Texas doctors disciplined for deaths of two pregnant women and preborn baby

The Texas Medical Board has disciplined three doctors in connection to the maternal deaths of two women and the death of one preborn child.

While pro-abortion news outlets believe this to be confirmation that doctors failed to provide the standard of care because of the state's pro-life law, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

Key Takeaways:

• The Texas Medical Board has disciplined three doctors regarding the deaths of two women.

• The board determined that the doctors failed to provide the standard of care, resulting in the deaths of the two women along with the death of a preborn baby.

• Pro-abortion media outlet ProPublica continues to claim that the doctors failed to act out of fear of the state's pro-life law, yet there are no indications that this is true.

The Details:

The Texas Medical Board disciplined Dr. William Noel Hawkins and Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis in October 2025, and Dr. Ali Mohamed Osman in March 2026.

Osman and Hawkins were found to have failed to properly treat 18-year-old Nevaeh Crain, who experienced complications at six months of pregnancy and died of sepsis. Davis was found to have failed to properly treat 35-year-old Porsha Ngumezi, who had suffered a miscarriage at 11 weeks of pregnancy.

ProPublica, the news outlet that originally covered the women's deaths, continues to claim without substantiation that the doctors were acting out of fear of the state's pro-life law. From the outset, ProPublica created a narrative that placed the blame on the state's pro-life law.

Nevaeh Crain

Nevaeh Crain was six months pregnant when she went to the emergency room with abdominal pain and a headache. She had a fever and was diagnosed with a urinary tract infection and strep throat. She saw Dr. Ali Mohamed Osman, who failed to even record "the presence of a pregnant uterus" and followed none of the hospital's protocols for pregnant patients. (Notably, this hasn't stopped ProPublica from continuing to blame the state's pro-life law for this medical negligence.) He put Crain on antibiotics and discharged her.

Crain was back in the ER by 3:00 am, this time at a different hospital where she was seen by Dr. William Noel Hawkins. Her temperature was then recorded at 102.8℉ and she had an "abnormally high pulse." After testing, IV fluids, a dose of antibiotics and Tylenol, her fever did not go down, her pulse remained high, and her baby's heartbeat was abnormally fast.

Despite signs of sepsis, she was again discharged.

The next day, she was bleeding, and her mother brought her back to the hospital where she saw Dr. Marcelo Totorica, who learned that Crain's baby had died. Still, treatment was delayed and Crain ultimately died seven hours after showing signs of sepsis, having received no treatment for it.

It is unknown if Totorica's actions are under investigation by the Texas Medical Board; however, Osman and Hawkins were both determined to have delayed care that "ultimately resulted in the death of both the patient and her unborn child due to complications of pregnancy."

In the Agreed Order for Osman (the first doctor), the medical board said (emphases added):

a. Respondent violated hospital policy by not sending the patient to labor and delivery for fetal heart monitoring after the patient was discharged from the emergency department.

b. Respondent noted a normal physical exam in the medical record but did not record the presence of a pregnant uterus nor the size of the baby on the abdominal exam.

c. Respondent did not elicit fetal heart tones or perform an ultrasound of the fetus while the patient was in the emergency department.

d. After being discharged by Respondent, the patient visited the emergency department two more times and was observed in a labor and delivery unit. Patient and fetus ultimately died due to complications of pregnancy and delay of adequate care.

The findings of the medical board about Hawkins (the second doctor) were as follows (emphases added):

a Respondent did not recognize the patient's immediate need for hospitalization and further evaluation.

b. Respondent inappropriately discharged the patient even though she continued to have pain and a 103 degree fever despite the administration of medications.

c. When the patient was discharged the infant had fetal tachycardia

d. Respondent did not acknowledge the patient's positive screening for SIRS/Sepsis.

e. Patient visited the emergency department one more time after being discharged by Respondent and patient and fetus ultimately passed away due to complications of pregnancy and delay of adequate care.

None of Hawkins' acts of negligence appear to have anything to do with the state's pro-life law or indicate the doctor's fear of that law.

Other facts to note:

This wasn't the first time Hawkins had failed to properly care for patients. In 2015 (well before the passage of the state's pro-life law), the Board disciplined Hawkins for failing to meet the standard of care for three different patients.

In these cases, Hawkins failed to...

• diagnose and treat a patient for appendicitis

• perform a tubal litigation as discussed with patient

• diagnose a patient's syphilis infection

• document prenatal testing orders and results

He was ordered to have his practice monitored by another doctor for a year and was required to undergo additional continuing medical education courses.

Porsha Ngumezi

Ngumezi was experiencing bleeding in early pregnancy and was passing large clots. After going to the emergency room and seeing Dr. Andrew Ryan Davis, an ultrasound showed a pregnancy sac but found no heartbeat and no embryo, which is known as a blighted ovum, a common type of miscarriage.

After several hours in the hospital and two blood transfusions, the on-call OB/GYN prescribed misoprostol to help complete the miscarriage, which Ngumezi had preferred to the other option of a surgical D&C. Doctors told her a D&C may be necessary if the misoprostol, which induces contractions, didn't work.

After taking misoprostol, she began to experience chest pain. She later said she couldn't breathe and died soon after. Her cause of death was ruled to be hemorrhage.

The Texas Medical Board found, “This delay in care led to the patient’s death." Regarding Davis, it said:

a. Respondent failed to quantify the volume of blood loss the patient had sustained since presenting to the hospital.

b. Respondent admitted patient to a med-surg unit and did not take the patient immediately to the operating room for evacuation of her uterus.

c. Respondent chose to monitor the patient's condition rather than proceed with an emergent evacuation of her uterus.

d. Patient ultimately expired, however an emergent D&C may not have had any effect on the patient's ultimate outcome.

As this doctor administered a drug to the patient to assist in the (non-surgical) evacuation of her uterus and the patient was informed a D&C might be needed if the drug failed, it seems apparent that this doctor was not acting in such a manner due to fear of the state's pro-life law.

Why It Matters:

ProPublica reported, "The Texas Medical Board has disciplined three doctors ProPublica previously investigated whose patients died after receiving delayed or inappropriate pregnancy care under the state’s strict abortion ban" (emphasis added).

The outlet also claimed (emphases added):

As ProPublica investigated those preventable deaths and five others across three states in the past few years, reporters found that abortion bans have influenced how doctors and hospitals respond to pregnancy complications. Facing risks of prison time and professional ruin, doctors have delayed key interventions until they can document that a fetus' heart is no longer beating or that a case meets a narrow legal exception. Some physicians say their colleagues are discharging or transferring pregnant patients instead of taking responsibility for their care.

In reality, this entire claim lacks credibility. There appears to be no indication that the state's pro-life law is the reason these three doctors failed to treat their patients properly. Hawkins had already been disciplined for failing to provide patients with the standard of care in 2015, years before Roe v. Wade fell and before the Texas pro-life Heartbeat Act took effect.

Further, the claims of "some physicians" is hardly proof that doctors in Texas are afraid to provide pregnant women with the standard of care because of the pro-life law. Delivering a baby to save the life of the mother is not considered an induced abortion (and has never been) under state law, because the intent is not to cause the death of the preborn child.

The Bottom Line:

Osman, Davis, and Hawkins were each ordered to complete at least eight hours of continuing medical education. Davis is also required to receive training in risk management and on the "topic of managing pregnancy complications, including miscarriages." Osman's training must include risk management and emergency obstetrics practice and risk factors. And Hawkins must train in risk management and identifying and managing infection during pregnancy.

Despite ProPublica's best efforts to make it appear as though these doctors were acting out of fear of the law, doctors in pro-abortion states have also faced disciplinary action for failing to provide the standard of care to pregnant patients who ultimately died as a result.