the move as the single biggest attack in U.S. history against federal authority to address climate change. Evidence backing up the endangerment finding has only grown stronger in the 17 years since it was approved, they said.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is legally required to limit emissions of any air pollutant that causes or contributes to “air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” In 2007, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and told EPA to determine, based on the science, if that pollution endangers human health and welfare. EPA made that determination in 2009, which led to new standards for vehicles. It built on that finding when issuing other standards.

The EPA’s own analysis found that eliminating the vehicle standards will increase gas prices and force Americans to spend more on fuel, advocates said.

EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding, along with the elimination of safeguards to limit vehicle emissions, “marks a complete dereliction of the agency’s mission to protect people’s health and its legal obligations under the Clean Air Act,” said Dr. Gretchen Goldman, president and CEO at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“This shameful and dangerous action … is rooted in falsehoods, not facts, and is at complete odds with the public interest and the best available science,” Goldman said. Heat-trapping emissions and global average temperatures are rising — primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels — contributing to a mounting human and economic toll across the world, she said.