Trump would rather a illegal immigrant have a child on US soil (ie American) vs an abortion

[durham]

weird fucking fake religious morality in this country

Appeals Court Lets Trump Administration Keep Blocking Undocumented Teen’s Abortion
The 17-year-old received permission from a state judge on Sept. 25 to make her own decision about her pregnancy. But the government won’t let her carry it out.
By Elise Foley and Ryan J. Reilly
WASHINGTON ― A federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to continue to prevent an undocumented teen from obtaining an abortion, potentially prolonging an unwanted pregnancy for 11 days or more.

A split decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the government to secure a sponsor for the teen by 5 p.m. on Oct. 31 and said the teen, referred to as Jane Doe, would be able to get an abortion when in the sponsor’s custody. The court said the process would not “unduly burden the minor’s right under Supreme Court precedent to an abortion” provided that “the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously.”

If a sponsor isn’t secured by that date, a lower court could issue a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, the appeals court said. The ruling noted that the government had “assumed, for purposes of this case, that [Jane Doe] ― an unlawful immigrant who apparently was detained shortly after unlawfully crossing the border into the United States ― possesses a constitutional right to obtain an abortion in the United States.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the teen, called the ruling a “dangerous decision” that allowed for further delay. The 17-year-old has already been in government custody for weeks without finding a sponsor and was granted permission to obtain an abortion by a Texas state judge on Sept. 25.

U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a George W. Bush appointee who was on Trump’s shortlist for the Supreme Court and appears to have been behind the order, repeatedly said during Friday’s oral arguments that it might be the best-case scenario if she could just be released to a sponsor. But finding a sponsor is neither simple nor quick. The government already ruled out two potential sponsors for the teenager, which is why she has been detained for so long.

The teenager entered the U.S. without authorization and unaccompanied by parents in early September. Since then, she has been in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which under President Donald Trump implemented a policy barring most minors in its care from obtaining abortions.

The government allowed Jane Doe to leave a Texas shelter to go to a “crisis pregnancy center,” where she was urged against an abortion, but it has refused to allow her to go to a clinic to terminate her pregnancy, even though she received permission to do so from a Texas state judge.

Here, what we’re talking about is [the government] standing in the way. All they need to do is get out of the way. Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project
A U.S. district judge ruled on Wednesday that Jane Doe should be allowed to go to pre-abortion counseling on Thursday. She was then planning to undergo the procedure on Friday or Saturday, but the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals halted that part of the ruling so it could hear arguments.

A Department of Justice attorney argued on Friday morning that the government was not preventing Jane Doe from getting an abortion, because she had the option of voluntarily departing the U.S. or finding a sponsor to live with. The attorney, Catherine Dorsey, also said the government should not be forced to “facilitate” an abortion by signing off on it or by providing her care afterward.

The ACLU argued that the Office of Refugee Resettlement is violating the girl’s right to an abortion and essentially holding her hostage, which could lead to her being unable to terminate the pregnancy at all. The teenager is currently 15 weeks pregnant, and at 20 weeks will no longer be allowed to get an abortion in Texas.

Neither of the options the government presented to Jane Doe are reasonable ones, Brigitte Amiri, a senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, argued on Friday.

Telling the teenager she could have an abortion only if she leaves the U.S. amounts to a penalty, Amiri said. Jane Doe has not yet begun deportation proceedings, so it’s not clear whether she has legal avenues to remain in the country, but if she took the Trump administration’s suggestion, she wouldn’t even be able to try.

The shelter where Jane Doe resides is contracted by the government to provide her direct care, and she has arranged transportation to the clinic and to pay for the procedures, so the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s direct involvement would be minimal. Amiri argued that the office only needed to make a phone call.

“Here, what we’re talking about is them standing in the way,” Amiri said. “All they need to do is get out of the way.”

Prior to the Trump administration, the office’s leadership did not make decisions about abortions at all, unless it was over whether they could receive government funding for the procedure in cases of rape or incest or if the life of the mother were at risk. The office is now run by director Scott Lloyd, a former attorney for the Knights of Columbus who opposes abortion.

Even if Jane Doe is released to a sponsor before Oct. 31 and is allowed to have an abortion, other pregnant girls in Office of Refugee Resettlement custody are likely to be in her same position, if not now then in the future.

The government argued that even if a minor were seeking asylum, she would still be blocked from going to abortion appointments and told she could go to her home country if she wanted to terminate a pregnancy.

Ultimately, the court may not have to decide whether the government must allow this particular Jane Doe to leave a shelter for an abortion. But finding her a sponsor won’t solve the problem for other girls like her.

 

[Camille]

The Justice Department Declares War on Attorneys Who Dare to Oppose the Trump Administration

On Friday, the Department of Justice filed an astonishing appeal with the Supreme Court, urging the justices to intervene in the Jane Doe case that seemed to have ended last week. Doe, an undocumented 17-year-old in a federally funded Texas shelter, was denied abortion access by the Trump administration, which argues that it can force undocumented minors to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. On Oct. 24, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that Doe must be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, which she did the next day. Now the DOJ is urging the Supreme Court to vacate that decision—and punish the ACLU attorneys who represented Doe.

Make no mistake: With this filing, Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Justice Department has declared war on attorneys and groups who dare to oppose it in court.

Because Doe obtained her abortion, Friday’s appeal might seem pointless, presenting no live controversy for the justices to adjudicate. But the DOJ has three goals here. First, it wants the Supreme Court to punish the D.C. Circuit for issuing a decision that it believes to be egregiously wrong by wiping the entire ruling off the books. Second, the DOJ wants to eradicate a decision that sets a legal precedent it despises. Doe’s lawsuit was initially brought as part of a class action, and the ACLU will continue to litigate its broader claim against the Trump administration’s absolute bar on abortion access for undocumented minors. As long as the D.C. Circuit’s decision remains on the books, those lawsuits are almost guaranteed to succeed. The Justice Department wants it gone so that it can litigate this issue anew.

Third, and most importantly, Friday’s appeal is a flagrant effort to crucify the individual attorneys who represented Doe, and to terrify likeminded lawyers into acquiescence. The DOJ thus asks the Supreme Court to force Doe’s lawyers to “show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken” against the ACLU—either by the court itself or by state bars—for “material misrepresentations and omissions” designed to thwart an appeal.

In other words, the DOJ is using the full weight of a government agency to threaten professional ruin upon the lawyers who defended Jane Doe’s constitutional right to abortion access.

The DOJ claims that after the D.C. Circuit ruled in Doe’s favor on Oct. 24, government attorneys believed they had until Oct. 26 until Doe got her abortion. Under Texas law, women must obtain “counseling” at least 24 hours before terminating her pregnancy, and this counseling must be performed by the same physician who performs the procedure. Doe had already received this counseling from a Texas doctor when the D.C. Circuit issued its decision. According to the DOJ, ACLU lawyers told the government that this physician would not be working and that Doe would receive another counseling appointment on the morning of October 25, and get the abortion to October 26. Government lawyers asked to be kept informed of the timing of the procedure, and they claim that ACLU lawyers agreed to comply with their request. They also say that the DOJ planned to ask for a stay on Oct. 25—but on that same morning, ACLU attorneys arranged for Doe to visit the doctor who had already counseled her, allowing him to perform the procedure.

Put differently, the government argues that the ACLU owed government lawyers a notification of when Doe’s legal abortion would occur. The end goal here seems to have been to try to continue to block the abortion until it would be illegal to terminate, even though she had secured an unqualified right to do so. (Doe was 16 weeks pregnant by that point; Texas bans abortion after 20 weeks, and the government had already delayed the abortion by a month.) The DOJ also claims that Doe’s lawyers had the responsibility to keep answering their phone calls to update them on her status: “Efforts to reach respondent's counsel were met with silence, until approximately 10 a.m. EST, when one of her lawyers told the government that Ms. Does had undergone an abortion.”

What really seems to enrage the DOJ, however, is that Doe didn’t attend a second counseling session—which would have been duplicative and wasteful, and caused her yet more needless delay—because the physician who counseled her the first time later agreed to perform the procedure. If ever there were an indicator of the un-distilled bad faith at work here, it’s government lawyers insisting that a non-person with no rights undergo a second round of the same counseling, not for the purposes of medical advice, but so that they would have more time to thwart her choice.

These allegations of wrongdoing are laughably flimsy and outwardly vindictive. Even under the DOJ’s contorted narrative, it’s obvious that the ACLU simply acted efficiently, and the Trump administration is bitter and embarrassed that it lost. The government argues that the ACLU “at least arguably had an obligation to notify the government” that Doe would terminate on Oct. 25—an “incredibly significant development.” But that’s just not how this works. The government had sufficient time to ask the Supreme Court to stay the D.C. Circuit’s decision beforeDoe terminated. In fact, Texas was already prepared with its own amicus brief backing the DOJ. But the government didn’t act in time. And it’s not the ACLU’s fault that its client secured her constitutional rights while the government dallied in its efforts to exert control of her reproductive capacities. This week-late effort to blame the ACLU for its “arguable” responsibility to ensure that the government could continue to harm their client is not just an effort to save face, but also an attempt to warn attorneys that zealous effectuation of their duties to the clients will now be punished.

The Justice Department’s crusade against the ACLU is especially galling in light of the fact that there was sanctionable misconduct here—on the part of the government itself. Scott Lloyd, the official who blocked Doe and other minors from abortion access, likely violated a long-standing federal settlement agreement in his anti-abortion crusade. Under this agreement, undocumented minors like Doe must be allowed access to family planning services, which Lloyd intentionally and repeatedly withheld. He even instituted his anti-abortion views as official government policy in obvious violation of the federal settlement.

If anyone deserves to be punished here, it is surely Lloyd, who flouted the law for purely ideological purposes. But instead of investigating its own employee for potential misconduct, the government is going after Doe’s ACLU attorneys for defending her constitutional rights. This is a shocking assault on the nation’s civil rights attorneys, and an unprecedented effort by the DOJ to slander and shame those attorneys who defend their clients’ rights against the government’s abuse of the law. After today, lawyers who question the Trump administration’s legal views should be aware that they have targets on their backs.

 

[Shadow22]

Its already enough. If dude was really about what he said ship em all back