[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6572182,"mediaKeyId","3082053-5e89a2746ee14e31f816ac96dff2498b","parentId",3082053,"title","OB-GYN expert testifies DHHS informational materials are medically accurate, urges routine coercion screening and clear patient education","audioSeconds",23686,"startMs",704000,"endMs",24390000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3082053-5e89a2746ee14e31f816ac96dff2498b&start=704&end=24390","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3082053-5e89a2746ee14e31f816ac96dff2498b/thumbnail_704000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6572182/Michigan/OB-GYN-expert-testifies-DHHS-informational-materials-are-medically-accurate-urges-routine-coercion-screening-and-clear-patient-education","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572182-298236da089fe5ac41d723e500a07985/orig.mp4?Expires=1770495342&Signature=F0i357dTYHr8cGhQ-8XAwCbHzByA0v9qsimV0saW0nRNSmdqtj9~DCF7RXM5Oa0-0ol3BMN~7Y86BO~FUbeXxa3m8d7W22Wsp9yNcsLh6bmZ3080Wl4g3stNrncpoEN6x-kWiczIPgH7rv0A-imRQIlaHZxUdoe6lHpiQuUouT7p43fbKlP1FFEdxhWRJM0vJwIfR~q9lq-HGBcymwkeK20hI3hvvCqHw9VeRbxRN9n6sMgMye1r7Kp7FQxrUblsHo-S-L0WBVJfNFnXBGP3QHJbHZCfR7KqkL5E5PETGBNmjlABHzhBOfJy~h12J~8NJCxTi-3ysmtvoHpARomXXw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-22T17:46:05.063Z","article","An obstetrician-gynecologist testifying in a Michigan trial over state abortion information told the court that standardized patient-education materials used by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) are medically accurate and support informed consent, and she urged routine screening for coercion and clear information about alternatives including parenting and adoption.

Dr. Monique Wubenhorst, an OB‑GYN and medical researcher, testified that she reviewed the DHHS materials admitted as evidence and the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) clinical policy guidance and found them consistent with clinical practice. “I would say that they’re medically accurate,” Wubenhorst told the court during direct examination. She read aloud and cited the NAF policy statement that “a person must give voluntary, informed consent prior to an abortion,” and backed the documents’ descriptions of procedures and risks as neutral educational material.

Why it matters: The state DHHS materials are central to the dispute because Michigan’s reproductive‑health law requires patients seeking abortion to receive specified information in advance. How courts assess the materials’ medical accuracy and whether they facilitate—or impede—informed consent affects whether the state’s requirements survive constitutional scrutiny.

Key testimony and context

- On the content and tone: Wubenhorst said the DHHS descriptions of medication abortion, suction curettage and dilation-and-evacuation procedures align with clinical standards and with NAF guidance. She described the DHHS risk language for medication abortion (bleeding and cramping common; expect bleeding 9–16 days on average and possibly 30 days or more; death is a risk but “occurs in less than 1 of every 100,000 abortions”) as medically accurate and similar to standardized informed‑consent language she has used professionally. She testified, “No, I believe this is neutral,” when asked whether the DHHS wording appeared intended to bias decisions.

- On alternatives and fetal-development materials: Wubenhorst said disclosing alternatives to abortion—carry to term and parenting, or carry to term and pursue adoption—is consistent with NAF standards and ordinary clinical practice. She said fetal-development charts are medically accurate, commonly used in prenatal care, and can help patients understand gestational-age differences that affect pain and procedural choice.

- On ultrasound dating and procedure availability: The witness noted that clinic ultrasounds commonly include a dating margin (the consent form she reviewed said dating may range plus/minus two weeks) and that ultrasound dating cannot always establish gestational age to a single day. She testified that, on that basis, the 24-hour notice requirement alone would not, in her clinical judgment, change which procedures are available for a patient.

- On the 24-hour waiting period and informed consent: Wubenhorst drew a distinction between the statemandated 24‑hour delay and the clinician‑patient informed‑consent conversation. She said the process that typically facilitates a patient’s decision is the direct conversation with a clinician, not a statutory waiting period: “If a patient would like more time to think about something after having that conversation with their physician, that would certainly be acceptable and could even facilitate that decision making. But it’s not the state mandate of 24 hours that did that,” she testified.

- On pain, procedures and counseling: Drawing on clinical experience and literature, Wubenhorst told the court that medication abortion and surgical abortion have different risk profiles and pain experiences, and that patients benefit from being informed about possible need for surgical follow-up after medication abortion (she cited rates discussed in professional materials ranging from about 2–7 per 100 and up to 1 in 20 in some studies). She also described standardized materials and conversation as superior for knowledge retention compared with a form alone.

- On coercion screening: Wubenhorst emphasized coercion as an impediment to voluntary consent and supported proactive screening. She testified that screening protocols—such as the “Screening for Coercive Abortion, Intimate Partner Violence and Domestic Abuse” tool admitted at trial—are important: “Many women are coerced into abortion,” she said in describing clinical experience with trafficking and domestic abuse. She recommended steps including private screening, normalizing the screening questions and assessing immediate danger and safety planning when abuse is suspected.

- On crisis pregnancy centers and ultrasounds: Wubenhorst said, based on her interactions and webinars with some centers and review of websites, that some centers use licensed sonographers and have physicians review ultrasound impressions, although she acknowledged variation across facilities and limited, case‑by‑case familiarity in Michigan.

- On training and physician‑only debate: Wubenhorst identified differences in education and clinical exposure between board‑certified OB‑GYN physicians and advanced practice clinicians (APCs), saying APC programs are broader and historically have included less hands‑on surgical training and complication management than OB‑GYN residency. She said that managing potential catastrophic complications requires immediate surgical and hospital resources that may not be uniformly available in all settings.

Clarifying details cited at trial

- Medication abortion: expect bleeding or spotting for an average of 9–16 days, possibly 30 days or more; serious complications (including death) are rare; death cited as “less than 1 of every 100,000 abortions” in the materials she reviewed.
- Ultrasound dating: clinic disclosures in evidence noted dating may be plus/minus two weeks.
- Coercion screening: witness cited a 40% figure from a published study (Glander) about prevalence of domestic violence among patients presenting for abortion in some contexts; she used that to underscore the importance of screening but also discussed limits of generalization.

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Monique Wubenhorst — OB‑GYN expert witness (physician, medical researcher). Affiliation: practicing OB hospitalist; fellow, Center for Ethics and Culture at University of Notre Dame.
- Seema G. Patel — Presiding judge. Affiliation: government (court).
- Christopher Braverman — Assistant Attorney General (appeared for intervening defendant). Affiliation: government.
- Megan Filly — Counsel for plaintiffs (appearance recorded). Affiliation: unknown (private counsel).
- Rachel Miller — Counsel for plaintiffs (appearance recorded). Affiliation: unknown (private counsel).
- (Generic labels used in transcript where a person was not clearly identified are omitted from attribution in article text.)

Authorities referenced in court

- policy: \"National Abortion Federation Clinical Policy Guidelines for Abortion Care\" (referred to in testimony; Exhibit A in court materials)
- other: \"Michigan DHHS patient information materials\" (referred to in testimony; admitted as Exhibit 4)
- statute: \"Michigan constitutional amendment, reproductive freedom\" (testimony acknowledged the amendment exists and limits state power)
- other: Turnaway study and subsequent literature (discussed by witness and counsel)

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: The article summarizes testimony and debate about medical accuracy of the materials, clinical practice, coercion screening, ultrasound dating/margins of error, and the relative roles of clinicians versus statutory waiting periods in facilitating informed consent.
- Decision/direction: No dispositive ruling on the merits of the law was reached in the portion of trial covered here; the article reports witness testimony and evidentiary argument.

Community relevance

- Geographies: Michigan (trial venue and law at issue); witness practice and examples also referenced North Carolina and Indiana clinical settings.
- Impact groups: pregnant patients seeking abortion care; clinicians and clinic staff; victims of domestic violence and trafficking.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"704.78503\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":15,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"State of Michigan court of public is now in session. Presiding, the honorable Seema g Patel, all persons having business here in, draw near, shall be heard.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"}
- topfinish: {\"block_id\":\"24681.645\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":15,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"Okay. Thank you very much. We are adjourned for the day, and I will see everyone here at 09:00 tomorrow.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}

Salience

- overall:0.75
- overall_justification: The trial examines whether state‑mandated patient information and related procedural requirements meet medical standards and constitutional limits; testimony from a practicing OB‑GYN can materially affect judicial assessment of medical accuracy and whether the law aids or impedes informed consent.
- impact_scope:local
- impact_scope_justification: The ruling will directly affect health care providers and patients in Michigan and may inform litigation or policy in other states.
- attention_level:high
- attention_level_justification: The transcript captures detailed expert testimony on a constitutionally charged subject (abortion access) during a public trial.

Engagement forecast

- newsworthiness: {\"national\":0.30,\"regional\":0.55,\"local\":0.85,\"justification\":\"High local relevance; regional interest given national litigation trends; modest national pickup except in specialized outlets.\"}
- notify_recommendation: {\"audience\":\"state\",\"reason\":\"Expert medical testimony and evidentiary disputes bear on state reproductive policy; notify state health officials, reproductive health reporters, legal desks.\",\"audience_regions\":[\"US-MI\"],\"justification\":\"Direct local legal stakes and medical implications for providers and patients.\"}
- predicted_click_through:0.08
- predicted_read_time_minutes:3.2

Searchable_tags:[\"abortion\",\"informed_consent\",\"DHHS\",\"NAF\",\"coercion_screening\",\"ultrasound\",\"physician_only\",\"APC_training\",\"Michigan\"]

graph_signals:{\"jurisdictions\":[\"US-MI\"],\"ontology_topics\":[\"healthcare\",\"reproductive_rights\",\"court_case\"],\"entities\":[{\"id\":\"dr-monique-wubenhorst\",\"name\":\"Monique Wubenhorst\",\"type\":\"person\"},{\"id\":\"northland-family-planning\",\"name\":\"Northland Family Planning Center\",\"type\":\"organization\"}],\"events\":[{\"id\":\"northland-v-nessel-trial\",\"name\":\"Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel\",\"date\":\"not specified\"}]}
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Court of Claims 24-00001MM Northland Family Planning Center v Nessel","oneSentenceSummary","An obstetrician-gynecologist testifying in a Michigan trial said standardized DHHS materials and National Abortion Federation guidance are medically accurate and support informed consent, while urging routine screening for coercion and clearer patient education.","taxTitle","Supreme Court Judicial Rulings ( Opinions ), Judicial, Michigan","taxId",74552,"location","Michigan","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6572178,"Judge excludes New York Times article and related testimony in Michigan abortion trial, citing hearsay and lack of reliability",2292,16838000,19130000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3082053-5e89a2746ee14e31f816ac96dff2498b&start=16838&end=19130","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3082053-5e89a2746ee14e31f816ac96dff2498b/thumbnail_16838000.jpg","/articles/6572178/Michigan/Judge-excludes-New-York-Times-article-and-related-testimony-in-Michigan-abortion-trial-citing-hearsay-and-lack-of-reliability","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6572178-0608e4cf25a1e88b0153383d763e44f6/orig.mp4?Expires=1770495342&Signature=HW2LakGMSobGadjQUPap4w4kCQjH0HVb7NonWTJbhT3BXJkNaghMZCiKEN-SivSOxHYqPCy9uyAsD7YvHK~MFgTR25pTnfRHzkz098vJUMYT1Mg0X0J5ifhVS1sjcx82oWWm5UkJ8YzBD0Ctvf1liVwoU6xSdQRZfeo3CBVGihKfnKZshJOc0Jf~d~TUXdTgxRBoqr7vI60kmSSa2pP021CH9t0HydgfHcNTzJjltTGayS58RLjGvBBznnnf-~z5OM2r6oLFSnizNix0ggPP2iMPGgwLp~2SnrHP8qXqV6rF38tIiwoa2IROJWp4Cfu8wsge4V-HHjmifJ2BZobyaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","A presiding judge in a Michigan trial over state‑mandated abortion materials ruled that a New York Times investigative article offered into evidence could not form the factual basis for an expert’s opinion, and the judge struck testimony that relied on that article.

Judge Seema G. Patel told attorneys she had reviewed the newspaper reporting and concluded it lacked sufficient indicia of reliability and specificity to Michigan to form “sufficient facts and data” under the evidentiary standard governing expert opinion. She also described the article as anecdotal and not a peer‑reviewed study or a learned treatise.

Why it matters: The evidentiary ruling removed from the record a line of testimony that defendants said would show national problems in clinic oversight and training. The court’s ruling constrains the bases on which the expert witness may rely and narrows the types of outside reporting that may be used at trial to support expert conclusions.

What the judge said and why she struck it

- The ruling: After hearing argument, Judge Patel said she would “strike and not admit” the New York Times article and would strike the portions of testimony that were based on it. The judge explained that newspaper reporting with multiple levels of hearsay and anecdotal assertions did not meet the court’s gatekeeping obligation to admit only reliable expert bases.

- Parties’ arguments: Defense counsel said experts are commonly permitted to rely on hearsay and pointed to case law that allows expert reliance on hearsay when formulating an opinion. Plaintiffs’ counsel and other parties objected that permitting a newspaper article with hearsay within hearsay would swallow the hearsay rules and allow unreliable, non‑peer reviewed material into the record.

- Court’s reasoning: The judge said the article was not a learned treatise, not peer reviewed and not a Michigan‑specific factual showing; she described its anecdotes and non‑systematic reporting as insufficient to support an expert opinion. She cited the rules requiring that expert testimony be based on sufficient, reliable facts and data.

Immediate effects in the trial

- Testimony struck: The court struck the portions of the witness’s testimony that relied on the article and declined to admit the article into evidence. The ruling narrowed the bases the expert could use to support opinions about alleged national trends in clinic staffing or oversight.

- Procedural follow up: Counsel asked the court for time to review and identify precisely which portions of testimony should be removed from the docket; the court directed parties to confer and said the transcript would be reviewed to finalize the scope of the strike and any follow-up questioning at the next session.

Speakers (attribution whitelist)

- Seema G. Patel — Presiding judge. Affiliation: government (Ingham County Circuit Court).
- Christopher Braverman — Assistant Attorney General, intervening defendant counsel; argued for expert reliance on external reporting.
- Defense and plaintiff counsel participating in evidentiary argument (identified in transcript as Megan Filly, Mr. Asmundson, other counsel).

Authorities and evidentiary law cited

- other: Newspaper article (New York Times front‑page investigative article) — proffered by counsel, not admitted.
- other: Case law cited by defendants (Enricostro/Castro type holdings) allowing expert reliance on hearsay in formulating opinions; and plaintiff citations (People v. McKinney; Edwards v. Detroit News) arguing newspapers cannot be judicially noticed for truth.
- rules referenced by judge: Michigan Rules of Evidence 702 (expert testimony), 703 (bases of expert opinion), and 401/402 relevance and 403 prejudice balancing.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: Extensive argument among counsel about whether experts may rely on investigative reporting as a factual basis and whether newspaper anecdotes create a reliable empirical basis to support opinions about clinic practices nationally.
- Decision: The judge excluded the article and struck testimony relying on it for lack of sufficient reliability and specificity and because the material was not a learned treatise or peer‑reviewed literature.

Clarifying details

- Ruling language excerpt: The judge stated on the record that the article was “anecdotal, it is not a learned treatise, and it is not a peer reviewed study,” and that the article’s claims were not sufficiently reliable or Michigan‑specific to form the basis of expert opinion.
- Next steps ordered: Parties to review the transcript, confer on scope of struck testimony, and raise any follow‑up evidentiary questions at the next court session.

Provenance (transcript evidence)

- topicintro: {\"block_id\":\"16838.41\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":22,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"You may be seated. So before we broke, we had an evidentiary issue. I've had a chance to look over the document. Mister Aswinson, would you like to make an argument for why this should be admitted and used?\",\"reason_code\":\"topicintro\"}
- topfinish: {\"block_id\":\"19111.46\",\"local_start\":0,\"local_end\":46,\"evidence_excerpt\":\"I'm going to strike, and I'm not going to admit the the article. And I'm going to strike the grant the plaintiff's motion to strike the testimony that this article that is based on this article.\",\"reason_code\":\"topicfinish\"}

Salience

- overall:0.68
- overall_justification: Excluding a nationally circulated newspaper article from expert basing reduces one party’s evidentiary strategy and clarifies judicial gatekeeping standards for expert opinion in the case.
- impact_scope:regional
- impact_scope_justification: The ruling affects the trial’s evidentiary record and could influence how other courts evaluate the use of journalistic investigations as bases for expert testimony.
- attention_level:high
- attention_level_justification: The evidentiary gatekeeping issue arose on a high‑profile subject and drew extended argument from multiple counsel.

Searchable_tags:[\"evidentiary_ruling\",\"New_York_Times\",\"expert_reliance\",\"hearsay\",\"Michigan_trial\"],\"graph_signals\":{\"jurisdictions\":[\"US-MI\"],\"ontology_topics\":[\"court_case\",\"evidence_law\",\"expert_testimony\"],\"entities\":[{\"id\":\"judge-seema-g-patel\",\"name\":\"Seema G. Patel\",\"type\":\"person\"}],\"events\":[{\"id\":\"evidentiary_ruling_strike\",\"name\":\"Ruling striking NYT article and related testimony\",\"date\":\"2025-10-26\"}]}
","During the same Michigan trial, the presiding judge struck a New York Times investigative article proffered by defense counsel as a factual basis for expert testimony and struck testimony that relied on it, saying the article's anecdotal, nonpeer‑reviewed reporting lacked sufficient indicia of reliability to form the basis for expert opinion.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

OB-GYN expert testifies DHHS informational materials are medically accurate, urges routine coercion screening and clear patient education

Judge excludes New York Times article and related testimony in Michigan abortion trial, citing hearsay and lack of reliability