Alabama
Health care providers sue over threat of prosecution for abortion help
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — Abortion rights advocates in Alabama — where abortion is almost entirely illegal — filed lawsuits Monday against the state’s attorney general seeking to prevent him from prosecuting people who help patients travel outside the state to end pregnancies.
The groups say Attorney General Steve Marshall has made statements suggesting that anti-conspiracy laws could be used to prosecute those who assist with appointments or finances. The two lawsuits seek a legal ruling clarifying that the state can’t use the statute for these prosecutions.
One lawsuit was filed by the Yellowhammer Fund, a group that stopped providing financial assistance to low-income abortions patients because of the prosecution concerns. The other was filed by an obstetrician and two former abortion clinics that continue to provide contraception and other health services.
“What the attorney general has tried to do via these threats is to effectively extend Alabama’s abortion ban outside of its borders for Alabama residents,” said Meagan Burrows, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the providers in the lawsuit.
In a separate case, advocacy groups and an attorney sued Idaho earlier this month over a law that makes it illegal to help minors travel to another state to get an abortion without their parents’ consent.
Marshall has not prosecuted anyone for providing abortion assistance, but he has made statements saying that his office would “look at” groups that provide help.
“Attorney General Marshall will continue to vigorously enforce Alabama laws protecting unborn life which include the Human Life Protection Act. That includes abortion providers conspiring to violate the Act,” Marshall’s office said in an emailed response to the lawsuit. His office did not respond to an email asking to clarify if actions such as providing financial assistance could be prosecuted.
The comments have had a “disturbing chilling effect” on abortion rights advocates and providers, who already feel like they live with a legal target on their back, said Kelsea McLain, deputy director of Yellowhammer. “We believe it’s our right and our freedom to support people in leaving the state if they need to because the state no longer takes care of their needs,” she said.
The provider suit was filed by the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa, the Alabama Women’s Center in Huntsville, and Dr. Yashica Robinson, an obstetrician. Robinson said she once made referrals for patients seeking abortions, coordinating medically complex health histories, but no longer does so because of the fear of prosecution.
“Tragically, banning abortion in Alabama seems to not have been enough,” Robinson said in a statement. “Those in power want to muzzle providers like me to prevent us from sharing information with our pregnant patients about the options they have.”
The phone rings at least once a day at the former clinic in Tuscaloosa as women — sometimes crying and often desperate — try to find where they can go in other states to end an unwanted pregnancy, the clinic director said.
“We get a lot of the anger — and we know that it’s not us that they are angry at,” said Robin Marty, operations director for the West Alabama Women’s Center. “It’s the situation, but it is very, very hard for my staff. They want to be able to help them.”
After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and handed authority on abortion law to the states, the Deep South quickly became an area of limited abortion access.
Alabama bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy with no exceptions for rape and incest. The only exemption is if it’s needed because pregnancy seriously threatens the pregnant patient’s health. Nineteen states have enacted restrictions and many southern states have near complete bans. Marty said that means women often have to travel long distances to receive care, which can bring financial and logistical hardship.
Marty said most people who reach out to the clinic know “there is no abortion in Alabama. What they aren’t aware of is how far that extends.”
Connecticut
Ex-millionaire gets 5-plus years in prison for real estate fraud
BRIDGEPORT, Conn. (AP) — A one-time millionaire real estate developer with past ties to corrupt Connecticut politicians was sentenced to more than five years in prison on Monday for fraud involving a failed hotel-condominium project in Florida and properties elsewhere.
Robert Matthews requested a prison sentence of no more than 27 months, but instead got 65 months from Judge Victor Bolden during a hearing in federal court in Bridgeport, Connecticut.
Prosecutors said Matthews, of Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, and formerly of the Connecticut town of Washington, scammed foreign investors out of millions of dollars from 2012 to 2018 while trying to develop the Palm House Hotel in Palm Beach. More than 60 investors contributed at least $500,000 apiece, officials said.
Matthews made attractive but false assertions that celebrities and politicians — including former Presidents Donald Trump and Bill Clinton — would be involved in the project, authorities said. Matthews and his co-defendants used investors’ money to buy a yacht, open restaurants and pay off loans, among other personal expenses, prosecutors said.
During Monday’s court hearing, Matthews apologized to those he defrauded and admitted he used investors’ money to maintain his wealthy lifestyle, Hearst Connecticut Media reported.
According to court documents, Matthews went broke after having overseen multimillion-dollar real estate projects, largely because of the 2008 real estate market crash. He had a 12,000-square-foot (1,115-square-meter) mansion in Palm Beach, a 150-foot (45-meter) yacht and an island vacation home in Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Matthews pleaded guilty in 2019 to conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud, making illegal monetary transactions and tax evasion. Three co-defendants in the case, including his ex-wife and brother, also have pleaded guilty and await sentencing.
Prosecutors said the fraud also involved properties in Connecticut and Nantucket.
Law enforcement officials previously showed interest in Matthews in connection with two corrupt Connecticut politicians, but Matthews wasn’t charged in either case.
In a 2004 criminal case, a defendant who pleaded guilty said he was the front man for Matthews when Matthews bought a Washington, D.C., condo from former Gov. John Rowland for more than twice the going rate. Rowland resigned in 2004 amid a corruption scandal that sent him to prison.
In the early 1990s, authorities questioned Matthews about a $25,000 payment to Waterbury Mayor Joseph Santopietro, who also was convicted of corruption and served prison time.
In 2000, Matthews and an antiques dealer obtained an original copy of the Bill of Rights that was stolen from North Carolina’s Capitol at the close of the Civil War, possibly by a Union soldier. The document was returned to North Carolina after the FBI seized it during a sting and Matthews lost a lawsuit in a bid to keep it.
Indiana
Judge declines to block new law barring teaching of sex in K-3
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — A federal judge has declined to block the enforcement of a new state law barring the teaching of human sexuality to students from pre-K through the third grade.
U.S. District Judge J.P. Hanlon ruled late Friday that claims by Indianapolis Public Schools teacher Kayla Smiley that the law infringes on her First Amendment free speech rights and is too vague to be enforced were insufficient to justify a preliminary injunction blocking the law.
Hanlon said teachers do not have unlimited free speech rights in the classroom. Instead, as government employees, their speech is limited to subjects and messages approved by the Legislature, he wrote.
“Ms. Smiley cites no authority establishing that an elementary school teacher has the right to speak in her capacity as a private citizen when expressing an educational message to her students,” Hanlon wrote in his 15-page ruling. “Without a substantial effect on protected speech, Ms. Smiley is unlikely to succeed on her claim that (the law) — on its face — violates the First Amendment.”
Hanlon also ruled that while the law doesn’t define “human sexuality” or related terms, there is a sufficient core of understandable meaning to those phrases that prevents him from striking down the statute for being too vague.
Indiana schools typically don’t provide any kind of sex education until at least fifth grade except for state-mandated programs focused on preventing child abuse.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in June.
Republican lawmakers approved the law this year during a session that targeted LGBTQ+ people in the state. It took effect July 1 after Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb signed it into law in May.
Texas
Impeached AG seeks to have charges dismissed before trial
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Lawyers for impeached Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Monday sought to have most of the charges against him dismissed, arguing that they rely on alleged acts of corruption before he was reelected to a third term in 2022.
In motions filed with the Senate, where Paxton’s impeachment trial is scheduled to begin Sept. 5, his attorneys said they believe state law bars the removal of an official for conduct that occurred before their most recent election. Paxton was first elected attorney general in 2014 and the impeachment charges include alleged conduct since then.
“The Articles allege nothing that Texas voters have not heard from the Attorney General’s political opponents for years,” Paxton’s attorneys wrote. They accused the GOP-dominated Texas House of Representatives of seeking to oust Paxton because they were unable to unseat him by popular vote.
“Texas voters rendered their judgement by re-electing Attorney General Paxton to serve a third consecutive term. As a matter of both common sense and Texas law, that should be the end of the matter,” his attorneys wrote.
Only one of the 20 impeachment charges — an allegation that Paxton settled a whistleblower lawsuit in an effort to hide from the public corruption allegations against him — would not have to be dismissed under the so-called “prior term doctrine,” Paxton’s attorney said. Paxton asked state lawmakers this year to have the state pay the proposed $3.3 million settlement.
In a second filing, Paxton’s attorneys said the trial should exclude any evidence of alleged conduct that occurred prior to January 2023, when his third term in office began.
The motions from Paxton’s attorneys are similar to moves in a criminal or civil legal cases when defense attorneys seek to have charges or lawsuits dismissed before trial.
In this case, the presiding officer over Paxton’s impeachment trial will be Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a powerful Republican who also serves as the president of the state Senate. The Republican-controlled Senate will consider the evidence and decide whether to convict or acquit Paxton in the first impeachment trial of a statewide official since 1917.
Patrick has already issued a sweeping gag order over the parties and attorneys involved ahead of the Senate trial. Attorneys for House of Representatives managers prosecuting Paxton did not immediately respond to the motions filed Monday.
Paxton has been suspended from office since the House first approved the articles of impeachment on May 27. He could be permanently removed if convicted by the Senate.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
