Given a document, find the main entity about whom the author is writing. Write the full name if mentioned in the text. Note that URLs in the text have been replaced with [Link].

[EX Q]: Rep. Patrick Meehan  Reeling From 'Soul Mate' Scandal  Won't Run Again
 Pennsylvania Republican Patrick Meehan  who up until this week had been one of the House Ethics Committee members investigating sexual harassment charges   was revealed Jan. 20 to have paid a taxpayer-funded settlement to an accuser last year.
The New York Times reported  Meehan  had settled with a younger staff member after telling  her   he  was attracted to  her . House Speaker Paul Ryan removed  Meehan  from the Ethics Committee post after the story was published.
 Meehan  has decided to leave the House  sources in Congress and the Pennsylvania Republican Party confirmed Thursday night  saying  he  won't defend  his  seat in November's election.
The Philadelphia Inquirer obtained a letter that it reports  Meehan  sent to  his  campaign chairman:
"Unfortunately  recent events concerning my office and the settlement of certain harassment allegations have become a major distraction "  he  wrote. "I need to own it because it is my own conduct that fueled the matter."
Politics Formerly Of The Ethics Committee  Rep. Patrick Meehan Now Subject Of Investigation Formerly Of The Ethics Committee   Rep. Patrick Meehan  Now Subject Of Investigation Listen · 3:30 3:30
 Meehan  hasn't denied the facts of the settlement  and even told reporters  he  viewed the woman as a soul mate — but insisted the conversation and a letter  he  wrote her wasn't harassment.  He  told member station WHYY: "[I clarified] that I was a happily-married man. I was not looking for any kind of a relationship."
 His  decision not to run again opens up a Democratic-leaning House seat in suburban Philadelphia that already had been high on Democrats' lists of 2018 targets.
[EX A]: Patrick Meehan

[EX Q]: Beyond their considerable personal skills as politicians and candidates , Cruz and Rubio have benefited from the anti-establishment revolution that has swept through the Republican Party . 
Republican presidential candidate , Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , greets supporters during a caucus night rally , Monday , Feb. 1 , 2016 , in Des Moines , Iowa . 
Cruz sealed a victory in the Republican Iowa caucuses , winning on the strength of his relentless campaigning and support from his party &#39; s diehard conservatives . 
Republican presidential candidate , Sen. Ted Cruz , R-Texas , greets supporters during a caucus night rally , Monday , Feb. 1 , 2016 , in Des Moines , Iowa . 
Cruz sealed a victory in the Republican Iowa caucuses , winning on the strength of his relentless campaigning and support from his party 's diehard conservatives . 
If and when that happens , regardless of the political and ideological differences of their positions , they will be following in the footsteps of Ted Cruz . 
Ted Cruz has made Latino history . 
The irony of Cruz 's Latino milestone is , of course , that he does not think of himself as Latino . 
By coming in a close third , and by dint of being the last establishment friendly Republican standing , Senator Marco Rubio of Texas , has also placed himself in the position of being able to win primaries further down the line , and join Cruz as a Hispanic trailblazer . 
Unlike Cruz , Rubio does identify himself as Hispanic , and as a proud heir to the great American immigrant dream . 
Cruz , and Rubio too , have come further than any Latino politician has before them . 
Previous to Senator Cruz , the Hispanic politician who had gone the furthest in Iowa had been Bill Richardson , former Democratic Governor of New Mexico . 
The fact that Cruz , Hispanic trailblazer , is a Republican is yet another of the surprising aspects of the current electoral season .
[EX A]: Ted Cruz

[EX Q]: ON SEPTEMBER 11th  a 17-year-old girl was apprehended as she illegally crossed into America from Mexico. Now nearly 16 weeks pregnant  the girlâknown as Jane Doe or  J.D.  to protect her privacyâwould like to have an abortion. But her custodian at a detention centre in Brownsville  Texasâthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)âis refusing her request. The government will "protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilitiesâ  an HHS spokesman explained. â[W]e will defend human dignity for all in our care." On October 18th  a federal judge instructed the federal government to grant  J.D. âs wish  but two days later  a three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit froze that order until October 31st by a 2-1 vote. If by that date the authorities have not found a sponsor âcapable of providing for the childâs physical and mental well-beingâ who could help her procure an abortion  the court held   J.D.  may return to court to plead her case anew.
Meanwhile  via her lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)   J.D.  is asking the appeals court to reconsider her case âen bancââwith the full complement of judges. Time is of the essence: while bureaucrats and judges wrangle over her fate   J.D.âs  pregnancy rolls toward 20 weeks  the point at which abortion is no longer available in Texas. The ACLU told the appeals court on October 22nd that its panel decision âviolates decades of well-settled Supreme Court precedentâ barring the government from imposing âan undue burden onâor  as in this extraordinary case  completely block[ing]âa womanâs ability to obtain an abortionâ.
The holding pattern for  J.D.  began nearly a month ago. âAll the while  this young  isolated woman remains pregnant against her will  causing her irreparable harmâ  the ACLU wrote. Every day   J.D.  faces a âsevere strain...both physically and emotionallyâ and abortion becomes a riskier  more fraught procedure. The young womanâs lawyers ask the federal government to simply get out of the way: âHer court-appointed representatives or the shelter personnel stand ready to transport her; the health centre stands ready to provide the care; and private funds have been provided to pay for the procedureâ. In sum  "[a]ll defendants must do is to step aside and stop blocking the doorâ.
The ACLU brief includes a few lines from a stinging opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett  the dissenter in the appeals court ruling on October 20th. The governmentâs refusal to grant the young womanâs wish âsacrificesâ her âconstitutional liberty  autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reasonâ  Judge Millett wrote. Its decision represents âan astonishing power grabâ  ignoring the fact that âthis child fled here all alone in a desperate effort to avoid severe abuseâ and embarked on âa life-imperiling trek for hundreds  perhaps thousands  of milesâ.  J.D.  and other â[u]naccompanied minor migrants are among the most vulnerable persons in the worldâ.
In its response to the young womanâs request for a court-wide re-hearing  the Department of Justice (DoJ) raised three curious pointsânone of which  interestingly  denies that  J.D.  has a right to an abortion. First  the DoJ explained that if  J.D.  were to find a sponsor  she  would be able to seek an abortion under  his  or  her  care and the complaint against the government would dissolve. But as the ACLU observed  âthe notion that an appropriate sponsor for  J.D.  could be identified  properly vetted  and approved in an eleven day time frame is entirely unrealisticâ. Second  the DoJ argued that  J.D.  brought  her  predicament on  herself . âAny alleged âobstacleâ to Ms Doeâs ability to obtain an abortion is by her own choiceâ  the brief asserts. She chose to flee oppression in her home country and enter America illegally  so she is author of her own dilemma. The obstacle to her abortion is self-imposed.  J.D.  can decide to remove that obstacle âat any time by filing a request for voluntary departureâ.
This is a glaring insult to the young woman. Start with the implication that  J.D.  would enjoy the autonomy to have an abortion if only she were to give up on America and return to her home country: a choice between forced motherhood and a bus-ride back to the place she took great pains to escape. Actually  it is worse: in Mexico  where  J.D.  seems to be from (this information is sealed)  she would not be able to secure a legal abortion at all. Self-deportation  then  would almost certainly be a lose-lose scenario.
The most jarring feature of the governmentâs argument comes near the end of its brief when it advances a novel theory of government âcomplicityâ in acts it finds reprehensible. Why does the Office of Refugee Resettlement refuse to release  J.D.  to court-appointed representatives to travel to a nearby abortion clinic? Because that would âentail facilitating an abortionâ  the DoJ brief reads. Even if HHS does not drive  J.D.  to the clinic or pay for the procedure  approving such a release âwould still require that HHS or its contractor devote time and staff towards maintaining appropriate custody over Ms Doe during her absenceâ and necessitate âexpend[ing] resources to monitorâ her health. Permitting  J.D.  to exercise her constitutional right to end her pregnancy would ârequire the federal government to be complicit in her abortion  which the government has a significant and legitimate interest in refusing to doâ.
[EX A]:
J.D