U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) looks on during a press conference at the U.S. Capitol on April 27, 2026, in Washington, DC. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The House passed a Russia and Iran sanctions bill championed by the late Sen. Lindsey Graham Wednesday night — sending the measure to President Donald Trump’s desk for his signature.
The final tally was 262-159.
Seven Republicans — Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Andy Harris of Maryland, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Keith Self of Texas, Tom McClintock of California, Chip Roy of Texas and Warren Davidson of Ohio — voted against the measure.
The bill’s passage comes about two months after Graham’s sudden death.
The package would impose primary and secondary sanctions on Russia and other countries that support Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. The sanctions target Russian political officials and oligarchs, banks and financial institutions, and the Russian shadow fleet, according to the bill.
The legislation also allows for the president to impose tariffs but limits the scope of those tariffs to the five largest importers of Russian crude oil or gas and the top five countries that aid Russia’s energy sanctions evasion.
It also includes a provision to prevent a lapse in sanction authority that restricts funding for Iran’s energy and weapons sectors.
In a statement on social media, Sen. Darline Graham, R-S.C., who was appointed to fill her late brother’s Senate seat and is now running for a full term, celebrate the measure’s passage.
“Today is a monumental day for peace,” she wrote in the post on X. “This legislation was deeply important to my brother, Lindsey, and I’m grateful that it achieved such a wide coalition of support on the House floor. I am committed to achieving a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine, and I’m confident that this legislation will pave the way.”
The vote split Democrats — 58 voted in favor while 152 voted against.
Top House Democratic leaders including Leader Hakeem Jeffries explained why they voted against the sanctions bill, saying it “gives extraordinary power to Donald Trump.”
“It allows him to waive the sanctions contained in the bill, while giving him new, expansive tariff authority to continue his failed global trade war that is causing costs to skyrocket for working families across America,” they said. “Sadly, the White House is willing to risk Ukrainian lives and American livelihoods instead of working to actually hold this rogue Russian regime accountable for its illegal war.”
Earlier this week, several Democrats, including Reps. Gregory Meeks, Richard Neal and Don Beyer, voiced concerns with the bill but expressed their staunch support for Ukraine.
The Senate approved the measure last month with overwhelming bipartisan support by a vote of 86-11.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, seen from the Theodore Roosevelt Bride in Washington, D.C. September 15, 2026. (Astrid Riecken For The Washington Post via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump said on Wednesday the Kennedy Center could “close” or be “ripped down” if his administration doesn’t receive recognition on the performing arts center as tensions over his name being removed mount.
“I think that the Trump administration should certainly have recognition. Because frankly, if we don’t do that, it’s going to close. It’ll end up being ripped down,” the president told reporters on the tarmac in North Carolina.
Trump claimed that the Kennedy Center was a “mess” without his intervention and “has lost 10s of millions of dollars, even hundreds of millions of dollars,” comparing it to New York’s Carnegie Hall.
The president’s comments come after a federal judge on Tuesday blocked the performing arts center’s board from adding a tribute to Trump on the building or site. He responded by saying he wouldn’t spend congressionally approved funding for the center’s renovation unless the building also bears his name.
Congress last year appropriated $257 million for the renovation.
About an hour after the judge’s ruling Tuesday, the board, which is controlled by Trump appointees, voted to close the center immediately for renovations, citing safety concerns after a piece of plaster from the ceiling of the grand foyer fell during a heavy rainstorm earlier this month.
On Tuesday, Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio, said Trump “threw a tantrum because he lost in court” when discussing the Kennedy Center meeting.
“He wasn’t pleased with it. He was very explicit with his words, and I responded equally as explicit. He is in contempt of court for what he’s doing now in trying to just simply go over and close the Kennedy Center and to have people leave the center,” Beatty told reporters on the House steps Tuesday night.
Beatty said “there was a heated debate” during the meeting.
On Wednesday, fencing was seen being installed around the main building’s entrance.
Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) arrives for a Democratic caucus meeting on Capitol Hill on September 1, 2026 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic lawmakers are pushing a bill to disapprove of a nuclear cooperation agreement struck between the United States and Saudi Arabia in a bid to strike down the proposal during a three-month period of congressional review.
Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Brad Sherman, John Garamendi and Don Beyer introduced a Joint Resolution of Disapproval on Wednesday, shortly before lawmakers left Washington to return home ahead of midterm elections. A vote could come in November, after the midterms.
Without a two-thirds vote, President Donald Trump could veto Meeks’ bill and the nuclear deal would take effect as it is written.
The nuclear deal, known as a 123 agreement, paves the way for American industry to collaborate on tens of billions of dollars of nuclear energy projects in the kingdom in what the administration says is a sign of deepening ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.
The agreement has raised concerns around the proliferation of technologies that could support a Saudi effort to weaponize nuclear energy, security experts and members of Congress have said.
The terms of the agreement break from the so-called “gold standard” for nuclear deals, by which countries allow international inspectors widespread access to facilities that could support nuclear development. Inspectors are also allowed access to undeclared sites — activities that could involve research that would contribute to nuclear energy.
The U.S.-Saudi deal instead includes a narrower agreement that would limit inspections, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to only declared nuclear sites.
The text of the agreement, which has been released publicly by the administration, establishes a joint study between the two countries on the feasibility of an enrichment facility on Saudi Arabian soil. An additional study could open the door to enrichment of uranium of up to 20%.
Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who has reviewed the text, said that study was described “vaguely” in the signed agreement.
Enrichment to 20% “poses a more significant risk because enriching to that level constitutes the majority of work necessary to enrich to weapons-grade levels, or 90%,” Davenport said. “The United States has repeatedly, and rightly, raised concerns about Iran previously enriching to the 20 percent level.”
Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto leader, has in the past said his government would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran managed to acquire one.
In its communication to Congress on Aug. 27, the Trump administration acknowledged the Crown Prince’s “concerning public statements.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defending the deal in July, said that Saudi Arabia could have turned to an American adversary, like China or Russia, had the U.S. not been prepared to sign the nuclear agreement.
“We live in a new era,” he said. “There are competitors that we face, so we’ll have to adjust individual deals to that reality. We’re not the only show in town but we’re the best show in town. But we want to be, we want to make sure that it’s our companies they’re picking.”
In a letter to Rubio and Energy Secretary Chris Wright Wednesday, a group of lawmakers called for the administration to declassify two documents, or “side letters,” which the White House said were part of the deal but could not be released.
The lawmakers, which included Republican Sens. John Kennedy Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, called for their release, adding they were “aware of no precedent for classifying and withholding the side letters, particularly when the stated purpose is peaceful nuclear cooperation.”
A bill to strike down the Saudi deal, requiring a supermajority in the Republican-controlled Congress, is exceedingly unlikely. But lawmakers could also opt to pass a law that applies certain conditions to the nuclear agreement.
Former CEO of Apollo Global Management Leon Black arrives to testify at a closed-door interview with the House Oversight Committee on Capitol Hill on June 26, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The House of Representatives unanimously adopted a resolution Wednesday to hold billionaire Leon Black in contempt of Congress for defying two subpoenas issued in the House Oversight Committee’s probe of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
The resolution came a day after the Oversight Committee voted 41-0 to hold Black in contempt, teeing up the House vote.
Black bucked a committee subpoena calling on him to testify under oath at a closed-door deposition on Sept. 3, as well as turn over nondisclosure agreements that the committee is seeking under subpoena, as part of the panel’s ongoing probe into the government’s handling of the investigations into Epstein.
Black, who maintained a social relationship with Epstein since the mid-1990s and eventually paid him more than $170 million for “tax and estate planning advice,” according to the Senate Finance Committee, appeared voluntarily before the Oversight panel in June — before prematurely leaving the closed-door interview.
Black has denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Epstein’s crimes, though his financial payments to the convicted sex offender served as a lifeline in the years following Epstein’s 2008 prison sentence for soliciting a minor for prostitution.
Moments before the House unanimously approved the measure, Rep. Robert Garcia, the ranking Democrat on the Oversight panel, told reporters that the move to hold Black in contempt is “a very important step” in the committee’s Epstein probe.
“This is an important step towards justice, but there is just an enormous amount of work to be done,” Garcia said. “Our investigation is just getting started. There is a massive cover-up that’s happened at the White House from Day 1, and we need to have more actions like the one that’s going to happen today. So this is a really important day for us.”
Black’s attorneys called the move “outrageous” and said they will fight the resolution.
“The Committee has continued to insist on looking for information that does not exist,” said attorneys Susan Estrich and Aaron Cutler. “They are looking to ask questions about every NDA Mr. Black ever signed, including with business partners over his 50 year career and also with individuals who he never met. This is absurd.”
“Mr. Black has repeatedly said that he feels terrible for Epstein’s victims and that he regrets ever doing business with Epstein,” Black’s lawyers said. “He never abused a woman. He never was with an underage woman. He never engaged in sex trafficking. He never paid Epstein for access to women. He was never blackmailed by Epstein. Mr. Black had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s heinous conduct.”
The contempt resolution must now be certified by House Speaker Mike Johnson before it is sent to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro.
Pirro could then bring the matter to a federal grand jury, which would have the power to hand up a criminal indictment that could ultimately culminate in fines and even imprisonment.
Gas prices are displayed at a gas station on Sept. 15, 2026, in Chicago, Illinois. Gas prices across the United States continue to rise as the war with Iran has disrupted the global flow of crude oil. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — As diesel and gas prices soar in the United States amid the war with Iran, Americans across the country are making tough decisions as they continue to cope with the heavy strain of inflation.
“You have to manage your bills. You have to manage the food you bring in. You have to manage how you pay your bills … everything has to be budgeted,” said Betsy Rosado, a 47-year-old mother who lives with her husband and five of their children in Spring Hill, Florida.
Rosado said her business degree has helped her manage household finances. But for others, the budgeting agony “could bring somebody to the point of depression, and it could bring somebody to a mental collapse, especially when they have kids.”
Rosado said her toddler, who has significant developmental and respiratory issues, requires treatments multiple times a week. She has had to cut back on therapy sessions because of rising gas prices.
“We had to switch to, unfortunately, virtual therapies. And with my daughter with disabilities, we are stopping occupational therapies,” she said.
As of Wednesday, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline was $4.36, according to GasBuddy, up $1.42 since the U.S. war with Iran began on Feb. 28.
“The first thing that crosses your mind is, what is it going to be tomorrow? How are we gonna get through this, and then it’s the point of, do I need to move out of this state?” Rosado said. “You feel stuck … the system is not – it’s not made for us to succeed.”
Meanwhile, the cost of diesel has hit a record high at $6.30 a gallon, according to GasBuddy.
Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy, told ABC News on Wednesday that “a lot of states are seeing pretty monumental jumps” in both gas and diesel prices and “there’s really no signs of when this might start to slow down.”
“Until something happens to deescalate these geopolitical tensions, prices will keep going higher,” he added.
Truck drivers, who are feeling the financial strain at the pump, and farmers, who rely on diesel to power up agricultural machinery, told ABC News that the rise in diesel costs has put a strain on their businesses and their livelihoods.
Lewie Pugh, who has driven over 2 million miles for the past 25 years, is also the executive vice president of the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), which represents nearly 150,000 small business truckers.
Pugh told ABC News that every $1 increase in diesel prices costs truckers approximately $400 more per tank. Some weeks have cost an extra $800 to fill up, he added.
“Trucking has a very slim profit margin already. There’s just not a lot of profit in trucking. I’ve always said it was a penny saved business, not a penny made business,” Pugh said. “So when you’re already constrained and something like this happens to this magnitude, you just can’t absorb it as a motor carrier. They just can’t. There’s no way – they’ll be out of business tomorrow.”
Pugh said the higher prices truckers are paying are being passed down to the companies whose products are being shipped, causing the prices of everything from food to clothes to go up for Americans.
“This has huge rippling effects in the supply chain and in the economy because trucking and truckers haul so much stuff,” he said.
For John Bartman, a fifth-generation farmer on his family’s centuries-old farm in Marengo, Illinois, told ABC News that the rising costs of diesel has vastly impacted his agricultural production.
“People are just very frustrated right now,” Bartman said.
Bartman, who grows soybeans, said Illinois is the No. 1 soybean producer in the nation, but skyrocketing prices in diesel and fertilizer have hindered his ability to grow the major crop.
“The price of diesel today is over $6 a gallon, and we use 300 gallons of diesel a day. So now we’re talking $1,800 a day,” she said.
Additionally, he said that the cost of fertilizer was over $120 an acre this year.
“It just keeps on increasing all the time,” he said.
Bartman lamented the economic conditions and expressed concern about how this will impact the next generation of farmers.
“There’s some people that think things are going to get better, but I’ve seen too many good young farmers who had a full-time job besides farming, who’ve just decided I can’t do this anymore,” Bartman said. “We’re losing that next generation that’s coming into the business. So that is very destructive and very sad.”
ABC News’ Sabina Ghebremedhin contributed to this report.
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh speaks during a news conference on July 29, 2026, in Washington, D.C. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Federal Reserve raised interest rates on Wednesday in an effort to battle back a monthslong surge of inflation set off by the Iran war. The move marks the central bank’s first rate increase since July 2023.
The central bank hiked its benchmark rate a quarter of a percentage point, putting interest rates at a level between 3.75% and 4%.
That figure marks a significant drop from a recent peak attained in 2023, but borrowing costs remain well above a 0% rate established at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A 12-member policymaking board voted unanimously in favor of the rate increase.
“The plain fact is that inflation is too high and has been for too long,” Fed Chair Kevin Warsh said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. “The committee’s unanimous vote shows our resolve to achieve price stability on a timelier basis.”
The move appears aimed at containing a recent bout of price increases. Global oil prices are hovering near a four-month high and the average price for a gallon of gasoline tops $4.30, according to AAA.
The U.S. economy has shown signs of additional strain in recent days, including a bond selloff that is pushing up borrowing costs for credit cards and mortgages.
The price woes previously divided central bankers eager to contain inflation but reluctant to cool off the economy and weaken the labor market.
The Fed opted to hold interest rates steady at its most recent meeting in July. Three of the 12 members on the Fed’s policymaking board, however, voted in favor of a rate hike, marking the largest number of dissenters casting ballots in the same direction in a decade.
Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh, who took the helm of the central bank in May, has vowed to cool off persistently elevated price increases.
“The Fed’s predominant focus right now should be on prices,” Warsh said in remarks last month at the Fed’s annual summer gathering in Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Prices rose 3.4% in August compared to a year earlier, maintaining the same level from the prior month, federal government data last week showed.
Inflation stands more than a percentage point higher than the Federal Reserve’s target rate of 2%.
Despite a stubborn bout of inflation, the economy remains fairly robust by some measures.
A blockbuster jobs report earlier this month showed employers added 162,000 workers in August, demonstrating continued resilience for the nation’s labor market. The economy grew over three months ending in June, defying fear of a downturn triggered by the Iran war.
Fighting in the Middle East kept global crude prices above $105 a barrel as of Wednesday, which amounted to a rise of about 50% since the Iran war broke out in late February.
The average price of a gallon of gas in the U.S. stands at $4.36, putting it more than $1.30 higher than before the war, AAA data showed.
Record-high diesel prices have raised transport costs for many everyday products, including groceries, clothes and furniture.
The war in Iran, which began with a large-scale U.S.-Israeli attack in the winter, prompted Iran’s near-closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which facilitates one-fifth of global crude supply. Saudi Arabia over the weekend shut down a key pipeline bypassing the strait, which further constrained oil delivery and put upward pressure on prices.
3D illustration of Naegleria fowleri, a brain-eating amoeba, suspended in a microscopic environment. (Getty Images stock photo/Gilnature)
(NEW YORK) — The North Carolina teenager who died after contracting a rare brain-eating amoeba called Naegleria fowleri was likely infected from a water feature at a community center, according to state and local officials.
Naegleria fowleri, also known as primary amebic meningoencephalitis or PAM, has been found in warm freshwater, including ponds, lakes and rivers, and it grows best in hotter water, according to the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services.
“The amoeba does not cause illness if swallowed but can be fatal if water with the amoeba in it is forced up the nose into the brain,” NCDHHS said.
The North Carolina teenager was admitted to the hospital on Aug. 22 and died on Aug. 31, officials said. NCDHHS said at the time that it was working with federal and local partners to investigate all possible sources of the infection.
A report released Tuesday by NCDHHS found the teen was most likely infected by a water feature at a community center in Durham County, county officials said.
Investigators determined that on Aug. 13, the teen had contact — including splashing water on their face — with a water feature in the garden of a community-based mental health care center, according to the NCDHHS report.
“No other potential sources of exposure were identified,” the report said.
The mental health care center said in a statement, “Our hearts are broken for the young boy who lost his life and for his family. We are committed to supporting his family and our community through this devastating loss. We will continue to fully cooperate with public health officials.”
The county said the water feature has been closed since Aug. 28, when testing for Naegleria fowleri began.
The U.S. usually sees fewer than 10 cases of Naegleria fowleri infection each year. NCDHHS said the first symptoms can be severe headache, nausea, vomiting and fever, and later symptoms include stiff neck, seizures and coma. NCDHHS said, “once symptoms start, the disease progresses rapidly and usually causes death within about five days.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sept. 9, 2026, in Dallas. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The family of a pregnant woman who died sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday, claiming she was denied an abortion that could have saved her life.
Tierra Walker, a 37-year-old from San Antonio, died in December 2024 when she was 20 weeks pregnant. She had been diagnosed with pre-eclampsia at the time, according to the family.
Walker’s family alleges that she and family members asked for an abortion as they say she reportedly faced seizures and blood clots. The family claims that doctors refused to treat her.
The lawsuit also names the executive director of the Texas Medical Board, the University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center, Bexar County Hospital District, individual doctors and Joe Gonzales, the district attorney for Bexar County. Additionally, the suit alleges that Texas’ abortion ban is unconstitutional.
Abortion is banned in Texas with very limited exceptions and criminal and civil penalties for providers.
The lawsuit was filed by Amplify Legal, the litigation arm of the nonprofit Abortion in America, and the Marynell Maloney Law Firm.
“Tierra Walker was a wife, mother, and the glue that held together her extended family,” Molly Duane, the litigation director of Amplify Legal, said during a press conference on Wednesday. “Throughout the four months of her pregnancy, Tierra and her family repeatedly asked for an abortion. Yet, none of her medical providers came forward to say what everyone knew to be true-that this pregnancy was going to kill her.”
Duane continued, “Tierra Walker is proof that there is no exception because if she did not qualify, if even her doctors were too scared to act, then the medical emergency exception is nothing more than words on a page. And I just have to say that I’ve been doing this work in Texas for many years, and reading Tierra’s medical records is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.”
Duane said the plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation for the Walker family and a legal change in the context of the constitutional allegation made.
The complaint, filed in Bexar County, alleges that Walker struggled with chronic health issues, including obesity, uncontrolled high blood pressure, a seizure disorder, Type 2 diabetes with hyperglycemia, asthma so severe she had required intubation and complicated prior pregnancies.
According to the complaint, Walker’s health was improving by mid-2024. However, her family says she suffered multiple seizures for the first time in nearly a year in September 2024 and was rushed to the hospital.
At University Hospital in San Antonio, Walker learned she was nearly six weeks pregnant and suffering from elevated blood pressure, according to the complaint.
During the hospitalization, Walker allegedly suffered more seizures and reported being in “significant pain,” according to the complaint. She was sent home with a blood glucose monitor and instructions to follow up pre-natal care, the lawsuit alleges.
In late October, at 11 weeks pregnant, Walker went to Kenwood Women’s Health Clinic with high blood pressure and a “severe” blood clot in her left leg, the lawsuit alleges. She was transported to the hospital’s main emergency room, according to the complaint.
“Ms. Walker and her family members told hospital staff and the UTHSCSA doctors that the pregnancy was going to cost Ms. Walker her life, and asked if she could terminate the pregnancy,” the lawsuit alleges. “Despite the clear risk to her life in continuing the pregnancy, none of University Health’s staff counseled Ms. Walker on the possibility of abortion as a life-saving medical treatment, offered her this treatment, or suggested that she leave the state. Instead, hospital staff kept insisting ‘nothing is wrong with the baby’ and continued to refuse the care that she needed on that basis.”
According to the complaint, Walker received a thrombectomy to remove the clot but her symptoms, including seizures, nausea, headaches, asthma and high blood pressure, persisted.
Two days after being discharged, Walker returned to the emergency room, reporting abdominal pain and vomiting, the complaint alleges. She was given anti-nausea medication and sent home, according to the complaint.
Between Nov. 7 and Dec. 27, she attended regular prenatal appointments but did not receive more than an ultrasound examination and education about her various health conditions, the complaint states.
Walker was diagnosed on Dec. 27 with pre-eclampsia at the University Health emergency room, according to the complaint. Her health deteriorated rapidly and, after being discharged, she was found unresponsive at home by her teenage son on Dec. 30, according to the complaint.
“It’s horrible that she’s gone and she was taken from us this way,” LaTanya Walker, Tierra Walker’s aunt and lead plaintiff, said during Wednesday’s press conference. “It’ horrible that she’s not here anymore. It’s horrible that we can’t have holidays.”
ABC News could not independently verify the medical claims included in the lawsuit.
ABC News has reached out to Paxton’s office, the Texas Medical Board, and Gonzales’ office for comment. It’s unclear if the individual doctors have legal representation.
A spokesperson for the University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center told ABC News, “We don’t have any information to offer at this time.”
In a statement to ABC News, University Health said it “cannot comment on or disclose information about any individual patient’s care without appropriate authorization. We are also unable to comment on matters related to potential or ongoing litigation.”
The statement continued, “In general, our clinicians make patient care decisions based on each patient’s clinical condition, applicable medical standards and legal requirements. We take concerns about patient care seriously and review them through appropriate internal clinical and quality processes.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Sept. 9, 2026, in Dallas. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The family of a pregnant woman who died sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Tuesday, claiming she was denied an abortion that could have saved her life.
Tierra Walker, a 37-year-old from San Antonio, died in December 2024 when she was 20 weeks pregnant. She had been diagnosed with pre-eclampsia at the time, according to the family.
Walker’s family alleges that she and family members asked for an abortion as they say she reportedly faced seizures and blood clots. The family claims that doctors refused to treat her.
The lawsuit also names the executive director of the Texas Medical Board, the University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center, Bexar County Hospital District, individual doctors and Joe Gonzales, the district attorney for Bexar County. Additionally, the suit alleges that Texas’ abortion ban is unconstitutional.
Abortion is banned in Texas with very limited exceptions and criminal and civil penalties for providers.
The lawsuit was filed by Amplify Legal, the litigation arm of the nonprofit Abortion in America, and the Marynell Maloney Law Firm.
“Tierra Walker was a wife, mother, and the glue that held together her extended family,” Molly Duane, the litigation director of Amplify Legal, said during a press conference on Wednesday. “Throughout the four months of her pregnancy, Tierra and her family repeatedly asked for an abortion. Yet, none of her medical providers came forward to say what everyone knew to be true-that this pregnancy was going to kill her.”
Duane continued, “Tierra Walker is proof that there is no exception because if she did not qualify, if even her doctors were too scared to act, then the medical emergency exception is nothing more than words on a page. And I just have to say that I’ve been doing this work in Texas for many years, and reading Tierra’s medical records is one of the hardest things I’ve ever had to do.”
Duane said the plaintiffs are seeking financial compensation for the Walker family and a legal change in the context of the constitutional allegation made.
The complaint, filed in Bexar County, alleges that Walker struggled with chronic health issues, including obesity, uncontrolled high blood pressure, a seizure disorder, Type 2 diabetes with hyperglycemia, asthma so severe she had required intubation and complicated prior pregnancies.
According to the complaint, Walker’s health was improving by mid-2024. However, her family says she suffered multiple seizures for the first time in nearly a year in September 2024 and was rushed to the hospital.
At University Hospital in San Antonio, Walker learned she was nearly six weeks pregnant and suffering from elevated blood pressure, according to the complaint.
During the hospitalization, Walker allegedly suffered more seizures and reported being in “significant pain,” according to the complaint. She was sent home with a blood glucose monitor and instructions to follow up pre-natal care, the lawsuit alleges.
In late October, at 11 weeks pregnant, Walker went to Kenwood Women’s Health Clinic with high blood pressure and a “severe” blood clot in her left leg, the lawsuit alleges. She was transported to the hospital’s main emergency room, according to the complaint.
“Ms. Walker and her family members told hospital staff and the UTHSCSA doctors that the pregnancy was going to cost Ms. Walker her life, and asked if she could terminate the pregnancy,” the lawsuit alleges. “Despite the clear risk to her life in continuing the pregnancy, none of University Health’s staff counseled Ms. Walker on the possibility of abortion as a life-saving medical treatment, offered her this treatment, or suggested that she leave the state. Instead, hospital staff kept insisting ‘nothing is wrong with the baby’ and continued to refuse the care that she needed on that basis.”
According to the complaint, Walker received a thrombectomy to remove the clot but her symptoms, including seizures, nausea, headaches, asthma and high blood pressure, persisted.
Two days after being discharged, Walker returned to the emergency room, reporting abdominal pain and vomiting, the complaint alleges. She was given anti-nausea medication and sent home, according to the complaint.
Between Nov. 7 and Dec. 27, she attended regular prenatal appointments but did not receive more than an ultrasound examination and education about her various health conditions, the complaint states.
Walker was diagnosed on Dec. 27 with pre-eclampsia at the University Health emergency room, according to the complaint. Her health deteriorated rapidly and, after being discharged, she was found unresponsive at home by her teenage son on Dec. 30, according to the complaint.
“It’s horrible that she’s gone and she was taken from us this way,” LaTanya Walker, Tierra Walker’s aunt and lead plaintiff, said during Wednesday’s press conference. “It’ horrible that she’s not here anymore. It’s horrible that we can’t have holidays.”
ABC News could not independently verify the medical claims included in the lawsuit.
ABC News has reached out to Paxton’s office, the Texas Medical Board, and Gonzales’ office for comment. It’s unclear if the individual doctors have legal representation.
A spokesperson for the University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center told ABC News, “We don’t have any information to offer at this time.”
In a statement to ABC News, University Health said it “cannot comment on or disclose information about any individual patient’s care without appropriate authorization. We are also unable to comment on matters related to potential or ongoing litigation.”
The statement continued, “In general, our clinicians make patient care decisions based on each patient’s clinical condition, applicable medical standards and legal requirements. We take concerns about patient care seriously and review them through appropriate internal clinical and quality processes.”
The U.S. Coast Guard Headquarters is seen July 29, 2013, in Washington, D.C. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — The Coast Guard and FBI are investigating after two oil tankers bound for the U.S. were hit with suspected cyberattacks last month, prompting American authorities to launch investigations into both incidents, sources told ABC News.
On Aug. 21, one of the tankers, described as a “foreign-flagged commercial vessel” was boarded by a “highly specialized team” of U.S. Coast Guard law enforcement officers, cyber protection members and an FBI cyber team in the Gulf of Mexico, according to a joint statement from both agencies.
“The measures were designed to ensure integrity of the vessel’s operational and information technology systems following indications that the vessel’s network were compromised by foreign cyber actors,” the statement said.
That vessel was in the Strait of Gibraltar when it was hacked, according to sources, and lost communication for over 30 hours.
The joint statement said the ship’s crew members cooperated with authorities and were “critical partners in helping to ensure the threats were mitigated” and concluded: “Currently, there are no reports of operational disruptions, vessel instability, physical danger to crews, or environmental impacts.”
Sources told ABC News that another tanker that was hit by a cyberattack was boarded by U.S. officials on Aug. 24. to conduct a similar assessment.
Authorities are investigating the possibility that Iran or another actor — seeking to exploit the ongoing conflict between Iran and U.S. — was involved in attacks, according to the sources.
“Currently, there are no reports of operational disruptions, vessel instability, physical danger to crews, or environmental impacts,” the joint statement released by the Coast Guard and FBI said.
