Kaiser Health News

Lawsuits Claim South Carolina Kids Underwent Unnecessary Genital Exams During Abuse Investigations

Published

1 year ago

February 22, 2024

Lauren Sausser
Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Warning: Some readers may find graphic details in this article to be offensive or disturbing.

CAMDEN, S.C. — Three ongoing federal lawsuits filed in South Carolina accuse the state of forcing boys and girls to undergo traumatic genital exams during child abuse investigations, even when no allegations of sexual abuse have been raised.

One 14-year-old plaintiff — who goes by “Jane Doe” to protect her privacy — was placed into foster care in 2021 after she disclosed to a social services caseworker that her mother had spanked her with a belt and a tree branch.

“I never, ever mentioned sexual abuse,” said Jane, who was 12 when the South Carolina Department of Social Services launched its investigation and scheduled her to undergo a forensic medical exam at a hospital in Columbia. “I felt like I was kind of getting legally abused by someone that had the permission to do it,” she told KFF Health News during an interview at her attorney’s office.

During the exam, Jane was instructed to undress and open her legs in front of medical providers she’d never met before who took photos of her genital area, touched her breasts, and placed “fingers and/or instruments” in her vagina, according to her lawsuit.

“I felt like I had no right to say no,” she told KFF Health News. “Something inside me told me that wasn’t what they were supposed to do.”

Connelly-Anne Ragley, a spokesperson for the department, would not discuss the ongoing lawsuits. Court filings show the agency denies the allegations and argues that its employees are protected by “qualified immunity,” a type of court-created rule that often shields law enforcement officers and government officials from being sued. The department also asserts that forensic exams are “standard procedure” during abuse and neglect cases.

Investigating child abuse is notoriously complex. The investigations usually involve forensic interviews, which are typically recorded and involve a professional asking questions of a child to elicit information. And they sometimes include forensic full-body medical examinations that include a visual check of the child’s private parts and are designed to be noninvasive, meaning medical tools that can break the skin or enter the body are not used.

Together, the interview and the exam are considered effective tools for gathering information and evidence from underage victims, who may be reluctant to describe or disclose how they’ve been hurt. Often, these interviews and exams are conducted at children’s advocacy centers by social workers, doctors, and nurses who are specially trained to treat young patients with sensitivity and care — and learn to read between the lines.

Federal guidelines advise that the mere suspicion of child sexual abuse should be sufficient to trigger a forensic medical exam. Even so, there’s a growing consensus in medicine that genital and pelvic exams can be embarrassing, uncomfortable, and even traumatic.

The South Carolina lawsuits — which involve children who live in different parts of the state and who were assigned to different social services caseworkers — aren’t the first to raise red flags about the potentially harmful effects of forensic medical exams on children. Since the 1990s, federal courts from New York to California have ruled that government agencies violate children’s and parents’ civil rights when the exams are conducted without a court order or parental consent.

Claims that the exams are comparable to normal pediatric checkups are “garbage,” said Donnie Cox, a civil rights attorney in Carlsbad, California.

“At the time they’re happening, they’re scary as hell and it really does traumatize children on top of the trauma of being removed from their homes,” said Cox, who has represented plaintiffs in similar lawsuits. “They’re using these kids, basically, as pieces of evidence, and you can’t do that.”

‘A Fishing Expedition’

In one South Carolina lawsuit, a 16-year-old girl claims she was subjected to painful vaginal exams against her will, even after she denied being sexually abused. She felt as if she was “being raped” during the forensic medical exam, her complaint asserts.

In another lawsuit, a couple living in the north-central part of the state allege their sons were subjected to genital and rectal exams, without the parents’ knowledge or consent, more than a month after the children had been removed from their home in 2021. Their oldest son bruised his arms on playground equipment, they contend, instigating a child abuse investigation that resulted in all three boys temporarily moving in with their grandparents. Their youngest son was 6 months old at the time.

No one alleged during the investigation that the boys had been sexually abused, the lawsuit states, and yet the boys’ “penises were held and touched by strangers” during the forensic exam and “fingers and/or instruments were placed in their anus,” the lawsuit states.

The parents, whose names KFF Health News chose to withhold to protect the identity of their children, said their middle child suffers from night terrors because of the forensic examination. The oldest doesn’t talk about what happened in the exam room, his mother said.

“Because we didn’t know” what was going to happen, she said, “nobody could prepare him.”

Attorneys Deborah and Robert Butcher of the Foster Care Abuse Law Firm, who represent plaintiffs in all three South Carolina cases, have likened these forensic medical exams to “a fishing expedition.” One lawsuit they filed against the Department of Social Services argues the agency is financially motivated to find evidence of any form of child abuse so that it qualifies for more money from the federal government.

“They’re going to use every means possible to build a case,” Robert Butcher said. He estimated “easily thousands” of children in South Carolina have been forced to get unnecessary exams during child abuse investigations in recent years — an approximation he made based on child protective services intake data.

Ragley, the Department of Social Services spokesperson, said the agency is required by state law to follow the South Carolina Child Abuse Response Protocol to determine when children should be referred for a forensic medical evaluation, which includes “a complete and thorough medical history from the child (if verbal) and caregivers and a head to toe physical examination, including the anogenital area.”

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by KFF Health News, the department said it couldn’t estimate how many forensic medical exams are conducted on children of any age in South Carolina each year.

“That is not a question SCDSS can answer,” Kaitlin Stout, the agency’s manager of policy and practice standards with the Office of Strategic Planning and Innovation, replied via email. “We do not track or tally how many forensic exams are ‘ordered/conducted’ in open DSS cases and would have no way to know how many are conducted on children who are not involved with the agency.”

But children’s advocacy centers, where many of these exams are conducted, do keep track, and national data shows that about 1 in 4 child abuse victims who are served by a children’s advocacy center get a forensic medical exam, said Teresa Huizar, chief executive officer of the National Children’s Alliance, which represents nearly 1,000 children’s advocacy centers in the U.S.

These numbers don’t capture all forensic medical exams, though, which may also be conducted in emergency departments and private clinics, Huizar said.

“I would say that they tend to be under-utilized,” she said. “Often, children who would very much benefit from an exam don’t get them because there simply isn’t enough money in the public pool.”

The cost of these exams varies by location. But in Georgia, for example, a pediatric anogenital exam with a colposcope, a medical tool used for magnification, is about $280, exclusive of lab fees, according to the Georgia Crime Victims Compensation Program.

The Right to Refuse

Child welfare experts agree that forensic medical evaluations can be worthwhile outside the strict scope of child sexual abuse investigations.

South Carolina’s Child Abuse Response Protocol indicates these exams should be conducted during investigations if children have witnessed violence or been exposed to an environment where drugs are used. An overt allegation or disclosure of child sexual abuse isn’t considered a prerequisite for a forensic medical exam, said Thomas Knapp, executive director of the South Carolina Network of Children’s Advocacy Centers.

“Children are often poly-victimized, so the head-to-toe exam is intended to ensure general well-being and pick up on evidence of any form of abuse,” Knapp explained. “There are also some children where there may be no disclosure, but we have digital images of their abuse. So, disclosure is not the only precipitating reason to request an exam.”

Like Huizar, he agreed that forensic medical exams are under-utilized. In South Carolina, specifically, more than 4,500 children passed through a children’s advocacy center with a report of sexual abuse in 2023. Only about half as many had received a forensic medical exam through mid-October, Knapp said.

State rules allow the Department of Social Services to request a forensic medical evaluation without consent from a child’s parent or legal guardian. But the rules don’t address the issue of obtaining the child’s permission before proceeding with an exam. Knapp explained that children’s advocacy centers allow patients to refuse. Federal Justice Department recommendations published in 2016 explicitly advise that children should be allowed to refuse participation in all or part of the process.

“If a patient refuses, we don’t do it,” said Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist in Seattle. Genital exams for girls should be conducted only externally, in most cases, she said, even when sexual abuse is suspected. Internal exams and Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer aren’t recommended until age 21, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

“You really want to teach kids to say no,” Oelschlager said. “This is an area that’s private and if they say no, I’ve got to respect that.”

One South Carolina lawsuit contends a 16-year-old girl was visibly “terrified and emotionally upset concerning the forensic medical exam” and that she told the medical examiner to stop. The medical examiner allegedly ignored the request.

Antoinette Laskey, a Utah pediatrician and member of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Council on Child Abuse and Neglect, had no knowledge of the South Carolina cases but explained that a child’s wishes must be respected in the exam room, where the “inherent power differential” between a doctor and patient should be recognized.

“I would never force the issue,” she said.

In 2022, Laskey co-authored a policy statement for the American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledging that children are “especially vulnerable” to being exploited in health care settings because of their age, development level, any disability, race, ethnicity, or English language proficiency. The paper cited flagrant examples of abuse inflicted by doctors like Larry Nassar, who pleaded guilty in 2017 to sexually abusing child gymnasts under the guise of legitimate medical care.

The policy statement explained that pediatricians are responsible for assessing children’s health, including their genital health, from birth through puberty. To that end, the academy advises doctors to use sensitivity and care during anogenital exams. Children should be afforded privacy when disrobing, providers should wear gloves, and doctors should obtain permission from the child by discussing the need for the examination and what it will entail.

These exams “should never be traumatic,” said Megan Lechner, chief operating officer of the International Association of Forensic Nurses, a group that trains nurses to conduct sexual assault exams on adults and children. More than anything else, they are designed “to tell the child they’re OK,” she said. “If they’re traumatic, you’re doing it wrong.”

‘A Needle in a Haystack’

And yet courts have recognized the potentially traumatic impact of these exams before. In 2019, an Alabama judge rejected a motion that would have required child victims who were raped and abused by adults to undergo court-ordered vaginal examinations. One of the prosecutors successfully argued that the exams would “victimize the children all over again,” the Montgomery Advertiser reported.

Like many victims, the children in that case had delayed reporting the abuse. Shame and fear often prevent child victims from reporting sexual abuse right away. Some wait years before disclosing they were abused — if they ever disclose the abuse at all.

Children’s advocacy centers across the U.S. investigated nearly 250,000 cases involving child sexual abuse allegations in 2022, the National Children’s Alliance reported, but historical data shows that physical evidence is present in fewer than 5% of all reported cases.

Finding proof “is a needle in the haystack,” Laskey said.

Attorney Robert Butcher said the federal lawsuits in South Carolina may eventually be consolidated for the sake of efficiency. He doubted they would be resolved this year, but said cases already decided in favor of children and their parents in other parts of the country bolster his clients’ arguments.

In 1994, for example, a federal judge in New York found that a kindergartner who had been separated from her parents during a child abuse investigation “almost certainly did, in fact, experience psychological injury” during a forensic medical exam, when she was “subjected to intrusive bodily examinations by two strangers, in a strange location, in the absence of a parent or other reassuring figure.”

More recently, a panel of federal appeals court judges in California ruled in 2018 that the County of San Diego violated the constitutional rights of a family by failing to inform the parents that their children would undergo “significantly intrusive” and “potentially painful” forensic medical exams.

“This is as traumatic for the parents as it is for the children,” said Cox, the California attorney who represented the family in that case.

Jane Doe, who filed the first of the three South Carolina lawsuits, doesn’t know what the outcome of her case will be, and she doesn’t talk about it at middle school.

“I have a couple of close friends,” she said. “I don’t tell anybody about what happened. I just want this to be an example so that never happens to another person.”

——————————
By: Lauren Sausser
Title: Lawsuits Claim South Carolina Kids Underwent Unnecessary Genital Exams During Abuse Investigations
Sourced From: kffhealthnews.org/news/article/child-abuse-investigations-genital-exams-trauma-south-carolina-lawsuits/
Published Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 10:00:00 +0000

Up Next

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: Alabama Court Rules Embryos Are Children. What Now?

Don't Miss

Health Care Workers Push for Their Own Confidential Mental Health Treatment

Kaiser Health News

Dual Threats From Trump and GOP Imperil Nursing Homes and Their Foreign-Born Workers

Published

5 days ago

June 26, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Jordan Rau, KFF Health News – 2025-06-26 04:00:00

Jordan Rau, KFF Health News

June 26, 2025

In a top-rated nursing home in Alexandria, Virginia, the Rev. Donald Goodness is cared for by nurses and aides from various parts of Africa. One of them, Jackline Conteh, a naturalized citizen and nurse assistant from Sierra Leone, bathes and helps dress him most days and vigilantly intercepts any meal headed his way that contains gluten, as Goodness has celiac disease.

“We are full of people who come from other countries,” Goodness, 92, said about Goodwin House Alexandria’s staff. Without them, the retired Episcopal priest said, “I would be, and my building would be, desolate.”

The long-term health care industry is facing a double whammy from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants and the GOP’s proposals to reduce Medicaid spending. The industry is highly dependent on foreign workers: More than 800,000 immigrants and naturalized citizens comprise 28% of direct care employees at home care agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care companies.

But in January, the Trump administration rescinded former President Joe Biden’s 2021 policy that protected health care facilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The administration’s broad immigration crackdown threatens to drastically reduce the number of current and future workers for the industry. “People may be here on a green card, and they are afraid ICE is going to show up,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president of LeadingAge, an association of nonprofits that care for older adults.

Existing staffing shortages and quality-of-care problems would be compounded by other policies pushed by Trump and the Republican-led Congress, according to nursing home officials, resident advocates, and academic experts. Federal spending cuts under negotiation may strip nursing homes of some of their largest revenue sources by limiting ways states leverage Medicaid money and making it harder for new nursing home residents to retroactively qualify for Medicaid. Care for 6 in 10 residents is paid for by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for poor or disabled Americans.

“We are facing the collision of two policies here that could further erode staffing in nursing homes and present health outcome challenges,” said Eric Roberts, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The industry hasn’t recovered from covid-19, which killed more than 200,000 long-term care facility residents and workers and led to massive staff attrition and turnover. Nursing homes have struggled to replace licensed nurses, who can find better-paying jobs at hospitals and doctors’ offices, as well as nursing assistants, who can earn more working at big-box stores or fast-food joints. Quality issues that preceded the pandemic have expanded: The percentage of nursing homes that federal health inspectors cited for putting residents in jeopardy of immediate harm or death has risen alarmingly from 17% in 2015 to 28% in 2024.

In addition to seeking to reduce Medicaid spending, congressional Republicans have proposed shelving the biggest nursing home reform in decades: a Biden-era rule mandating minimum staffing levels that would require most of the nation’s nearly 15,000 nursing homes to hire more workers.

The long-term care industry expects demand for direct care workers to burgeon with an influx of aging baby boomers needing professional care. The Census Bureau has projected the number of people 65 and older would grow from 63 million this year to 82 million in 2050.

In an email, Vianca Rodriguez Feliciano, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency “is committed to supporting a strong, stable long-term care workforce” and “continues to work with states and providers to ensure quality care for older adults and individuals with disabilities.” In a separate email, Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said foreigners wanting to work as caregivers “need to do that by coming here the legal way” but did not address the effect on the long-term care workforce of deportations of classes of authorized immigrants.

Goodwin Living, a faith-based nonprofit, runs three retirement communities in northern Virginia for people who live independently, need a little assistance each day, have memory issues, or require the availability of around-the-clock nurses. It also operates a retirement community in Washington, D.C. Medicare rates Goodwin House Alexandria as one of the best-staffed nursing homes in the country. Forty percent of the organization’s 1,450 employees are foreign-born and are either seeking citizenship or are already naturalized, according to Lindsay Hutter, a Goodwin spokesperson.

“As an employer, we see they stay on with us, they have longer tenure, they are more committed to the organization,” said Rob Liebreich, Goodwin’s president and CEO.

Jackline Conteh spent much of her youth shuttling between Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ghana to avoid wars and tribal conflicts. Her mother was killed by a stray bullet in her home country of Liberia, Conteh said. “She was sitting outside,” Conteh, 56, recalled in an interview.

Conteh was working as a nurse in a hospital in Sierra Leone in 2009 when she learned of a lottery for visas to come to the United States. She won, though she couldn’t afford to bring her husband and two children along at the time. After she got a nursing assistant certification, Goodwin hired her in 2012.

Conteh said taking care of elders is embedded in the culture of African families. When she was 9, she helped feed and dress her grandmother, a job that rotated among her and her sisters. She washed her father when he was dying of prostate cancer. Her husband joined her in the United States in 2017; she cares for him because he has heart failure.

“Nearly every one of us from Africa, we know how to care for older adults,” she said.

Her daughter is now in the United States, while her son is still in Africa. Conteh said she sends money to him, her mother-in-law, and one of her sisters.

In the nursing home where Goodness and 89 other residents live, Conteh helps with daily tasks like dressing and eating, checks residents’ skin for signs of swelling or sores, and tries to help them avoid falling or getting disoriented. Of 102 employees in the building, broken up into eight residential wings called “small houses” and a wing for memory care, at least 72 were born abroad, Hutter said.

Donald Goodness grew up in Rochester, New York, and spent 25 years as rector of The Church of the Ascension in New York City, retiring in 1997. He and his late wife moved to Alexandria to be closer to their daughter, and in 2011 they moved into independent living at the Goodwin House. In 2023 he moved into one of the skilled nursing small houses, where Conteh started caring for him.

“I have a bad leg and I can’t stand on it very much, or I’d fall over,” he said. “She’s in there at 7:30 in the morning, and she helps me bathe.” Goodness said Conteh is exacting about cleanliness and will tell the housekeepers if his room is not kept properly.

Conteh said Goodness was withdrawn when he first arrived. “He don’t want to come out, he want to eat in his room,” she said. “He don’t want to be with the other people in the dining room, so I start making friends with him.”

She showed him a photo of Sierra Leone on her phone and told him of the weather there. He told her about his work at the church and how his wife did laundry for the choir. The breakthrough, she said, came one day when he agreed to lunch with her in the dining room. Long out of his shell, Goodness now sits on the community’s resident council and enjoys distributing the mail to other residents on his floor.

“The people that work in my building become so important to us,” Goodness said.

While Trump’s 2024 election campaign focused on foreigners here without authorization, his administration has broadened to target those legally here, including refugees who fled countries beset by wars or natural disasters. This month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the work permits for migrants and refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who arrived under a Biden-era program.

“I’ve just spent my morning firing good, honest people because the federal government told us that we had to,” Rachel Blumberg, president of the Toby & Leon Cooperman Sinai Residences of Boca Raton, a Florida retirement community, said in a video posted on LinkedIn. “I am so sick of people saying that we are deporting people because they are criminals. Let me tell you, they are not all criminals.”

At Goodwin House, Conteh is fearful for her fellow immigrants. Foreign workers at Goodwin rarely talk about their backgrounds. “They’re scared,” she said. “Nobody trusts anybody.” Her neighbors in her apartment complex fled the U.S. in December and returned to Sierra Leone after Trump won the election, leaving their children with relatives.

“If all these people leave the United States, they go back to Africa or to their various countries, what will become of our residents?” Conteh asked. “What will become of our old people that we’re taking care of?”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Dual Threats From Trump and GOP Imperil Nursing Homes and Their Foreign-Born Workers appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content primarily highlights concerns about the impact of restrictive immigration policies and Medicaid spending cuts proposed by the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers on the long-term care industry. It emphasizes the importance of immigrant workers in healthcare, the challenges that staffing shortages pose to patient care, and the potential negative effects of GOP policy proposals. The tone is critical of these policies while sympathetic toward immigrant workers and advocates for maintaining or increasing government support for healthcare funding. The framing aligns with a center-left perspective, focusing on social welfare, immigrant rights, and concern about the consequences of conservative economic and immigration policies without descending into partisan rhetoric.

Kaiser Health News

California’s Much-Touted IVF Law May Be Delayed Until 2026, Leaving Many in the Lurch

Published

6 days ago

June 25, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Sarah Kwon – 2025-06-25 04:00:00

Sarah Kwon

June 25, 2025

California lawmakers are poised to delay the state’s much-ballyhooed new law mandating in vitro fertilization insurance coverage for millions, set to take effect July 1. Gov. Gavin Newsom has asked lawmakers to push the implementation date to January 2026, leaving patients, insurers, and employers in limbo.

The law, SB 729, requires state-regulated health plans offered by large employers to cover infertility diagnosis and treatment, including IVF. Nine million people will qualify for coverage under the law. Advocates have praised the law as “a major win for Californians,” especially in making same-sex couples and aspiring single parents eligible, though cost concerns limited the mandate’s breadth.

People who had been planning fertility care based on the original timeline are now “left in a holding pattern facing more uncertainty, financial strain, and emotional distress,” Alise Powell, a director at Resolve: The National Infertility Association, said in a statement.

During IVF, a patient’s eggs are retrieved, combined with sperm in a lab, and then transferred to a person’s uterus. A single cycle can total around $25,000, out of reach for many. The California law requires insurers to cover up to three egg retrievals and an unlimited number of embryo transfers.

Not everyone’s coverage would be affected by the delay. Even if the law took effect July 1, it wouldn’t require IVF coverage to start until the month an employer’s contract renews with its insurer. Rachel Arrezola, a spokesperson for the California Department of Managed Health Care, said most of the employers subject to the law renew their contracts in January, so their employees would not be affected by a delay.

She declined to provide data on the percentage of eligible contracts that renew in July or later, which would mean those enrollees wouldn’t get IVF coverage until at least a full year from now, in July 2026 or later.

The proposed new implementation date comes amid heightened national attention on fertility coverage. California is now one of 15 states with an IVF mandate, and in February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order seeking policy recommendations to expand IVF access.

It’s the second time Newsom has asked lawmakers to delay the law. When the Democratic governor signed the bill in September, he asked the legislature to consider delaying implementation by six months. The reason, Newsom said then, was to allow time to reconcile differences between the bill and a broader effort by state regulators to include IVF and other fertility services as an essential health benefit, which would require the marketplace and other individual and small-group plans to provide the coverage.

Newsom spokesperson Elana Ross said the state needs more time to provide guidance to insurers on specific services not addressed in the law to ensure adequate and uniform coverage. Arrezola said embryo storage and donor eggs and sperm were examples of services requiring more guidance.

State Sen. Caroline Menjivar, a Democrat who authored the original IVF mandate, acknowledged a delay could frustrate people yearning to expand their families, but requested patience “a little longer so we can roll this out right.”

Sean Tipton, a lobbyist for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, contended that the few remaining questions on the mandate did not warrant a long delay.

Lawmakers appear poised to advance the delay to a vote by both houses of the legislature, likely before the end of June. If a delay is approved and signed by the governor, the law would immediately be paused. If this does not happen before July 1, Arrezola said, the Department of Managed Health Care would enforce the mandate as it exists. All plans were required to submit compliance filings to the agency by March. Arrezola was unable to explain what would happen to IVF patients whose coverage had already begun if the delay passes after July 1.

The California Association of Health Plans, which opposed the mandate, declined to comment on where implementation efforts stand, although the group agrees that insurers need more guidance, spokesperson Mary Ellen Grant said.

Kaiser Permanente, the state’s largest insurer, has already sent employers information they can provide to their employees about the new benefit, company spokesperson Kathleen Chambers said. She added that eligible members whose plans renew on or after July 1 would have IVF coverage if implementation of the law is not delayed.

Employers and some fertility care providers appear to be grappling over the uncertainty of the law’s start date. Amy Donovan, a lawyer at insurance brokerage and consulting firm Keenan & Associates, said the firm has fielded many questions from employers about the possibility of delay. Reproductive Science Center and Shady Grove Fertility, major clinics serving different areas of California, posted on their websites that the IVF mandate had been delayed until January 2026, which is not yet the case. They did not respond to requests for comment.

Some infertility patients confused over whether and when they will be covered have run out of patience. Ana Rios and her wife, who live in the Central Valley, had been trying to have a baby for six years, dipping into savings for each failed treatment. Although she was “freaking thrilled” to learn about the new law last fall, Rios could not get clarity from her employer or health plan on whether she was eligible for the coverage and when it would go into effect, she said. The couple decided to go to Mexico to pursue cheaper treatment options.

“You think you finally have a helping hand,” Rios said of learning about the law and then, later, the requested delay. “You reach out, and they take it back.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post California’s Much-Touted IVF Law May Be Delayed Until 2026, Leaving Many in the Lurch appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content is presented in a factual, balanced manner typical of center-left public policy reporting. It focuses on a progressive healthcare issue (mandated IVF insurance coverage) favorably highlighting benefits for diverse family structures and individuals, including same-sex couples and single parents, which often aligns with center-left values. At the same time, it includes perspectives from government officials, industry representatives, opponents, and patients, offering a nuanced view without overt ideological framing or partisan rhetoric. The emphasis on healthcare access, social equity, and patient impact situates the coverage within a center-left orientation.

Kaiser Health News

Push To Move OB-GYN Exam Out of Texas Is Piece of AGs’ Broader Reproductive Rights Campaign

Published

1 week ago

June 24, 2025

Staff Editor

kffhealthnews.org – Annie Sciacca – 2025-06-24 04:00:00

Annie Sciacca

June 24, 2025

Democratic state attorneys general led by those from California, New York, and Massachusetts are pressuring medical professional groups to defend reproductive rights, including medication abortion, emergency abortions, and travel between states for health care in response to recent increases in the number of abortion bans.

The American Medical Association adopted a formal position June 9 recommending that medical certification exams be moved out of states with restrictive abortion policies or made virtual, after 20 attorneys general petitioned to protect physicians who fear legal repercussions because of their work. The petition focused on the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s certification exams in Dallas, and the subsequent AMA recommendation was hailed as a win for Democrats trying to regain ground after the fall of Roe v. Wade.

“It seems incremental, but there are so many things that go into expanding and maintaining access to care,” said Arneta Rogers, executive director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at the University of California-Berkeley’s law school. “We see AGs banding together, governors banding together, as advocates work on the ground. That feels somewhat more hopeful — that people are thinking about a coordinated strategy.”

Since the Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, 16 states, including Texas, have implemented laws banning abortion almost entirely, and many of them impose criminal penalties on providers as well as options to sue doctors. More than 25 states restrict access to gender-affirming care for trans people, and six of them make it a felony to provide such care to youth.

That’s raised concern among some physicians who fear being charged if they go to those states, even if their home state offers protection to provide reproductive and gender-affirming health care.

Pointing to the recent fining and indictment of a physician in New York who allegedly provided abortion pills to a woman in Texas and a teen in Louisiana, a coalition of physicians wrote in a letter to the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology that “the limits of shield laws are tenuous” and that “Texas laws can affect physicians practicing outside of the state as well.”

The campaign was launched by several Democratic attorneys general, including Rob Bonta of California, Andrea Joy Campbell of Massachusetts, and Letitia James of New York, who each have established a reproductive rights unit as a bulwark for their state following the Dobbs decision.

“Reproductive health care and gender-affirming care providers should not have to risk their safety or freedom just to advance in their medical careers,” James said in a statement. “Forcing providers to travel to states that have declared war on reproductive freedom and LGBTQ+ rights is as unnecessary as it is dangerous.”

In their petition, the attorneys general included a letter from Joseph Ottolenghi, medical director at Choices Women’s Medical Center in New York City, who was denied his request to take the test remotely or outside of Texas. To be certified by the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology, physicians need to take the in-person exam at its testing facility in Dallas. The board completed construction of its new testing facility last year.

“As a New York practitioner, I have made every effort not to violate any other state’s laws, but the outer contours of these draconian laws have not been tested or clarified by the courts,” Ottolenghi wrote.

Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University’s law school and a reproductive law scholar, said “putting the heft” of the attorneys general behind this effort helps build awareness and a “public reckoning” on behalf of providers. Separately, some doctors have urged medical conferences to boycott states with abortion bans.

Anti-abortion groups, however, see the campaign as forcing providers to conform to abortion-rights views. Donna Harrison, an OB-GYN and the director of research at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, described the petition as an “attack not only on pro-life states but also on life-affirming medical professionals.”

Harrison said the “OB-GYN community consists of physicians with values that are as diverse as our nation’s state abortion laws,” and that this diversity “fosters a medical environment of debate and rigorous thought leading to advancements that ultimately serve our patients.”

The AMA’s new policy urges specialty medical boards to host exams in states without restrictive abortion laws, offer the tests remotely, or provide exemptions for physicians. However, the decision to implement any changes to the administration of these exams is up to those boards. There is no deadline for a decision to be made.

The OB-GYN board did not respond to requests for comment, but after the public petition from the attorneys general criticizing it for refusing exam accommodations, the board said that in-person exams conducted at its national center in Dallas “provide the most equitable, fair, secure, and standardized assessment.”

The OB-GYN board emphasized that Texas’ laws apply to doctors licensed in Texas and to medical care within Texas, specifically. And it noted that its exam dates are kept under wraps, and that there have been “no incidents of harm to candidates or examiners across thousands of in-person examinations.”

Democratic state prosecutors, however, warned in their petition that the “web of confusing and punitive state-based restrictions creates a legal minefield for medical providers.” Texas is among the states that have banned doctors from providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth, and it has reportedly made efforts to get records from medical facilities and professionals in other states who may have provided that type of care to Texans.

The Texas attorney general’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

States such as California and New York have laws to block doctors from being extradited under other states’ laws and to prevent sharing evidence against them. But instances that require leveraging these laws could still mean lengthy legal proceedings.

“We live in a moment where we’ve seen actions by executive bodies that don’t necessarily square with what we thought the rules provided,” Rebouché said.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Push To Move OB-GYN Exam Out of Texas Is Piece of AGs’ Broader Reproductive Rights Campaign appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

The article presents a viewpoint largely aligned with progressive and Democratic positions on reproductive rights and gender-affirming care. It highlights efforts led by Democratic attorneys general and the American Medical Association to protect abortion access and transgender healthcare amid restrictive state laws, portraying these actions positively. While it includes perspectives from anti-abortion advocates, their views are presented briefly and framed as opposition to the broader pro-choice initiatives. The overall tone and framing emphasize support for reproductive freedom and healthcare protections, reflecting a center-left leaning stance typical of mainstream health policy reporting sympathetic to Democratic policy goals.