A Texas appeals court dealt a major setback to Attorney General Ken Paxton, concluding that his office did not present enough evidence to sustain a civil lawsuit against a Houston midwife accused of performing illegal abortions in violation of strict state law.

The decision annuls, for now, an order that had forced three clinics to close and represents a new chapter in one of the most followed cases since Texas almost completely banned abortion after the fall of Roe v. Wade.

The protagonist of the case is María Margarita Rojas, a licensed midwife who faces criminal charges for allegedly performing abortions and practicing medicine without authorization. Although the criminal investigation continues, the court determined that the evidence presented by the Prosecutor's Office was not enough to justify the precautionary measure that had paralyzed its clinics.

What the court decided

The 15th District Court of Appeal found that the trial judge based his decision primarily on evidence obtained within the criminal process, rather than evidence sufficient to support the civil lawsuit filed by Paxton's office.

For this reason, the magistrates revoked the order that prevented Rojas from operating his three clinics while the litigation continued. In addition, they noted that the State had not adequately demonstrated that the clinics had violated the almost total ban on abortion in effect in Texas since 2022.

You can see: How to talk about pornography with your children: why silence no longer protects them

Criminal investigation continues

The ruling does not mean that the case is over or that the midwife has been exonerated. Rojas continues to face criminal charges for allegedly performing illegal abortions and practicing medicine without a license, charges to which he has pleaded not guilty. Other people linked to their clinics also remain charged within the same investigation.

According to their lawyers, although the court lifted the closure order, immediately reopening the clinics will be difficult due to the economic and operational consequences caused by the judicial process.

Ken Paxton can still appeal the ruling

The attorney general's office still has the ability to ask the Texas Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision.

The case has gained strong political relevance because it was one of the first attempts to forcefully apply the almost total ban on abortion in force in Texas and because Paxton presented it as an example of his toughening policy against those who, he maintains, fail to comply with state legislation.

The ruling does not modify the law on abortion in Texas, but it does make clear that the State will have to provide more solid evidence if it intends to maintain judicial measures as severe as the closure of clinics while the processes remain open.

This news has been tken from authentic news syndicates and agencies and only the wordings has been changed keeping the menaing intact. We have not done personal research yet and do not guarantee the complete genuinity and request you to verify from other sources too.