ACLU Goes Back to Court on Behalf of Jane Doe


ACLU Goes Back to Court on Behalf of Jane Doe

A Washington appeals court is blocking for now an abortion sought by a 17-year-old being held in a Texas facility for unaccompanied immigrant children. "Accordingly, it is my opinion that weakening any of these procedures to expedite the release of a pregnant minor to a sponsor who is neither the minor's parent, legal guardian or close family relative would risk setting a unsafe precedent".

The ACLU is asking a federal appeals court for help in clearing the way for an undocumented teen in detention in Texas to end her pregnancy.

Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma and SC all aligned their support behind the federal government's view, writing in supporting briefs "there will be no meaningful limit on the constitutional rights an unlawfully-present alien can invoke simply by trying to enter this country" in reference to if Doe is allowed an abortion as Judge Chutkan ruled.

On Friday, after hearing oral arguments, the panel of judges ruled the teenager could have the abortion but delayed the process.

Then, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington stayed the ruling in order to hold a hearing Friday on the merits of the case and eventually ruled that the Trump administration can block the undocumented teen in federal custody from having an abortion.

On Wednesday, the ACLU urged U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan to rule in their favor. Shame on this judge for overruling compassionate care and instead mandating that the USA government help facilitate an abortion for a teenage girl.

The court ruled 2-1 that the government should have until October 31 to release the girl to a so-called sponsor, such as an adult relative in the United States.

"They are supplanting their decision about what JD should do with her pregnancy, and that is not acting in her best interest", Brigitte Amiri, an ACLU lawyer, said.

According to the report, the shelter took the girl to a pro-life pregnancy resource center instead. "Entirely shutting off a person's access to abortion services is the greatest conceivable "undue burden" on a person's constitutional right to an abortion - it prohibits her from exercising her rights at all". He maintained that Texas should never turn into a "sanctuary state for abortions" and that a victory for ACLU in this case could mean that anyone can cross the USA border illegally to obtain an abortion.

"The entire process involves many steps, including: 'the identification of sponsors; the submission by a sponsor of the application for release and supporting documentation; the evaluation of the suitability of the sponsor, including verification of the sponsor's identity and relationship to the child, background checks, and in some cases home studies; and planning for post-release, '" the declaration says. "Forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy just in the hopes of finding a sponsor that has not been found in the past six weeks sacrifices J.D.'s constitutional liberty, autonomy, and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reason".

"There are no winners in cases like these".

Millett wrote a scathing dissent, in which she said the government's position was "wrong and unconstitutional".

"Every additional day she must remain pregnant against her will places a severe strain on J.D., both physically and emotionally".

The teen's case has bounced around the court system for weeks. "Texas must not become a sanctuary state for abortions". "We're declining to facilitate an abortion". "Our government has held her in this unlawful position for nearly a month; this court should not allow this injustice to continue any longer". At least one potential sponsor has fallen through. Judge Millett claimed requiring the girl to wait until a government-approved sponsor could be found "defies controlling Supreme Court precedent".