How KY's former top prosecutor used his powers to go after abortion providers in secret

FRANKFORT — Kentucky’s attorney general and two University of Louisville physicians waged a legal battle for more than a year that almost no one knew about — even though it involved the Republican candidate for governor and an issue of intense public interest.

The secrecy around the case – from its outset in June of 2023 – is highly unusual. It ended Monday when the file was unsealed under a Franklin Circuit judge’s order. The Lantern first revealed the case’s existence and reported many of its details in August based on a Court of Appeals ruling and sources with knowledge of the situation.

The newly unsealed file provides further insights into what happened when the powers of Kentucky’s top prosecutor intersected with abortion politics in an election year.

The dispute involved then-Attorney General Daniel Cameron’s efforts to pursue a criminal investigation against the two U of L physicians who, when it was still legal to do so, performed abortions and trained medical students and residents at EMW Women’s Surgical Center in Louisville. Cameron also was Kentucky Republicans’ nominee for governor last year.

Kentucky appeals court rejects AG’s efforts to get employment records in abortion case

After the U.S. Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to abortion in the summer of 2022, the physicians testified in court against the near-total abortion ban that immediately took effect in Kentucky.

Cameron, whose office was defending the abortion ban, then sought the physicians’ records from U of L through the civil discovery process. When that didn’t work he used a grand jury to subpoena the records as part of a criminal investigation that he said would discover whether public dollars had been misused.

In the end, the case turned on what two courts determined were Cameron’s misuse of the grand jury process and his lack of evidence of any crime.

Politics alleged

Lawyers for the physicians argued that Cameron’s actions were motivated by politics, that he was using abortion litigation “for political gain in his gubernatorial campaign” — a claim that Cameron’s office branded “offensive” and “slander.”

The doctors’ lawyers said Cameron “apparently believes that depicting abortion providers as greedy profiteers advances his arguments that abortions should be outlawed.”

It’s impossible to know how public knowledge of the case might have affected the 2023 race for governor. By September 2023 — less than two months before the gubernatorial election — the politics of abortion had changed in Kentucky.

That month Democratic incumbent Gov. Andy Beshear began airing powerful commercials featuring a rape victim and a prosecutor criticizing Cameron for opposing exceptions for rape and incest in the abortion ban. And Cameron quickly modified his position, saying he would sign legislation creating exceptions for rape and incest if the Republican-controlled General Assembly approved it.

Franklin Circuit Judge Phillip Shepherd tried to unseal the case at that time, but was thwarted by Cameron who immediately appealed the ruling to quash the subpoena and successfully pleaded to keep the case secret at least until the appeals court ruled on its merits.

Beshear defeated Cameron in the governor’s race by about 5 percentage points, and Cameron has since taken a job as executive director of a non-profit group called 1792 Exchange. (That group’s website says it works to protect small businesses, other non-profits and philanthropic organizations from “woke” corporations.)

AG Coleman ends appeals

Cameron did not respond to an email from the Lantern sent to 1792 Exchange seeking comment on the outcome of his ill-fated investigation.

Current Attorney General Russell Coleman did not ask the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the August Court of Appeals ruling that upheld Shepherd’s decision to quash the subpoena. Rewa Zakharia, chief of the criminal division in Coleman’s office, declined comment on Friday after a court hearing when Shepherd ordered the case finally unsealed. Zakharia referred questions to the office spokesman Kevin Grout, who did not return phone messages from Kentucky Lantern.

One of the attorneys for the doctors, William Brammell, released a statement that said, “We appreciate the judge’s thoughtful handling of this case and ultimate decision to unseal it, making it available to the public. In a functioning democracy, it’s critical that citizens know what their government is doing and the judge’s decision in this case balances that right to access with our client’s understandable personal privacy interests.”

On Aug. 9 a three-judge panel of the Kentucky Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed Shepherd’s quashing of the subpoena. Its order said the subpoena amounted to a “fishing expedition” and that Cameron’s premise that tax dollars may have been illegally spent on abortions was not supported by the facts of the case.

The appeals court sent the question of whether the case should be unsealed back to Shepherd. On Friday Shepherd unsealed the case with the exception of one document, and he released 177 pages of records Monday with the names of the physicians and redacted.

The U of L physicians and another physician who practiced at EMW Women’s Surgical Center initiated the case on July 21, 2023, asking Franklin Circuit Court to quash a subpoena seeking payroll, personnel and other records

They argued that Cameron unsuccessfully sought the same records in the civil case challenging the constitutionality of Kentucky’s abortion ban and that the material sought was not relevant to any possible criminal charges. They suggested a political motive which Cameron hotly disputed.

“It has become clear that Mr. Cameron will use abortion litigation, against providers and others, for political gain in his gubernatorial campaign.”

Cameron said the subpoena was issued as part of his office’s responsibility to investigate “crimes involving the use of public funds.”

The plaintiffs filed the case under the pseudonyms Jane Doe 1, Jane Doe 2 and John Row, and asked that the case be sealed to protect their privacy. Cameron offered no objection and Shepherd let the case initially proceed under seal.

As the case proceeded, Shepherd, over the objections of the doctors’ lawyers, gave Cameron the opportunity to present a confidential (“in camera”) written explanation “that will set forth the subject matter of the Attorney General’s investigation.”

Cameron did so. That record remains the only part of the file still sealed. But whatever is in it, it did not convince Shepherd.

Grand jury never asked for or asked for subpoena

The judge wrote a 16-page order quashing the subpoena. Shepherd agreed with nearly all points made by the physicians’ attorneys. He said even the confidential submission from the attorney general “provides no information which grants its office jurisdiction.”

Shepherd said the investigation was brought in the wrong county because the doctors work in Jefferson County. “There is no indication that any of the conduct under investigation took place in Franklin County. Nor is there any allegation that state funds were used directly in any manner that would violate the penal code,” he ruled.

Shepherd noted that while Cameron obtained the subpoena from the clerk of the Franklin Circuit Court, the grand jury never asked for the subpoena or voted to authorize it.

And because the subpoena sought the same records Cameron was unsuccessfully trying to get in the separate civil case, the judge concluded, “this subpoena appears to be a classic ‘fishing expedition.’”

He said the doctors had a right to be concerned the information might be used in a way that would “subject them to vilification or harassment by opponents of abortion.”

The judge also said he was inclined to open the case because the public should know what goes on in court. Shepherd issued a lengthy order in which he attempted to unseal the records. “The Court believes that the public has a right to know, and to decide for themselves, whether the Attorney General is wielding the authority granted to him appropriately and in accordance with the requirements of law.”

But Cameron filed an emergency request to keep the entire file sealed, which the appeals court granted.

In August, the Court of Appeals ruling against Cameron sent the case back to Shepherd to decide whether to unseal the case.

The Kentucky Lantern and Louisville Public Media filed briefs asking that the case be opened.

Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com. Follow Kentucky Lantern on Facebook and X.