A 17
J.D
ON SEPTEMBER 11th  a 17-year-old girl was apprehended as she illegally crossed into America from Mexico. Now nearly 16 weeks pregnant  the girlâknown as Jane Doe or  J.D.  to protect her privacyâwould like to have an abortion. But her custodian at a detention centre in Brownsville  Texasâthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)âis 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. âs 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 âcapable of providing for the childâs 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 âen bancââwith the full complement of judges. Time is of the essence: while bureaucrats and judges wrangle over her fate   J.D.âs  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 âviolates decades of well-settled Supreme Court precedentâ barring the government from imposing âan undue burden onâor  as in this extraordinary case  completely block[ing]âa womanâs ability to obtain an abortionâ.
The holding pattern for  J.D.  began nearly a month ago. âAll the while  this young  isolated woman remains pregnant against her will  causing her irreparable harmâ  the ACLU wrote. Every day   J.D.  faces a âsevere strain...both physically and emotionallyâ and abortion becomes a riskier  more fraught procedure. The young womanâs lawyers ask the federal government to simply get out of the way: âHer 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 governmentâs refusal to grant the young womanâs wish âsacrificesâ her âconstitutional liberty  autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reasonâ  Judge Millett wrote. Its decision represents âan astonishing power grabâ  ignoring the fact that âthis child fled here all alone in a desperate effort to avoid severe abuseâ and embarked on âa 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 womanâs request for a court-wide re-hearing  the Department of Justice (DoJ) raised three curious pointsânone 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  âthe 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 . âAny alleged âobstacleâ to Ms Doeâs 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 âat 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 governmentâs argument comes near the end of its brief when it advances a novel theory of government âcomplicityâ 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 âentail 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 âwould still require that HHS or its contractor devote time and staff towards maintaining appropriate custody over Ms Doe during her absenceâ and necessitate âexpend[ing] resources to monitorâ her health. Permitting  J.D.  to exercise her constitutional right to end her pregnancy would ârequire the federal government to be complicit in her abortion  which the government has a significant and legitimate interest in refusing to doâ.
ON SEPTEMBER 11th  a 17-year-old girl was apprehended as she illegally crossed into America from Mexico. Now nearly 16 weeks pregnant  the girlâknown as Jane Doe or  J.D.  to protect her privacyâwould like to have an abortion. But her custodian at a detention centre in Brownsville  Texasâthe Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)âis 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. âs 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 âcapable of providing for the childâs 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 âen bancââwith the full complement of judges. Time is of the essence: while bureaucrats and judges wrangle over her fate   J.D.âs  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 âviolates decades of well-settled Supreme Court precedentâ barring the government from imposing âan undue burden onâor  as in this extraordinary case  completely block[ing]âa womanâs ability to obtain an abortionâ.
The holding pattern for   [TGT] began nearly a month ago. âAll the while  this young  isolated woman remains pregnant against her will  causing her irreparable harmâ  the ACLU wrote. Every day    [TGT] faces a âsevere strain...both physically and emotionallyâ and abortion becomes a riskier  more fraught procedure. The young womanâs lawyers ask the federal government to simply get out of the way: âHer 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 governmentâs refusal to grant the young womanâs wish âsacrificesâ her âconstitutional liberty  autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reasonâ  Judge Millett wrote. Its decision represents âan astonishing power grabâ  ignoring the fact that âthis child fled here all alone in a desperate effort to avoid severe abuseâ and embarked on âa life-imperiling trek for hundreds  perhaps thousands  of milesâ.   [TGT] and other â[u]naccompanied minor migrants are among the most vulnerable persons in the worldâ.
In its response to the young womanâs request for a court-wide re-hearing  the Department of Justice (DoJ) raised three curious pointsânone of which  interestingly  denies that   [TGT] has a right to an abortion. First  the DoJ explained that if   [TGT] were to find a sponsor   [TGT]   would be able to seek an abortion under  his  or   [TGT]   care and the complaint against the government would dissolve. But as the ACLU observed  âthe notion that an appropriate sponsor for   [TGT] could be identified  properly vetted  and approved in an eleven day time frame is entirely unrealisticâ. Second  the DoJ argued that   [TGT] brought  her  predicament on  herself . âAny alleged âobstacleâ to Ms Doeâs 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.   [TGT] can decide to remove that obstacle âat any time by filing a request for voluntary departureâ.
This is a glaring insult to the young woman. Start with the implication that   [TGT] 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   [TGT] 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 governmentâs argument comes near the end of its brief when it advances a novel theory of government âcomplicityâ 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 âentail facilitating an abortionâ  the DoJ brief reads. Even if HHS does not drive   [TGT] to the clinic or pay for the procedure  approving such a release âwould still require that HHS or its contractor devote time and staff towards maintaining appropriate custody over Ms Doe during her absenceâ and necessitate âexpend[ing] resources to monitorâ her health. Permitting   [TGT] to exercise her constitutional right to end her pregnancy would ârequire the federal government to be complicit in her abortion  which the government has a significant and legitimate interest in refusing to doâ.