A ProPublica investigation portrayed a pregnant mother, Cherise Doyley, as a victim of Florida's "fetal personhood policies" after she was forced mid-labor into a virtual court hearing and told she would be compelled to undergo a cesarean section if an emergency developed. However, the story, which numerous left-leaning outlets and advocates amplified, overlooked an important detail that Doyley's doctors claimed sparked the drastic intervention to protect her unborn baby's life.

A transcript and video of the hearing obtained by Blaze News revealed additional details about the hospital's decision to alert the state about Doyley's case.

'We were concerned that she would not want to act in the best interest of her infant, even if it came to that.'

In Sept. 2024, Doyley, a doula and then-student midwife, arrived overnight via ambulance at the University of Florida Health in Jacksonville after her water broke while over 41 weeks pregnant, according to the hospital's doctors.

Doyley had been receiving prenatal care from UF Health throughout her pregnancy and had adamantly expressed that she wanted to have a vaginal birth after cesarean section, instead of a fourth C-section.

By her 12th hour of contractions, Doyley was forced to attend a court hearing via Zoom video call from her hospital bed. Joining her on the call were Circuit Court Judge Michael Kalil, lawyers, and hospital staff.

Judge Kalil explained to Doyley that the state had filed an emergency petition requesting that the court order her to undergo a C-section. He called these types of hearings "extraordinary," noting that such petitions are "infrequently filed."

The order granting the emergency petition for declaratory judgment explained that the petitioner, the state of Florida, had "a compelling interest in the preservation of the life of an unborn child and the protection of innocent third parties, such as Unborn Child, who may be harmed by the parental refusal to allow or consent to life-saving medical treatment."

Doyley, who insisted that she had not been notified in advance, repeatedly requested her own legal representation or a patient advocate before proceeding with the hearing. This request was denied after Kalil and the state prosecutor concluded that there is no constitutional right to legal counsel in emergency civil proceedings.

RELATED: The truth about the brain-dead mother giving birth — and why it’s the right choice

BSIP/Education Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

The hearing: What the transcript shows

Arguments in the hearing began with Dr. Erin Burnett, an attending physician at UF Health, detailing Doyley's medical history, including noting that the pregnant mother had never had a successful vaginal birth in her three prior pregnancies. According to Burnett, these included a failed induction at 42 weeks with her first child, an attempted trial of labor after cesarean with her second that ended in a repeat C-section after a uterine infection with her newborn, requiring a two-week NICU stay, and potential fetal heart rate decelerations during her third labor that also resulted in a C-section. Burnett further testified that Doyley had a "uterine window," or thinning of the scar tissue from a prior C-section, which increased the risk of uterine rupture.

Burnett acknowledged the risks associated with C-sections and that Doyley had "some very bad experiences" trying to heal from those prior surgeries, including suffering from hematomas that required drains and other complications that impacted her ability to care for her children during her weeks-long recovery.

When Doyley arrived at UF Health around 2:00 a.m., Burnett stated, she was experiencing contractions, had ruptured membranes, and was three centimeters dilated. Burnett assessed that Doyley was unlikely to have a successful vaginal birth because, during her time at the hospital, dilation had progressed only to five centimeters and her contractions had become less frequent. For a successful vaginal delivery, the cervix must fully dilate to 10 centimeters.

Without a C-section, Burnett expressed concern that the unborn child might sustain brain damage or brain bleeds.

"I think the most, or more, concerning thing was her fetus," Burnett testified. "When she got here, the fetal tracing was much more reassuring. But for the past six to eight hours, the fetus has lost what we call fetal heart rate variability, which … essentially tells you if the baby is getting acidotic or not."

Burnett claimed the baby's heart rate had dropped to the 50s, whereas the typical range is in the 110s to 160s. She explained that when the baby's heart rate returned to normal, it was then that the hospital recommended a C-section, per its protocol, hoping to avoid another potential heart rate drop that could lead to an emergency.

When staff approached Doyley about this, she refused and "made the comment that if her baby dies, so be it," Burnett alleged.

She stated that Doyley's alleged comment about her unborn child's life, which was not mentioned in the ProPublica articles, was what sparked the hospital's intervention.

"We were concerned that she would not want to act in the best interest of her infant, even if it came to that," Burnett said.

Jenny Van Ravestein, the then-division director of women's services at UF Health Jacksonville, reiterated the reason that the hospital decided to intervene. Van Ravestein testified that the "concern from my nurses … and from the physician, I truly believe, was about the welfare of this infant."

While Van Ravestein was not on site to witness the interaction firsthand, she alleged that "when I was put on speaker [phone] with the patient in her room, she said that the baby could just die, it was okay if the baby just died, she was not going to have a C-section."

"I heard her say, 'I'm not gonna have a C-section. If the baby dies, the baby just dies,'" Van Ravestein alleged again a few moments later.

"That, to me, was what was extremely upsetting to my team," Van Ravestein added.

Transcript and video of the hearing reveal that Doyley did not explicitly deny making the remarks, but did claim they were “taken out of context.”

Referring to Van Ravestein, Doyley told the judge, “She actually was not in the room, so this statement is being taken out of context, which makes sense because she was over the phone. But the statement was in regards to, if it is my life or the baby’s life, the baby’s going to have to die. And I stand on that because I have three other children that I have to take care of.”

Van Ravestein testified that as a result of Doyley's alleged comments about her infant, the hospital staff reached out to risk management and the hospital insurance program, which instructed her to contact the hospital's legal team, setting off the chain of events that led the state attorney's office to file an emergency petition.

While ProPublica's reporting noted that Van Ravestein said she and her staff were "very concerned about the baby's welfare," the outlet did not include her statements about Doyley's alleged remarks.

When reached for comment about why it did not include these alleged remarks by Doyley, ProPublica told Blaze News, "We stand by our reporting. In the hearing, neither Dr. Burnett nor Jenny Van Ravestein testified that they directly heard Ms. Doyley make that statement, and Ms. Doyley disputes that she said this. It's secondhand information that has not been substantiated and therefore wasn't included in the story."

The State Attorney's Office confirmed that the hospital reported Doyley’s case partly due to the alleged comments she made about her preborn baby's life.

"UF Health alerted the State Attorney's Office that a 41-week, full-term baby was facing grave risk of death without medical intervention," the State Attorney's Office told Blaze News. "The mother was refusing that care. In accordance with our legal duty, our office brought the matter before the Circuit Court, which held an evidentiary hearing. After hearing from the mother and medical professionals, the court determined a cesarean delivery was necessary to protect the child's life and mother's health."

"The State Attorney's Office does not make medical decisions — we ensured the court was presented with the facts so a judge could make his determination under the law," the office added.

Dr. John Davis, professor and chair of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Florida College of Medicine, Jacksonville, told Doyley during the hearing that the hospital has been recognized for its low C-section rate and performs them only when required.

"I think I can say ... to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, you are not going to be able to deliver vaginally," Davis testified, stating that it was his understanding that she had never dilated beyond seven centimeters during any of her previous pregnancies.

"The longer this labor goes on, there are increasing likelihood of complications for the baby — infection, brain damage, death — but also increasing risk of complications for the mom, including infection, uterine rupture, and death."

Doyley's response and the risks

Several times during the hearing, Doyley stated that she was willing to consent to a C-section in the event of an emergency. Hospital staff on the call acknowledged Doyley's expressed openness to an emergency surgery.

"Where we were at this morning, where she was refusing regardless, is much different than where we're at now," Burnett told the judge.

"I'm very happy that she has consented in the event of an emergency to undergo a C-section. … When we initially kind of initiated all this stuff, she was in a much different state of mind."

Although Doyley agreed to the C-section in an emergency, she disagreed with the doctor's evaluation of the urgency of the situation. She argued that the baby's heart rate was normal and pointed out that the doctor had not checked her dilation status for at least four hours.

"For them to say that I have not made any cervical change and that the baby's life is in danger without exhausting all options is completely false," Doyley told the judge. "And I feel it all boils down to people, doctors, thinking that they know and understand my body better than me."

She also stated: "I am concerned about the well-being of my child, but at the end of the day with my background, I can read a trace just like they can. And there's nothing that is saying that this is an emergency situation that I have to be rushed into a C-section within a hour."

Doyley emphasized that the risks associated with a C-section are significantly higher than those of a vaginal birth and that she had "a major complication" with each of her prior C-sections.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which sets guidelines for pregnancy and birth care, strongly endorses VBAC for patients with one prior C-section and considers it reasonable to offer the option for those with two. However, it does not outright endorse or oppose VBAC for women who have undergone three or more prior C-sections, citing limited data. However, the group firmly stands behind a pregnant patient's "right to refuse treatment, even treatment needed to maintain life."

'This case demonstrates that Florida is committed to both protecting innocent life and upholding the rule of law. Hospital staff and the judge lived up to that in this situation.'

Doyley, who accused the hospital staff of pushing for surgery based on "a lot of what-ifs and maybes," highlighted ACOG's guidelines to the judge, stating that the organization "do [sic] not have any specific policy that says that someone cannot have a vaginal birth after three C-sections."

"Any time you go into childbirth, whether you do a vaginal or a C-section, there's inherent risk to the mother and the baby," she added. "So if it's between them choosing whether I have to live or the baby has to live, I did tell them that I want to live. I have other children out here in the world that need me."

Dr. Christina Francis, a board-certified OB-GYN speaking on behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, detailed the risks of VBAC in a statement to Blaze News, stating that "there's not a lot of data out there on … women laboring with three or more C-section scars."

Francis cited one study, which she noted was "a little bit of an outlier," that showed uterine rupture risks were under 1% for multiple prior C-sections. Other studies, she stated, showed a risk of uterine rupture from 2% to 3.5%.

"The way we counsel most patients with that many C-sections is, because of that increased risk, it likely is safer to do a scheduled repeat C-section," Francis said.

Francis also addressed the data on repeated C-sections, calling it "very mixed" and stating that many studies show the risks associated with repeat surgeries are "actually higher than a woman going through a trial of labor, even if she has that many previous C-sections," including risks of hemorrhage and infections.

"It really is not a clear decision, I would say," Francis remarked, emphasizing the importance of "shared decision-making" between a pregnant woman and her doctor, describing it as "a travesty" that Doyley felt unsupported by hospital staff.

During her testimony, Doyley rejected claims that there was nothing else the doctors could do to help her achieve a natural birth. She repeatedly insisted that UF Health transfer her to another hospital where she could receive a second opinion. UF Health staff explained that a transfer was unlikely to occur on such short notice, since another hospital would first have to agree to accept her as a patient.

She criticized the hospital for not having "one person of color that is on this floor working," adding, "I have 20 white people against me." She accused the hospital staff of trying to take her rights away, comparing it to "slavery."

"Just knowing what we know, as far as black maternal health in America and how black women are three times more likely to die during childbirth, a lot of that comes from medical negligence and medical racism, where we have a group of white doctors that think that they know what is best for black bodies and black babies," she testified.

At the conclusion of the multi-hour hearing, Kalil determined that Doyley could continue laboring to attempt to have a natural birth but that the hospital could force Doyley to undergo a C-section in the event of an emergency, to which Doyley agreed. The judge's order defined emergency events as fetal bradycardia, fetal heart tracing category 3, or signs of uterine rupture.

The infant was ultimately delivered via C-section after doctors said her heart rate dropped overnight for seven minutes, ProPublica reported. While Doyley recovered from the surgery, the baby was brought to the NICU due to respiratory distress and placed on a continuous positive airway pressure machine to assist with her breathing.

The court's jurisdiction in the matter terminated upon the child's successful delivery.

A spokesperson for UF Health Jacksonville declined to comment, citing privacy regulations that prevent the hospital from discussing patient information.

RELATED: 'PRAISE GOD!' Florida defeats radicals' attempt to enshrine nearly limitless abortion as a right

LUIS ROBAYO/AFP/Getty Images

The reaction to Doyley's case

Progressive advocates have used Doyley's experience to argue that Florida's pro-life laws have gone too far and infringe on pregnant women's medical freedom.

ProPublica wrote that while "mentally competent patients typically have the right to choose their medical care — or refuse it," pregnant patients do not. The outlet highlighted this as an "inconsistency" in Florida, noting that the state has championed expanded medical autonomy for patients wishing to avoid vaccines and fluoridated water.

"In Florida and many other states, court-ordered medical procedures are just one of the ways pregnant patients' rights are restricted. The effort to chip away at those rights is rooted in the concept of fetal personhood — that a fetus has equal and, in some cases, more rights than the woman sustaining it," ProPublica wrote, claiming that "even a state prisoner on a hunger strike has more rights to make medical decisions" than a pregnant woman.

Francis suggested that the hospital's intervention may have been driven by concern over serious complications and potential malpractice liability.

"As the ProPublica piece is referring to, I don't think that it probably centered around placing the personhood of her preborn child ahead of the consent of the patient," Francis said, adding that Doyley's case "highlights a significant problem in this country" that has "nothing to do with abortion laws or fetal personhood laws" but rather a fear of malpractice lawsuits. A 2023 American Medical Association report found that 62.4% of OB-GYNs had faced a lawsuit.

The author of the ProPublica report, Amy Yurkanin, seemed to give Kalil some credit for his ruling, stating that judges in these cases are in a "difficult position."

During an interview with WJCT's "First Coast Connect," Yurkanin stated, "I think he did try to thread the needle really with his ruling."

"The hospital wanted him to court-order a C-section. He declined to sort of issue that blanket court order," she remarked.

State Rep. Berny Jacques (R) shared his thoughts on Doyley's case with Blaze News.

"This case demonstrates that Florida is committed to both protecting innocent life and upholding the rule of law. Hospital staff and the judge lived up to that in this situation," Jacques said. "It's especially refreshing that in a time when we're seeing a lot of activist judges who ignore the law to score political points, the judge in this case simply followed the law as written and did the right thing."

Jacques added that he wishes the mom and child "all the best."

When Blaze News contacted Kalil for comment, the Fourth Judicial Circuit's general counsel stated that the court "is unable to provide any comment or participate in any public discussions regarding these matters."

Doyley did not respond to requests for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!