Aggregator
Man was face of crime prevention in St. Louis. He also worked for multi-state drug dealer
Six planets are now visible in St. Louis at night; four can be seen with the naked eye
Friday, January 17 - An oasis in a pharmacy desert
Lawmakers in at Least Seven States Seek Expanded Abortion Access
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
In advance of this year’s state legislative sessions, lawmakers are filing more than a dozen bills to expand abortion access in at least seven states, and a separate bill introduced in Texas seeks to examine the impact that the state’s abortion ban has had on maternal outcomes.
Some were filed in direct response to ProPublica’s reporting on the fatal consequences of such laws. Others were submitted for a second or third year in a row, but with new optimism that they will gain traction this time.
The difference now is the unavoidable reality: Multiple women, in multiple states with abortion bans, have died after they couldn’t get lifesaving care.
They all needed a procedure used to empty the uterus, either dilation and curettage or its second-trimester equivalent. Both are used for abortions, but they are also standard medical care for miscarriages, helping patients avoid complications like hemorrhage and sepsis. But ProPublica found that doctors, facing prison time if they violate state abortion restrictions, are hesitating to provide the procedures.
Three miscarrying Texas women, mourning the loss of their pregnancies, died without getting a procedure; one was a teenager. Two women in Georgia suffered complications after at-home abortions; one was afraid to seek care and the other died of sepsis after doctors did not provide a D&C for 20 hours.
Florida state Sen. Tina Polsky said the bill she filed Thursday was “100%” inspired by ProPublica’s reporting. It expands exceptions to the state’s abortion ban to make it easier for doctors and hospitals to treat patients having complications. “We’ve had lives lost in Texas and Georgia, and we don’t need to follow suit,” the Democrat said. “It’s a matter of time before it happens in Florida.”
Texas state Rep. Donna Howard, who is pushing to expand the list of medical conditions that would fall under her state’s exceptions, said she’s had encouraging conversations with her Republican colleagues about her bill. The revelations that women died after they did not receive critical care has "moved the needle here in Texas," Howard said, leading to more bipartisan support for change.
Republican lawmakers in other states told ProPublica they are similarly motivated.
Among them is Kentucky state Rep. Jim Gooch Jr., a Baptist great-grandfather who is trying for the second time to expand circumstances in which doctors can perform abortions, including for incomplete miscarriages and fatal fetal anomalies. He thinks the bill might get a better reception now that his colleagues know that women have lost their lives. “We don’t want that in Kentucky,” he said. “I would hope that my colleagues would agree.”
He said doctors need more clearly defined exceptions to allow them to do their jobs without fear. “They need to have some clarity and not be worried about being charged with some type of crime or malpractice.”
After a judge in North Dakota overturned the state’s total abortion ban, Republican state Rep. Eric James Murphy acted quickly to stave off any similar bans, drafting a bill that would allow abortions for any reason up to the 16th week and then up through about 26 weeks if doctors deem them medically necessary.
“We need other states to understand that there’s an approach that doesn’t have to be so controversial,” said Murphy, who is also an associate professor of pharmacology at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. “What if we get the discussion going and we get people to know that there are rational Republicans out there? Maybe others will come along.”
Under state rules, North Dakota lawmakers are required to give his bill a full hearing, he said, and he plans to introduce ProPublica’s stories as evidence. “Will it make it easier? I sure hope so,” he said. “The Lord willing and the creeks don’t rise, I sure hope so.”
So far, efforts to expand abortion access in more than a dozen states where bans were in effect have faced stiff opposition, and lawmakers introducing the bills said they don’t expect that to change. And some lawmakers, advocates and medical experts argue that even if exceptions are in place, doctors and hospitals will remain skittish about intervening.
As ProPublica reported, women died even in states whose bans allowed abortions to save the “life of the mother.” Doctors told ProPublica that because the laws’ language is often vague and not rooted in real-life medical scenarios, their colleagues are hesitating to act until patients are on the brink of death.
Experts also say it is essential to examine maternal deaths in states with bans to understand exactly how the laws are interfering with critical care. Yet Texas law forbids its state maternal mortality review committee from looking into the deaths of patients who received an abortive procedure or medication, even in cases of miscarriage. Under these restrictions, the circumstances surrounding two of the Texas deaths ProPublica documented will never be reviewed.
“I think that creates a problem for us if we don’t know what the hell is happening,” said Texas state Sen. José Menéndez.
In response to ProPublica’s reporting, the Democrat filed a bill that lifts the restrictions and directs the state committee to study deaths related to abortion access, including miscarriages. “Some of my colleagues have said that the only reason these women died was because of poor practice of medicine or medical malpractice,” he said. “Then what’s the harm in doing the research … into what actually happened?”
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett agreed. The Texas Democrat and three other members of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on Dec. 19 sent a letter to Texas state officials demanding a briefing on the decision not to review deaths that occurred in 2022 and 2023.
Crockett said the state has not responded to the letter, sent to Texas Public Health Commissioner Jennifer Shuford.
“If you feel that your policies are right on the money, then show us the money, show us the goods,” she said. “This should be a wakeup call to Texans, and Texans should demand more. If you believe that these policies are good, then you should want to see the numbers too.”
Doctors are starting to hear about heightened concerns in conversations at their hospitals.
Dr. Austin Dennard, a Dallas OB-GYN, said her hospital recently convened a meeting with lawyers, administrators and various specialists that focused on “how to keep our pregnant patients safe in our hospital system and how to keep our doctors safe.” They discussed creating additional guidance for doctors.
Dennard, who noted she is speaking on her own behalf, said she is getting more in-depth questions from her patients. “We used to talk about vitamins and certain medications to get off of and vaccines to get,” she said. “Now we do all that and there’s a whole additional conversation about pregnancy in Texas, and we just talk about, ‘What’s the safest way we can do this?’”
In addition to being a doctor, Dennard was one of 20 women who joined a lawsuit against the state after they were denied abortions for miscarriages and high-risk pregnancy complications. When she learned her fetus had anencephaly — a condition in which the brain and skull do not fully develop — she had to travel out of state for an abortion. (The lawsuit asked state courts to clarify the law’s exceptions, but the state Supreme Court refused.)
Dennard said stories like ProPublica’s have crystallized a new level of awareness for patients there: “If you have the capacity to be pregnant, then you could easily be one of these women.”
Mariam Elba contributed research and Kavitha Surana contributed reporting.
Clayco names a company veteran to be its new CEO
Defining fetal viability among GOP priorities after Missourians overturn abortion ban
New Missouri rule tries to protect mail-order medications from extreme cold and heat
Ask George: Where can you get a good potpie in St. Louis?
Rain Friday evening opens door to return of very cold temperatures
1 dead, 1 injured in fatal three-vehicle crash on I-64
12 candidates vie for St. Louis Public Schools board as leaders work to step up internal checks and balances
60th anniversary of The Who celebrated with special merch collection
A Trump DOJ Could Bring an End to the Yearslong Investigation of His Ally Ken Paxton
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
This article is co-published with The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan local newsroom that informs and engages with Texans. Sign up for The Brief Weekly to get up to speed on their essential coverage of Texas issues.
When President Donald Trump appeared in a New York courtroom last spring to face a slew of criminal charges, he was joined by a rotating cadre of lawyers, campaign aides, his family — and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Paxton had traveled to be with Trump for what he described on social media as a “sham of a trial” and a “travesty of justice.” Trump was facing 34 counts of falsifying records in the case, which focused on hush money paid to porn star Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign to keep her from disclosing their sexual relationship.
“It’s just sad that we’re at this place in our country where the left uses the court system not to promote justice, not to enforce the rule of law, but to try to take out political opponents, and that’s exactly what they’re doing to him,” Paxton said on a conservative podcast at the time.
“They’ve done it to me.”
A year earlier, the Republican-led Texas House of Representatives voted to impeach Paxton over allegations, made by senior officials in his office, that he had misused his position to help a political donor. Trump was not physically by Paxton’s side but weighed in repeatedly on social media, calling the process unfair and warning lawmakers that they would have to contend with him if they persisted.
When the Texas Senate in September 2023 acquitted Paxton of the impeachment charges against him, Trump claimed credit. “Yes, it is true that my intervention through TRUTH SOCIAL saved Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton from going down at the hands of Democrats and some Republicans …” Trump posted on the social media platform he founded.
The acquittal, however, did not wholly absolve Paxton of the allegations brought by his former employees. The FBI has been investigating the same accusations since at least November 2020. And come Monday, when Trump is inaugurated for his second term, that investigation will be in the hands of his Department of Justice.
Paxton and Trump have forged a friendship over the years, one that has been cemented in their shared political and legal struggles and their willingness to come to each other’s aid at times of upheaval. Both have been the subjects of federal investigations, have been impeached by lawmakers and have faced lawsuits related to questions about their conduct.
“If there’s one thing both guys share in common, people have been after them for a while in a big way. They’ve been under the gun. They’ve shared duress in a political setting,” said Bill Miller, a longtime Austin lobbyist and Paxton friend. “They’ve both been through the wringer, if you will. And I think there’s a kinship there.”
Neither Trump nor Paxton responded to requests for comment or to written questions. Both men have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing, claiming that they have been the targets of witch hunts by their political enemies, including fellow Republicans.
Their relationship is so cozy that Trump said he’d consider naming Paxton as his U.S. attorney general pick. He ultimately chose another political ally, former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Although Trump did not select Paxton, the two men will get yet another opportunity to have each other’s backs now that he has returned to office, both when it comes to the federal investigation into Paxton and pushing forward the president’s agenda.
Before and during Trump’s first term, Paxton filed multiple lawsuits challenging policies passed under former President Barack Obama. He then aggressively pursued cases against President Joe Biden’s administration after Trump lost reelection. Such lawsuits included efforts to stop vaccine mandates, to expedite the deportation of migrants and to block federal protections for transgender workers.
Trump has supported Paxton over and over, not only as the Texas politician sought reelection but also as he faced various political and legal scandals. The president-elect’s promises to exert more control over the Justice Department, which has traditionally operated with greater independence from the White House, could mark an end to the long-running investigation into Paxton, several attorneys said.
Justice Department and FBI officials declined to comment on the story and the status of the investigation, but as recently as August, a former attorney general staffer testified before a grand jury about the case, Bloomberg Law reported. Paxton also referenced the FBI’s four-year investigation of him during a speech in late December without mentioning any resolution on the case. The fact that Paxton hasn’t been indicted could signal that investigators don’t have a smoking gun, one political science professor told ProPublica and The Texas Tribune, but a former federal prosecutor said cases can take years and still result in charges being filed.
“As far as I’m aware, this is pretty unprecedented, this level of alliance and association between those two figures,” said Matthew Wilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas.
Paxton walks onstage at a rally in Robstown, Texas, on Oct. 22, 2022. (Go Nakamura/REUTERS) “Don’t Count Me Out”In 2020, when then-U.S. Attorney General William Barr found no evidence to support Trump’s claims that voter fraud turned the election results in his opponent’s favor, Paxton emerged to take up the argument.
He became the first state attorney general to challenge Biden’s win in court, claiming in a December 2020 lawsuit that the increased use of mail ballots in four battleground states had resulted in voter fraud and cost Trump the election.
Trump eagerly supported the move on social media, writing, “We will be INTERVENING in the Texas (plus many other states) case. This is the big one. Our Country needs a victory!”
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to take the case, ruling that Texas had no legal interest in how other states conduct their elections. Trump, however, didn’t forget Paxton’s loyalty.
He offered Paxton his full-throated endorsement during the 2022 primary race for attorney general against then-Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush. His decision to back Paxton, who was under federal criminal investigation at the time and had been indicted on state securities fraud charges, was a major blow to Bush, the grandson and nephew of two former Republican presidents. Bush had endorsed Trump for president even though Trump defeated his father, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, in the Republican primary and repeatedly disparaged his family.
Trump properties in Florida and New Jersey served as locations for at least two Paxton campaign fundraisers over the course of that campaign. And at a rally in Robstown in South Texas, Trump repeated debunked claims that the election was stolen and said he wished Paxton had been with him at the White House at the time. “He would’ve figured out that voter fraud in two minutes,” Trump said.
While Paxton pursued reelection, FBI agents executed a search warrant at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort as part of an investigation into how his administration handled thousands of government documents, many of them classified. Paxton led 10 other Republican state attorneys general in intervening in court on Trump’s behalf, arguing in a legal filing that the Biden administration could not be trusted to act properly in the case.
Paxton won another term in office in November 2022, but the celebration was short-lived. Six months later, the Texas House of Representatives considered impeaching him over misconduct allegations including bribery, abuse of office and obstruction related to his dealings with Nate Paul, a real estate developer and political donor. Paxton has denied any wrongdoing.
Hours before the House voted on whether to impeach Paxton, Trump weighed in on social media.
“I love Texas, won it twice in landslides, and watched as many other friends, including Ken Paxton, came along with me,” he wrote on his social media platform Truth Social. “Hopefully Republicans in the Texas House will agree that this is a very unfair process that should not be allowed to happen or proceed — I will fight you if it does. It is the Radical Left Democrats, RINOS, and Criminals that never stop. ELECTION INTERFERENCE! Free Ken Paxton, let them wait for the next election!”
Despite Trump’s threat, the House voted 121-23 in May 2023 to impeach Paxton. The Senate then held a trial that September to determine Paxton’s fate. “Who would replace Paxton, one of the TOUGHEST & BEST Attorney Generals in the Country?” Trump posted before the Senate acquitted Paxton.
Trump is among the few people who understand what it’s like to be under the kind of scrutiny Paxton has faced and how to survive it, Miller said.
“There is that quality [they share] of, ‘Don’t count me out,’” he said. “‘If you’re counting me out, you’re making a mistake.’”
On Monday, Trump will become the first president also to be a convicted felon. A jury found Trump guilty on all counts of falsifying records in the hush money case. A judge, however, ruled that he will not serve jail time in light of his election to the nation’s highest office.
Trump has repeatedly decried the case, as well as the Justice Department’s investigations that resulted in him being charged in June 2023 with withholding classified documents and later with conspiring to overturn the 2020 election by knowingly pushing lies that the race was stolen. Jack Smith, the special counsel who led the DOJ investigations, dropped both cases after Trump’s reelection. A Justice Department policy forbids prosecutions against sitting presidents, but in a DOJ report about the 2020 election released days before the inauguration, Smith asserted that his investigators had enough evidence to convict Trump had the case gone to trial.
Not only have Paxton and Trump supported each other through turmoil that could have affected their political ambitions, they have taken similar tacks against those who have crossed them.
After surviving his impeachment trial in 2023, Paxton promised revenge against Republicans who did not stand by him. He had help from Trump, who last year endorsed a challenger to Republican Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, calling Paxton’s impeachment “fraudulent” and an “absolute embarrassment.” Phelan, who has defended the House’s decision to impeach Paxton, won reelection but resigned from his speaker post.
For his part, Trump has tried a legal strategy that Paxton has employed many times, using consumer protection laws to go after perceived political adversaries. In October, Trump sued CBS News over a “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, saying the news organization’s edits “misled” the public. Instead of accusing CBS of defamation, which is harder to prove, his lawsuit argues that the media company violated Texas’ consumer protection act, which is supposed to protect people from fraud. The case is ongoing. In moving to dismiss the case, CBS’ attorneys have said the Texas law was designed to safeguard people from deceptive business practices, “not to police editorial decisions made by news organizations with which one disagrees.” (Marc Fuller, one of the CBS attorneys, is representing ProPublica and the Tribune in an unrelated business disparagement case.)
The move indicates a broader, more aggressive approach that the Justice Department may pursue under the Trump administration, said Paul Nolette, director of the Les Aspin Center for Government at Marquette University, who researches attorneys general.
“It’s a signal to me that, yes, the federal DOJ is going to follow the path of Paxton, and perhaps some other like-minded Republican AGs who have been using their office to also go after perceived enemies,” Nolette said.
Paxton speaks during the AmericaFest 2024 conference, hosted by conservative group Turning Point, in Phoenix on Dec. 21. (Cheney Orr/REUTERS) Cleaning HouseOn Dec. 21, six weeks after Trump won reelection, Paxton stepped onstage in a Phoenix convention center at the AmericaFest conference, hosted by the conservative organization Turning Point USA.
The event followed Trump’s comeback win. It also represented a triumphant moment for Paxton: He’d not only survived impeachment, but prosecutors agreed earlier in the year to drop long-standing state securities fraud charges against him if he paid about $270,000 in restitution and performed community service.
But Paxton spent much of his 15-minute speech ticking off the grievances about what he claimed had been attacks on him throughout his career, including impeachment by “supposed Republicans” and the FBI case.
He praised Trump’s selection of Bondi to run the DOJ. It was time to clean house in a federal agency that had become focused on “political witch hunts and taking out people that they disagree with,” Paxton said.
Before taking office, Trump threatened to fire and punish those within the Justice Department who were involved in investigations that targeted him. FBI director Christopher Wray, a Republican whom Trump appointed during his first term in office, announced in December that he would resign after the president-elect signaled that he planned to fire him. After facing similar threats, Smith, the special prosecutor who led the DOJ investigations, stepped down this month.
In his speech, Paxton made no mention of the agency’s investigations into Trump, nor did he connect the DOJ to his own case. But a Justice Department that Trump oversees with a heavy-handed approach could benefit the embattled attorney general, several attorneys told ProPublica and the Tribune.
Trump could choose to pardon Paxton before the case is officially concluded. He used pardons during his first presidency, including issuing one to his longtime strategist Steve Bannon and to Charles Kushner, his son-in-law’s father. He’s been vocal about his plans to pardon many of the Jan. 6 rioters on his first day in office.
More concerning, however, is if Trump takes the unusual approach of personally intervening in the federal investigation, something presidents have historically avoided because it is not a political branch of government, said Mike Golden, who directs the Advocacy Program at the University of Texas School of Law.
Any Trump involvement would be more problematic because it would happen behind closed doors, while a pardon is public, Golden said.
“If the president pressures the Department of Justice to drop an investigation, a meritorious investigation against a political ally, that weakens the overall strength of the system of justice in the way a one-off pardon really doesn’t,” Golden said.
Michael McCrum, a former federal prosecutor in Texas who did not work on the Paxton case, said “we’d be fools to think that Mr. Paxton’s relationship with the Trump folks and Mr. Trump personally wouldn’t play some factor in it.”
“I think that the case is going to die on the vine,” McCrum said.
Miller, Paxton’s friend, agreed.
“I would expect his troubles are behind him.”
stLouIST