By Amy Yurkanin
It’s difficult to put yourself in the place of Cherise Doyley, a pregnant mother of three who found herself facing a judge while in labor at the University of Florida Health hospital in downtown Jacksonville.
She had arrived at the facility with a plan for her birth. She wanted to try for a vaginal delivery, but she understood from years of experience as a professional birthing doula that things don’t always go as planned.
She arrived overnight at the hospital after her water broke. Doctors told her they were concerned about the risk of uterine rupture, a potentially deadly complication for her and her baby. She understood the risk to be less than 2% and repeatedly told doctors she wouldn’t consent to a cesarean without trying to have a vaginal delivery first. The doctors appeared to relent, leaving her to labor for several more hours.
Then a nursing supervisor wheeled a tablet up to her bed and informed her she was in court. The reason? Failing to agree to a C-section.
When advocates for pregnant women say that you shouldn’t lose your constitutional rights just because you conceived, this is the kind of situation they’re talking about.
I’m a reporter based in Alabama, and throughout my career, I’ve focused on women facing the consequences of the state’s fetal personhood policy. That’s the idea that fetuses should have the same legal status as children. My investigation shows how a similar theory played into the cases of two women: Cherise Doyley and Brianna Bennett, who experienced eerily similar situations in Florida. In both cases, they found themselves fighting for their rights to make medical decisions because they were pregnant.
I obtained a video recording of Doyley’s court hearing. Watching her argue her case from her hospital bed shocked me. Even though courts have found time and time again that you can’t force someone to undergo medical treatment — even if it could save someone else’s life — the video underscored for me how pregnant women are the rare exception.
In several states, judges have ruled pregnant patients can be forced to receive blood transfusions or remain on bed rest if it is in the best interest of the fetus. In Doyley’s case, a court would force her to undergo surgery.
ProPublica has already investigated how abortion restrictions can lead to pregnant women being denied lifesaving care. Experts worry that the opposite problem, forced treatment, could also become more common in states like Florida that have fetal personhood policies.
Doyley signed a waiver allowing the hospital to discuss her case with ProPublica, but a spokesperson for University of Florida Health in Jacksonville would not comment, citing patient privacy.
By sharing and examining Doyley’s case with her consent, we aim to show you what forced medical treatment can look like. And, while we encourage you to read the full investigation, we wanted to offer you a look inside the Zoom court hearing so you can see for yourself what happened.
The Hearing Convenes
You can see the confusion on Doyley’s face as she realizes she’s being taken to court over her medical decisions. She asked for a lawyer, or at least a patient advocate. Florida courts don’t require lawyers for pregnant women in hearings about their medical decisions and the hospital didn’t provide an advocate, so Doyley had to go it alone.
Judge Michael Kalil was on the call in his black robe and explained how the hearing would work. Doyley, a Black woman, was lying in a hospital bed, hooked up to IVs and monitors and covered by a sheet. She was surrounded on the screen by nearly a dozen doctors and lawyers, most of them white, who offered a lot of testimony about what could happen to Doyley’s baby if she continued to refuse a C-section.
The Judge Explains the Proceedings
Dr. Erin Burnett said during the hearing that she did not think Doyley could successfully give birth vaginally. A long labor could increase the risk of uterine rupture, which could kill Doyley and the child, she said. Dr. John Davis, the chair of the obstetrics and gynecology department, said in the hearing the hospital had been recognized for its low C-section rate and did not perform unnecessary surgeries. Doyley’s condition required intervention, he said.
“Everybody was very concerned about the baby’s welfare,” Jenny Van Ravestein, director of women’s services at the hospital, said during the hearing.
Burnett and Davis did not respond to requests for comment, and the hospital declined ProPublica’s requests to interview them and others involved in Doyley’s care.
The research on the risks of uterine rupture after prior C-sections is unclear. Studies have found that 0.15% to 2.3% of these labors resulted in a rupture, depending on a number of factors such as body mass, a history of successful vaginal births and whether the labor began spontaneously or had to be induced. Either number felt pretty low to Doyley.
What the testimony doesn’t include, though, is much about the downsides Doyley faced from having another C-section, which could entail a long recovery, infection and other complications, along with the risk of death.
But she couldn’t explain her reasoning until the judge decided to unmute her.
Doyley Testifies
Doyley had her reasons to want to avoid major abdominal surgery: She had difficult recoveries from her previous C-sections. A hemorrhage after a prior C-section had sent her back to the hospital for almost a week.
She worried that she wouldn’t be able to care for her children if she was struggling with recovery from the surgery itself and potentially also with complications. And she was concerned that if she were to die, her children could fall into the foster care system. Doyley said she didn’t see surgery as a low-risk option. She wondered aloud in the hearing if her other children’s lives — and her own — mattered to the hospital and doctors.
Kimberly Mutcherson, a law professor at Rutgers University, said that women who want to opt for care that seems risky to doctors often face accusations of not caring about their babies.
“You’re somebody who is a bad mother, right?” Mutcherson said. “Which is a huge part of what the thought process is here. This is not what mothers do. Mothers sacrifice, including allowing somebody to cut you open.”
Obstetricians care for two interconnected patients — the mother and her fetus. Sometimes their needs conflict. When that happens, the ethical guidelines for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists say the doctor should prioritize the well-being of the mother. However, these cases show that doctors sometimes elevate the welfare of the fetus over the mother, said Elizabeth Kukura, a law professor at Drexel University.
“It reflects a deep understanding of women as the incubators,” Kukura said. “Women in their role as childbearers.”
The hearing dragged on for more than two hours. At one point, Doyley asked for a transfer to another hospital because she did not want anyone involved in the hearing to operate on her if she needed a C-section. Hospital officials said that wasn’t likely to happen since another hospital would have to accept her as a patient first.
Doyley agreed to stay at University of Florida Health but asked if the hospital could assign a Black nurse or doctor to her care. She wondered aloud in the hearing what would happen in the morning, after the 6 a.m. deadline imposed by the court had passed. “They’re going to tie me up and go give me a C-section against my will?”
A Deadline Is Set
The judge did not order an immediate C-section, but he said the hospital could perform one in an emergency without her consent.
Doyley later said she did her best to maintain her poise and composure. And at the end, she even thanked the judge and highlighted how absurd the whole thing felt to her.
“I appreciate you spending two hours on a Sunday going through my medical history and fighting for my vagina and my baby,” she said.
The Judge Rules
Overnight, doctors said the baby’s heart rate dropped for several minutes. They rushed Doyley into surgery, and she, once again, gave birth via C-section.
The next morning at 8 a.m., nurses again put Doyley in front of a tablet for a final hearing. Doyley said the baby was born at 2 a.m., and she still hadn’t been taken to the neonatal intensive care unit to see her daughter.
“Tell them I don’t want to be on,” she said. “Y’all can have your own meeting. I want to see my child.”
Once Kalil heard the baby had been born, he wished Doyley well and closed the case.
The Case Is Closed
In response to questions from ProPublica, Kalil wrote in an email that the judicial code of conduct prohibits judges from commenting on cases. “These ethical standards exist to protect the integrity of the judicial process, ensure fairness to all parties, and preserve the Court’s neutrality,” he wrote.
For a year, Doyley and her family tried to forget about the case and move on. But she couldn’t shake the feeling of violation. She said if the hospital could force her to undergo surgery, it could happen to anyone.
“When we use the courts to basically strong-arm, bully someone into an unnecessary medical procedure against their will, it’s akin to torture, in my eyes,” Doyley said.
JC says
I read this article including the more background about this case. If the hospital allowed the lady to give birth naturally and the baby or the mother somehow die during childbirth, then that is a lawsuit waiting to be happen and we know how much people love to sue hospitals for crap. There’s more to the story than what it posted here. End of the day the hospital had to do what is best to make sure both the patient and the child survive when the odds are against them. From other readings about this case, the patient had no idea how bad the risk of doing a natural birth on this child (including being arrogant about the situation), but of course this posted article make it seem like black women are being forced to go under C section against their will when this was not the case here since it was a true medical issue.
This post said it best about the situation:
“I find it easy to empathize both with the patients and the doctors here. If I had my bodily autonomy and right to control my childbirth taken away from me by a judge on an iPad I would be horrified. And on the other side, if I was an OBGYN watching a patient with 3 prior C-sections going into hour 24 of a TOLAC with concerning fetal heart tracings I would be pretty scared too, both medically for my patients and legally for myself with Florida’s insane malpractice environment. Just a really horrifying situation all around, and one that makes me both scared as a woman and grateful I’m not an obstetrician.”
Laurel says
So, government knows what’s best for you? Ever heard of eugenics?
Hope your hospital gown is in the right position when they roll in the computer with zoom open and you’re instantly in court without representation.
Jim says
Was the article incorrect when it said that the patient was in a court proceeding in Zoom with no legal representation? Was it wrong when it says the doctors and hospital was represented by lawyers?
Was it wrong when it said she had no notice of the hearing?
I don’t blame her for wanting out of that hospital. Patient care was secondary to covering their own ass.
Sherry says
You know what jc. . . thousands of women have lost babies and their lives during childbirth in the past hundreds of years. There were not a massive number of lawsuits then. Your “Fox” BS excuse for this fascist government taking away a woman’s right to her own body as if she were just a piece of meat is just that “BULL SHIT”. . . and horrible in every way!
Sherry says
@ jc. . . Yes, the person who posted at least had some empathy for the situation.
Sherry says
This situation is beyond completely ” Outrageous and Disgusting”. . . How dare some Fascist Regime put a woman, during the delivery of her child, on trial!!!
Laurel says
And you Republicans were all freaked out about wearing a mask during a pandemic! Well, welcome to Gilead.
Ohio is putting forth a bill that allows government to tract pregnancies from the first cell contraction to birth, leaving miscarriages, which are common, up to the government’s determination and discretion. Yours is no more. Your medical privacy and decisions are no more.
What of Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists and other religions that do not accept all medical interventions? Are their religious rights overriden by far right government overreach?
I thought Republicans were strongly against government in our private lives. What happened? Project 2025?
Maybe government should force a vasectomy on men who produce babies with several different women, like your fearless leader. Y’all wouldn’t mind, right? Or produce too many babies, like Elon Musk.
Time to knock off this maga crap, step up to the plate and speak out against government intrusion. You Republicans can stop this now!
Deborah Coffey says
10,000,000 “likes,” Laurel.
Ed P says
Laurel,
What ever happened to following the science?
Convenient cherry picking?
FedUp says
Judge Michael Kalil’s political affiliation is “nonpartisan”, so how you can blame Republicans for your rant can be thrown in the garbage.
Sherry says
@fedup. . . Certainly Laurel can speak for hereself,
I’ll just point out what should have been obvious to you: The Maga Republicans are passing the horrific laws that the judge is required to follow, that’s how!
Laurel says
FedUp: This is not about babies, it’s about the suppression of women. Pay attention to the what the Heritage Foundation leaders say about women.
“Project 2025, created by the Heritage Foundation, proposes policies that would significantly roll back women’s rights, particularly in areas like reproductive health, workplace equality, and protections against discrimination. It aims to limit access to abortion, weaken civil rights protections, and undermine gender equity initiatives, which could harm women’s educational and career opportunities.”
– Search Assist, nwlc.org, guttmacher.org
“The Heritage Foundation is primarily a conservative think tank and does not typically include Democrats in its leadership or policy-making roles. It focuses on promoting right-wing policies and has historically aligned with Republican values.”
– Search Assist, Wikipedia Advocate
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/02/06/project-2025-author-russell-vought-confirmed-by-senate-here-are-all-the-trump-officials-with-ties-to-policy-agenda/
Now, you’d be okay with a zoom meeting, and that in court without representation, during a prostate exam, as long as it was non partisan, right?
Sherry says
Excellent perspective and comment Laure!
Consider the next absurdity. . .
A married fella wants to have a vasectomy. His wife has always wanted to have a child, but he does NOT. His wife is very religious and considers “all” life sacred. To her a child is a gift from God. The husband goes in for the surgery without his wife’s permission. The wife gets a court order. The husband is forced to go “On ZOOM Trial” while he’s in the operating room. The court’s decision is that he is NOT allowed to have a vasectomy.
Let’s take it even one ridiculous step further. With the new Maga cultural mission to stop the US “white” population from being from being “replaced” by darkies. . . the husband is legally ordered service his wife regularly in order to impregnate her.
Completely ridiculous, absolutely! Yet. . . it is not really that far fetched, considering what just happened in this story. The difference is female VS male rights. . . and, maybe even the rights of white people VS people of color. What about the rights of wealthy people VS poor people?
Think about this. . . does any “thinking” person really believe that rights are “EQUAL” in the US?
Samuel L. Bronkowitz says
Seems to me that if you’re a woman you might want to avoid any hospital or doctor’s office that has a relationship with UF/Shands, since they don’t value your rights.
Skibum says
Flori-DUH… welcome to the real life dystopian nightmare that once was just a TV show called “The Handmaid’s Tale”. This state’s totalitarian, maga-centric government has eroded a woman’s right to manage their own medical care to the point that women are mere “procreation vessels” controlled by extremist biblical theology that has been enacted into law by, of course, men.
If anyone is confused about the purpose of such laws, it is all about power and control over the female species, much more than it is about saving a baby’s life before it is even born.
DaleL says
Life is all about risks. People make good and bad decisions concerning themselves and their children everyday. In this case, Cherise Doyley should have been provided with a patient advocate. The father of the fetus, soon to be child, that she was carrying should have been there.
Most people do not like to be forced to do just about anything against their will. Perceived government overreach during the recent COVID pandemic has resulted in vaccine hesitancy with resulting the resulting outbreaks of measles. The unintended consequence of cases such as this, could be more riskier home births.
Pogo says
Just wondering — how are vaccine mandates implicated in the matter?
More grist for the mill…
As stated
https://www.jcbruce.com/p/how-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-vaccine
JTL says
I had 2 c sections. First one emergency, the second by a choice. If I chose the local hospital, they were not equipped to do an emergency C-section surgery. If natural birth was my choice I could make arrangements ahead of time at the UF hospital in Gainesville, 50 miles away. I was also at a risk of rupturing if went into labor. I discussed my options early on in my pregnancy and all options were discussed, and explained to me. I am wondering why this was not discussed and decided before her delivery day?
Sherry says
@JTL. . . consider the possibility that this woman did not have the excellent prenatal care that you did.
Sherry says
Just a little more data to chew on. . . this is an AI summary. . . please pay special attention to the information about how medical practitioners may be performing unnecessary C-Section surgery:
Defensive Medicine and “The C-Section Epidemic”
There is a documented link between the fear of litigation and the rising rate of C-sections, which now account for over 32% of U.S. births.
Raveco Medical
Defensive Practice: Many physicians perform “defensive” C-sections to avoid the high-risk litigation associated with a natural birth gone wrong. Some reports suggest up to 80% of obstetric claims in certain regions are for failing to perform a C-section.
VBAC Trends: Fears of litigation have significantly decreased the availability of Vaginal Birth After Cesarean (VBAC). High malpractice premiums are negatively associated with VBAC rates, as many hospitals and doctors view the risks of a repeat surgery as more legally “defensible” than a natural birth attempt following a prior C-section.
National Institutes of Health (.gov)
Litigation Comparison: Natural vs. C-Section
Feature Natural Childbirth Lawsuits C-Section Lawsuits
Leading Claim Failure to perform a C-section when fetal distress or breech position was present. Surgical errors, such as organ damage (bladder/bowel) or anesthesia complications.
Common Injuries Neonatal asphyxia, brain damage (HIE), and birth trauma from instrument use (forceps/vacuum). Maternal infections, hemorrhaging, and complications from performing the surgery too late.
Claim Volume One study found vaginal delivery accounted for 51.1% of delivery-related claims. The same study found C-sections accounted for 48.9% of delivery-related claims.
Risk Focus More prevalent for neonatal injuries (baby). More prevalent for maternal complications (mother).
National Childbirth Lawsuit Data
Case Frequency: Obstetrics remains one of the most sued medical specialties, with roughly 17,000 cases annually in the United States. About 25% of all OB/GYN claims are specifically related to birth injuries.
Outcome Rates: Approximately 95% of birth injury lawsuits are settled out of court rather than going to a jury trial. In cases that do reach a legal review, one study noted that no malpractice was identified in roughly 58.1% of claims, while 41.9% resulted in payouts.
PLOS