Part 4: A look at the case of Dr. Margaret Carpenter

Civil and criminal lawsuit against a telemedicine abortion provider could determine access for millions of women across the country.

An indictment and a civil lawsuit against telemedicine provider Dr. Margaret Carpenter have frightened abortion providers throughout the country.

The worry over prosecution, imprisonment, and costly lawyer fees have created a deterrent to helping women in abortion-banning states. Even if shield laws are in place, there are questions about how extensive those protections are and whether they would even be permitted to work by federal courts. This is the fourth in a series about the landmark case that will determine abortion access nationwide.

Today’s newsletter will feature Susan Appleton, a Washington University School of Law professor.

“If it turns out that these cases are successful, they will create a chilling effect on prescribing abortion pills and doing telemedicine with patients in abortion-hostile states,” Appleton said. “But I don't know how likely they are to be successful for several reasons.”

Appleton explained how the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause requires states to honor other states' public acts, records, and judicial proceedings. If a doctor stays out of the personal jurisdiction of Louisiana and Texas, where the cases are filed, then it’s unclear what can be done.

It’s difficult to argue for extradition because the doctor may have to be a fugitive, which means they must have fled the state to avoid prosecution. Carpenter never set foot in it insofar as prescribing this medication.

“Whether you can say that the doctor committed a crime in Louisiana when the doctor never left New York, I think, is an interesting question because the law in the jurisdiction where the crime took place triggers extradition,” Appleton said.

The other question is who would be held accountable for providing an abortion or helping a person get one. In the Louisiana case, prosecutors charged the teenager’s mother with violating the state’s abortion ban. The girl herself wasn’t charged.

“Abortion laws have always targeted the provider, not the patient,” Appleton said. “The patient is always seen as the victim, and so can't be part of a conspiracy nor be considered as a perpetrator.”

That’s not the case in other countries. As I’ve reported in England, they have charged the woman who took the pill as the person who performed the abortion. So, could that change in America?

“I have read that with the rise of self-managed abortion care, legislatures that are hostile to abortion might take another look at this conventional approach and decide that women too should be prosecuted,” Appleton said.