Teen detained after crossing border fights to have abortion

[Bricker]

@Richard_Parker

If the government doesn’t want to pay for someone’s medical care, then they can choose not to detain that person. Once they choose to detain that person, they are on the hook for medical care. What’s more, there is a constitutional right to abortion, believe it or not. The mere fact of detention does not extinguish that right. So there are two clear constitutional arguments here.

The cost of a first trimester abortion is small, usually a few hundred bucks. Many forms of medical care routinely provided to pretrial detainees, including people accused of lacking legal immigration status, cost that much or more. This isn’t about money. It’s about morality. The government wants to ban abortion. But they aren’t allowed to do that. It’s not that complicated.

I ardently oppose abortion.

But I recognize that my ardent wishes do not translate into controlling law. (Ah, USA, how much better off we’d all be if they did…)

So sadly, I think the analysis above is correct. If you detain someone, then you assume responsibility for their medical care, and that category includes abortion (at present).

[up_the_junction]

Putting it simply, the state owes the detainee a duty of care.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

As I noted earlier in the thread, time is not on the young lady’s side.

A federal judge in San Francisco said Wednesday that the government cannot prevent a pregnant 17-year-old at a Texas facility for unaccompanied immigrant children from getting an abortion, but declined to issue an order that would bar federal officials from interfering in the girl’s access to the procedure.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said the legal challenge on behalf of the girl by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California was not filed in the right court.

The ruling allows the girl’s attorneys to file a new lawsuit seeking the same order in another federal court district. A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice, Peter Phipps, said at a hearing Wednesday that the government might propose having Jane Doe’s case heard in Texas or Washington, D.C.

So they can’t prevent her from getting an abortion, but they can prevent her from leaving the facility where she is incarcerated, is how I’m understanding this on a practical level; is that incorrect?

[RivkahChaya]

@Shodan

Yes, I read that. I was wondering about other elective procedures apart from abortion. My understanding is that hospitals who are presented with a patient who cannot pay, are obligated to make sure their condition is stable before discharging them. I didn’t see any reference in the article that her pregnancy was anything other than routine. And she is only 14 weeks along - she isn’t in early labor or anything.

Regards,
Shodan

@Iggy

Can/should that medical care be limited to medically necessary care or must it also include elective procedures?

If my Colombian step-daughter’s friend wants braces because her otherwise healthy teeth are crooked should she show up at the US border, surrender to ICE as an unaccompanied minor, and voila… free braces?

When a medical procedure has an expiration date, it makes a difference. For example, if your tumor does not need to be removed RIGHT NOW, but if it is not, then in 4 or 5 months, your whole leg will need to be amputated, and if you have the tumor removed NOW, the chances are, you won’t need chemo, but if we wait a few weeks, it’s more likely you will need chemo, I think few people would argue that you should HAVE SURGERY NOW.

And yes, to a woman with an unintended, unwanted pregnancy, it IS just like that.

[Eva_Luna]

@madsircool

I am in favor of abortion but I am also in favor of the rule of law. She broke the law and she must follow our legal process. She could have easily gotten an abortion in Mexico so its not like she needs to get one here.

We don’t have enough information to know whether she broke the law. We don’t know what relief from deportation she may be seeking. For all we know, she is applying for asylum, and U.S. and international law both provide a process for doing so. One way to enter the asylum process is that you show up in the U.S. and convince an immigration official that you have a credible fear of persecution based on aprotected ground (race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion). The persecution can be by the government of your home country, or by nongovernmental forces that the government cannot or is unwilling to control. Some people are released once they convince ICE that they have a credible fear of persecution, and get a full hearing in front of a judge later. But in many cases, asylum applicants are not released, and have no right no be released on bond.

For all we know, she is applying for asylum for reasons tied to the pregnancy. For example, survivors of domestic violence have been held in some cases to constitute a particular social group. Rape is a common manifestation of persecution. Just for starters.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

9 days closer to the due date.

An undocumented immigrant teen in federal custody will face further delays in getting an abortion after a federal appeals court ruling Friday.

The 17-year-old girl is an unaccompanied minor from Central America who’s been detained at a South Texas shelter operated under the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement since September. The court said the government has until Oct. 31 to help the teen find a sponsor in the U.S. who could take custody, and then she could get the procedure. She is already about 15 weeks along, and the delay could push her closer to the 20-week limit on abortions in Texas.

Mind you, I thought from earlier articles that she had a sponsor, but it seems that was for legal representation only or something.

Doe got a guardian to represent her and the funds to pay for the procedure. Doe’s lawyers said that by refusing to let her leave their facility for abortion care, the government was forcing her to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

So now HHS has 10 days to find this young lady a sponsor, but from the article it looks like it has to be kin; is that right?

Doe’s attorney, Brigitte Amiri, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, said she had not yet found a sponsor — Doe is said to have identified only three family members in the U.S. — and that she is running out of time. As the case winds on, Doe’s pregnancy has moved into the second trimester. Texas bans abortions after 20 weeks, giving her case special urgency.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

AP story here. Quite a bit more detail.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 6-3 in favor of the teen.

Later Tuesday, in a separate order, a judge said the teen should be quickly taken to obtain required counseling and the abortion. Under Texas law, a woman seeking an abortion must have a counseling session 24 hours before the procedure with the doctor who will perform the abortion.

Lawyers for the Department of Health and Human Services, which is responsible for sheltering children who illegally enter the country unaccompanied by a parent, said the department has a policy of “refusing to facilitate” abortions and that releasing the teenager would require arranging a transfer of custody and follow-up care.

The teenager’s lawyers have said all the government needed to do was “get out of the way.” An attorney appointed to represent the teen’s interests said she could transport her to and from appointments necessary for the procedure, and the federal government would not have to pay for it.

A federal judge, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, had sided with the teen and set dates for the procedure last week, saying it should take place Friday or Saturday, but the government appealed and the three-judge panel of the appeals court blocked the abortion from occurring then. The panel ruled 2-1 on Friday that the government should have until Oct. 31 to release the teen into the custody of a so-called sponsor, such as a relative in the United States, so she could obtain the abortion outside government custody.

On Tuesday, the full appeals court overruled the panel’s decision and returned the case to Chutkan, saying she was “best suited” to set new dates. Chutkan responded with an order saying the teen should be taken for counseling and the abortion “promptly and without delay.”

Now let’s see if it happens.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

It happened.

The American Civil Liberties Union said on Twitter that the 17-year-old had the procedure early Wednesday. Susan Hays, legal director for the Texas group Jane’s Due Process, confirmed to The Associated Press that the teen had the procedure.

Good job, folks.

[John_Mace]

@Snowboarder_Bo

It happened.Good job, folks.

Glad to hear that justice was served, at least in this case. Hopefully this young lady can get on with her life, whether that be in the US or her home country.