Abortion

No Forced Childbirth for Undocumented Immigrant Teen in Federal Custody

This was a simple choice: Compel the girl to give birth or let her get an abortion. The fact that she is undocumented doesn't change that reality.

|

Spaces Blend Images/Newscom

In April, the Trump administration took a stand against the brutal methods used to enforce China's one-child policy. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops denounced China for "acts of violence" against pregnant women, including "coerced sterilizations and forced abortions," and praised the president for cutting off funds for U.N. family planning efforts.

This administration does not try to force pregnant women to have abortions. Just the opposite: It tries to forces pregnant women to have babies. And its methods bear an uncanny resemblance to those employed by the Chinese government.

The evidence is on view in the case of an unaccompanied 17-year-old from Central America who was detained after entering the country illegally in September. On Wednesday morning, after a furious legal battle, she got an abortion. But that outcome came only after weeks of efforts by the administration to prevent her from doing so.

She has been held in a federally funded shelter since she was picked up. After discovering her pregnancy, she went through the process required under Texas law for a minor to get an abortion.

A state court ruled she was "mature and sufficiently informed" to decide for herself. The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitutional right to privacy protects the right to abortion. Given those two realities, the case should have been closed.

But the administration doesn't like to be constrained by laws or the Constitution. It preferred that "Jane Doe," whose identity is protected, carry her pregnancy to term, and it did all it could to make her comply.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement sent her to an anti-abortion "pregnancy crisis center," where she was urged to change her mind. It told her mother about the pregnancy even though the girl said her parents had severely abused her.

The government refused to let her leave the shelter to get an abortion—though it offered to let her leave for medical treatment if she agreed to give birth. At each stage, it found ways to block her access.

It may be argued that because the teenager is here without authorization, the Constitution doesn't apply to her. But the Supreme Court has never taken such a position. It has ruled that even undocumented immigrants enjoy constitutional protection, including "due process of law."

The Justice Department said that because she is a minor and here illegally, it is entitled to impose its own preferences on her. If she wanted to have an abortion, it said, she had the option of returning to her home country—though she said that doing so would expose her to more abuse.

The district judge ruled in her favor, and on Tuesday, an appeals court agreed. In her opinion, Judge Patricia Millett concluded that Doe, "like other minors in the United States who satisfy state-approved procedures, is entitled under binding Supreme Court precedent to choose to terminate her pregnancy."

The administration said it should not be required to "facilitate" a procedure it finds abhorrent. But that was a bogus claim. The girl was not asking the government to pay for the operation, provide a doctor, or transport her to the clinic. The only thing her lawyers asked of the government was "to stop blocking the door."

But the facilitation argument wouldn't stand up regardless. If she were an adult, Doe would be in the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which permits detainees to get abortions. If she were in federal prison, she would be allowed to get an abortion.

Doe asked for far less—and the Trump administration tried to deny her even that. Absent this court ruling, she'd have been confined and required to go to term, even though continuing her pregnancy presented much greater risks to her health than ending it.

This was a simple choice: Compel the girl to give birth or let her get an abortion. The fact that she is undocumented doesn't change that reality. As Judge Millett wrote, "Surely the mere act of entry into the United States without documentation does not mean that an immigrant's body is no longer her or his own. Nor can the sanction for unlawful entry be forcing a child to have a baby."

Forcibly commandeering someone's uterus to advance the government's purposes may be standard procedure in China, but not in America. In both places, the issue is not whether any pregnant female should have a baby or get an abortion. It's who should decide.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

NEXT: Attn, London Reasonoids! Nick Gillespie Speaking at Battle of Ideas, 10/28-29

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I wonder about the cognitive dissonance being felt by the subset of people who are both super angry at anchor babies and super pro-life.

    1. It’s simple. Instead of a doctor, they just position a trebuchet’s sling directly beneath the woman’s vagina as the baby is crowning. If it never touches US soil, it doesn’t count!

      It’s a bird! No, it’s a drone! No… It’s SUPERBABY!

      (tagline: “You will believe a 10-second old infant can fly.”)

      1. I am SQRLSY One, and I approve of this message! BWAH-ha-HAAA!!!!

        (Slips into cape and boots, tries to go and fly and assist the trebuchets in their endeavors).

        1. My Whole month’s on-line financ-ial gain is $2287. i’m currently ready to fulfill my dreams simply and reside home with my family additionally. I work just for two hours on a daily basis.
          everybody will use this home profit system by this link……… http://www.webcash20.com

    2. No one is angry at anchor babies. Just as they aren’t angry at the hundreds of thousands of babies born every day around the world who also aren’t American citizens.

      They are angry at the policy that makes for anchor babies, and undermines freedom in America.

      I note that you’re using the usual Progressive tactic of accusing your political opponents of WrongFeelz. “So hateful!”

      1. ‘Anchor babies’ are every bit as American, and have every bit as much right to the benefits of citizenship, as do you or I (assuming you were born in America).

        1. Not compared to me in my american flag pants.

        2. We disagree on the constitutionality of anchor babies.

        3. Well, the babies have legitimate citizenship under current law (of course we can and should change that).

          That doesn’t mean we need to grant visas to their parents.

        4. “‘Anchor babies’ are every bit as American, and have every bit as much right to the benefits of citizenship, as do you or I (assuming you were born in America).”

          No. No they don’t.

      2. If you’re so enthused about America, shouldn’t you want everyone to be an American?
        Manifest Destiny and all that.

        1. I do want everyone to be American, in the sense of supporting the American political culture of liberty.

          But a US government grant of citizenship does not magically imbue a person with that culture. When you import people, you import their political culture with them.

          The forces of Liberty have been increasingly outnumbered already in the US. The last thing any libertarian American should want to do is accelerate that trend by importing to the US more people who do not share a culture our liberty.

          1. You’re wasting your breath on Hazel. It’s like explaining shit to Tony.

      3. I also appreciate that you’re immediate response to anything that confuses or upsets you is to accuse the person of Progressive Tactics. Calling me emotional, and then just deriving arguments that aren’t in my statements in the least.

        Only Telcontar had the will to give a real solution to my comments. You just got pissy and called someone a prog.

        1. I have yet to ascribe any emotions at all to you.
          You have ascribed cognitive dissonance, anger, confusion, upset, and pissiness to others.

          Demonstrating yet again that SJWs Always Project

          Your failure at reading comprehension is noted.

          You started by projecting the anger you feel onto the objects of your anger. I explained how your original comment was based on a false premise about the emotions of *others*.

          You are unable to see your mistake about the emotions you project into others, even when it is explicitly pointed out. Unable to even *see* my refutation of your statement, let alone respond to it, you claim I made no substantive response to your statement. Cognitive dissonance rearing it’s ugly head.

          You ascribe your own upset, confusion, and cognitive dissonance to me, then immediately claim that I called you emotional. So much projection!

          Seek help. SJ is mental illness.

          1. You wrote:

            “I note that you’re using the usual Progressive tactic of accusing your political opponents of WrongFeelz. ‘So hateful!'”

            This sentence clearly implies that either:

            A, you thought that BUCS thinks you’re hateful

            or

            B, you thought that BUCS was trying to imply you’re hateful, while not really believing it, as an ad hominem tactic.

            The former implies immature sentimentality on his part, the latter implies active malice, and *both* count as “ascribing an emotion” to him.

        2. Telcontar Solutions LLC: Offering Real-World Solutions With Unmatched Finality Since 1934

    3. “Don’t kill babies and stop abusing our citizenship laws” How dissonant.

    4. Dissonance in paragraph 2 is because the infinitive “to force” as verb requires no final ess.

    5. Well, most of the people I know in that camp don’t feel much cognitive dissonance about it, because it’s one thing to say “killing babies is bad” and another to say “crossing the border to give birth does not and should not convey citizenship”.

      The ones who would be feeling cognitive dissonance would be any pro-life folks who think she should get to have an abortion.

    6. I don’t have a problem with anchor babies.

      I have a problem with allowing them to be anchors.

      1. Bingo

    7. It’s a question of priorities.

      (And I suppose that *you’re* not super-angry, you’re just passionate for justice, it’s your adversaries who are super-angry)

      To tell a pro-lifer, “ha! you’re inconsistent because if this child were born it would be inconvenient!” you’re simply expecting the prolifer to accept pro-abortion premises, that inconvenient children should be killed.

  2. The evidence is on view in the case of an unaccompanied 17-year-old from Central America who was detained after entering the country illegally in September. On Wednesday morning, after a furious legal battle, she got an abortion. But that outcome came only after weeks of efforts by the administration to prevent her from doing so.

    So the month after an illegal alien minor was detained for her illegal status, she got the abortion she desired.

    Sounds incredibly speedy by government bureaucracy standards, particularly for dealing with a foreign national minor.

    But don’t let that put a damper on your hysterical pants shitting.

    China! Authoritarianism! Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!

    1. I seriously doubt that this decision was made at the cabinet level…

  3. Under what circumstances did she become pregnant? Who paid for her abortion?
    If she was raped by guards or fellow inmates, then fair enough to let her terminate the pregnancy. If she got pregnant from her own activities, then why the hell should the taxpayer be on the hook for her choice to end it? Her body, her bad decisions, my money=her choice?

    1. Read Article. See wasn’t asking taxpayers to pay; just to get out of her way so she could have an abortion. Not your money = not your choice.

      1. Hi Hank Stamper,

        Could you come over here and stamp my hank? It NEEDS stamped pretty badly!

        1. Hi Sqrlsy.

          No. But I appreciate the invite; makes me feel warm and fuzzy to get propositioned on the Internets.

      2. Look man, you don’t have any right to stop my hitman, I’m using my money to pay for it.

        1. I have the right to go out and get a job, earn some money, and use this money to buy some guns and ammo. Then when your hitperson comes by to kill me, I can shoot him or her (do NOT be sexist here!) to disable or kill, in self-defense.

          Similarly, the involved blastocyst or embroyo at hand here had the right to go earn some money and become empowered to practice self-defense. But no, the blastocycst here was a deadbeat, and wouldn’t even get off of his or her blobby, blastocysty butt to get a haircut to look decent for a job interview, even, let alone actually GOING to a job interview! Deadbeats get very-very little sympathy from me…

          1. Likewise, I have the right to grab you and in-prison you in my house. Then when you wake up chained to my radiator, I have the right to complain about you being on my property and shoot you in the head as a tresspasser. Why didn’t you go get a job and pay your way? All you had to do was cut off your own hand and start earning money until you died bleeding out.

            1. “Likewise, I have the right to grab you and in-prison you in my house.”

              Whoa, WHERE did this right come from? Did the voices in your head grant them to you?

              You might want to get back on your meds…

      3. Correct. Her individual right is a moral claim to freedom of action. The prohibitionists demand is a superstitious excuse for violating that right by initiation of force. Prohibitionists have a penchant for inventing imaginary friends who tell them to point guns at people.

        1. Human rights are a superstition?

          1. How is preventing murder an initiation of force?

            1. I hope you posted in the wrong place as that just does not make any sense with regards to my comment.

              1. My response was to Hank. I think you and I are in agreement.

      4. It still doesn’t say who actually paid.

        1. The fact it doesn’t mention who paid means that the answer is probably worse than we suspect.

          1. Means Eidde had to pay for it.

          2. This account says private funds paid for it.

            https://tinyurl.com/yd7k72cz

  4. Silly Chapman. Must be a slow news day to hash together such a tenuous connection to ‘trump!’. Trump is the fourth word in the article, but yet no policy, action, decree, EO, or anything to specifically point fingers at. Just a pointless story about another day in the Federal bureaucracy. It’s highly doubtful this is a new policy or action from the “Trump administration”, but rather just a paperwork/policy holdover from decades ago. Grow up.

    1. I think I saw an article without gratuitous Trump hating the other day here at Reason.

      I noted my shock, and asked how it got past the Reason’s editorial policy of “All Trump Hatred, All the Time”.

  5. First, the Supreme court copied the 1972 LP abortion plank into Roe v. Wade because the Roger McBride electoral vote could not be ignored, and the 14th Amendment saying “All persons born…”. The privacy lie was a smokescreen to keep voters from noticing the Republican court was stopping God’s Own Prohibitionists from committing political suicide when world population was less than 4 billion. Before that plank became law, neither looter party had a choice plank. But once the cat was out of the bag, Canadian jurisprudence underwent a transformation that ended government power to force women to reproduce by pointing guns at physicians. The Canadian position is today mirrored in the 2016 LP plank stating that the Political State should point no guns thither. Pregnant girls fleeing papal satrapies should head for Canada–at least until the LP has replaced the GOP.

    1. Meanwhile, ready access to abortion is being hindered by state laws involving near-endless Government-Almighty-mandated rituals, such as the pre-abortion ladies having to get ceremonialy raped by the “shaming wand”.

      Scienfoology has a religious-freedom-based way to escape such mandated rituals! For details, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/sonograms/ ?

    2. By the time abortion comes into play, reproduction has already occurred, and what is being contemplated is the premeditated killing of a human organism. The reasons why this is allowed under law is pure utilitarian rationalization as to why the unborn child is essentially considered property rather than a rights bearing entity as all other living, complete human organisms arw.

      1. Yes. And the teen is now an accessory to murder.

        1. By that logic, any woman that has a miscarriage is guilty of manslaughter.

          1. Manslaughter requires intentional behavior that is likely to kill someone. If you intentionally do something that you know is likely to result in miscarriage, then yeah that is manslaughter. A medical problem due to the vagaries of nature? Not so much.

          2. No not at all. People die as the result of surgery all the time without being subject to manslaughter. that’s the proper analogy but whatever killing babies obviously is super important to you.

          3. One wonders what I would be charged with if I walked up to a pregnant woman and punched her in the stomach while pregnant.

            One also wonders if it would make any difference if she didn’t want the baby.

            I suspect I would be tried for manslaughter or murder, and I equally suspect that her preference on wanting or not wanting the baby wouldn’t make a difference.

            But, as I say, I’m unclear on the law since it’s no longer based on reason or logic in this area.

            I do know if you immediately take the baby to the dumpster after it’s birth it’s super illegal though, even if it was born premature and wouldn’t have survived.

            1. A fetus is not a person. A 12 week old fetus (90% of abortions by 12 weeks) has the EEG of a sea slug. A 20 week fetus is about 7 inches long has similar cognition to a frog. Full term is 37 weeks. If you have a religion around Human DNA you could call a fetus a person, but if don’t have a religion around that it’s not.

            2. One wonders what I would be charged with if I walked up to a pregnant woman and punched her in the stomach while pregnant.

              Depends on jurisdiction. Some treat killing a pregnant woman as a double homicide, some treat it as a homicide with a “rider” charge, and so-on. There is no consistent standard across the US.

              One also wonders if it would make any difference if she didn’t want the baby.

              I can’t think of any jurisdiction where that matters. If you belly-stab a woman who’s on the way to an abortion clinic you get the same charges as if she was on the way to maternity classes.

  6. continuing her pregnancy presented much greater risks to her health than ending it.

    Isn’t that always the case? It’s a wonder any woman ever chooses to have a child.

    1. And don’t forget about the potential for matricide!

    2. False

      1. True.

        http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/
        why-abortion-is-less-risky-than-childbirth/

  7. “This was a simple choice: Compel the girl to give birth or let her get an abortion.”

    Rape victims who become pregnant may be “compelled” to give birth by the criminals who rape them. Women giving birth by natural processes to which they gave consent is not “compulsion”. You might even look at it like a judge enforcing a contract. No, the state isn’t compelling you to honor the terms of a contract–you willingly signed that contract. You can you really be “compelled” to do something you legally and willfully agreed to do?

    Whichever side you’re on in the abortion debate, you’re doing your side and libertarianism a favor by approaching these things with honesty.

    FWIW, having an abortion is a criminal offense in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Women outside of Mexico City are criminally prosecuted for having an abortion, as well.

    We’ve already seen Shikha Dalmia write an article about how deportation is like enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.

    https://reason.com/blog/2017/03…..rtation-is

    Are you going to argue that deporting pregnant women to Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua is compelling them to give birth, too?

    1. Dalmia is just embarrassing. Allowing her to write for Reason is no different than hiring some alt-right white nationalist jackass to write for Reason. The only reason Dalmia gets a pass and an alt right jackass would not is because Reason never sees fault in its writers going too far to the left.

      1. I always link to it because if I just described what she wrote, it’s so outlandish, I doubt people will believe me.

      2. Shikha, when the walls fell.

    2. I don’t know about you but I find the language used in these debates to be incredibly dishonest. It’s the main reason I find these debates so off-putting.

      Also, I wonder if our teenager in question is from one of those countries, and the nature of her “abuse” might in fact be that her getting an abortion would be illegal. Who knows? *shrug*

    3. “Women giving birth by natural processes to which they gave consent is not “compulsion”. You might even look at it like a judge enforcing a contract.”

      For many-many women (excluding hookers) there is an implied contract that the man that they have sex with, will honor here by being reasonably faithful, loving, kind, considerate?

      “Love ya, Babe, Love-ya-Love-ya, LOVE ya. NOW can I get in yer pants?”

      Dude get in her pants… Gets her pregnant. As soon as she is pregnant, the abuse begins! And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends! Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men, is what it is. I for one do not want to take the side of scumbucket men, against women, in this case, when it means that that many more genes and social influences of scumbucket men will be passed on, against the wishes of women who “learned better”, but too late… And yes, some women practice “entrapment” on the other side, as well; the abuse is a 2-way street?

      Anyway, w/regards to the sexes abusing each other, I have “been to the mountain top” to see the Guru in the cave, and have learned MUCH wisdom, which I will now pass on to you? Hooray!

      1. Q: What is the difference between a woman who just can NOT find a man who treats her well, and so, she is constantly shuttling between abusive men? And a man who abuses women, by, for example yanking on the gazongas too hard?

        A: The first is a “jerks juggler”, and the second is a “jugs jerker”!

        Can you say,
        “Jerks-jugglers juggle jugs-jerking jerks”?

      2. It really is not a “veto power against scumbucket men”. Consider the situation you describe. By creating and advocating for situations where sex is easy for scumbucket men to get, and has zero consequences for them, you actually are encouraging / incentivizing them.

        1. I would think that such men are either indifferent to the members of their harems getting pregnant or would prefer that they did not. I am not sure how remaining part of a harem but getting an abortion is empiwering to the woman.

          1. One (in a free nation) can FLEE the harem, after the deception becomes apparent, AND get an abortion! Many-many men do NOT want to pick up a ready-made family; they want to start their own, with their own genes! It is deeply buried into our biology, this is… Otherwise, the scumbucket men will pass on their genes, and the decent men will raise all of the babies… Not their own genetic babies. So, to whatever basis human behavior is genetically based, the scumbucket genes will prevail, and the good-responsible-fathering-genes will go extinct. We will become like horses and elephant seals and others, capable of fighting all day to gather our harems and father offspring, but no longer able to be responsible fathers. This is what is at stake, here…

            Post-abortion fled-the-harem deceived woman is now free to find a better father, free of the ready-made family, that many-many men (for good reason) do not want. It is that simple.

        2. Mickey, the point is that abortion does absolutely nothing to help this situation as SQRLSY put it, but it does mean that there are no consequences for scumbag men. Creating a zero consequence situation for such men will encourage them, and make more of them.

          Teaching girls to not have sex with scumbags and how to identify them, however, does have an effect. Teaching girls not to have sex with a man unless they fully know his character helps. I don’t know how that is missed on you.

          The only real “veto power” women have against “scumbucket men” is to veto these men’s sexual access to them.

          1. Yes, I agree with that.

      3. “For many-many women (excluding hookers) there is an implied contract that the man that they have sex with, will honor here by being reasonably faithful, loving, kind, considerate?”

        You go off on a tangent after that, but you were getting to something important.

        If a man willingly engages in sexual relations with a woman and she gets pregnant, then he willingly took on the ethical and legal obligation to care for that child.

        Men can’t deny their legal obligation to pay for the care of a child–simply because they didn’t want the pregnancy. They willingly took on that risk.

        It isn’t really that different for women.

        Rape victims shouldn’t be held legally responsible for obligations they never willingly accepted, but if they, like men, decided to engage in sexual relations of their own free will, then they willingly accepted the ethical obligation to care for that child–just like men do at conception.

        The question of whether they should be legally compelled to carry that child to term is separate question.

        1. Legally it is different for women. So either the father gets a say in the birth of the child or he’s not responsible for it. You can’t have it both ways (and be logically consistent).

          1. I wonder what would happen if it was proposed that, for nine months after the man was informed of the pregnancy, he could, under the law, opt-out of having any financial obligation for the child.
            Wouldn’t that equalize the ability of the woman to opt-out of carrying the child to term, ignoring the moral questions about killing an unborn human.

      4. “Abortion is “veto power” against scumbucket men”

        So, killing the children for the sins of their fathers?

        “Don’t want to die like a thug, don’t have a father who’s a thug!”

        1. They are not yet “children”, they are variously fertilized egg cells, blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, fetuses?

          To get one’s panties in a wad over the “rights” of the earliest stages is just like the below analogy?

          Yes, technically, killing a fartilized human egg smell is “killing a human life”? Maybe ditto for killing eggs and sperms!
          Well, technically, you pilfering a god-damned ACORN off of my property, is theft, just like cutting down a mature oak, in the middle of the night, for thousands, even tens of thousands, of dollars’ worth of oak wood! Yes, these kinds of thefts are very real, for owners of mature hardwood trees!

          Are we going to punish the theft of an acorn, the same as the theft of a mature tree? And punish the murder of a born baby or adult, the same as snuffing an unwanted blastocyst? WHERE has good judgment gone!?!?!

          1. Step one: dehumanizes the victims
            Step two: legal genocide

            1. Step one: Dehumanize the victims, yes (they are not women deceived by scumbucket men, they are baby factories).
              Step two: Enslave the baby factories to serve the self-righteous people’s dictates… People who are NOT going to be responsible for carrying the baby to term, or bear the associated medical risks.

              BUTT OUT!!! It’s not your business!

              1. Can you explain exactly how the person who contracts for the abortion, who goes and elects to have an abortion is the victim of the procedure they chose?

                And why the endless focus on ‘scumbucket men’? There are two people involved in the creation of a fetus–men don’t make women pregnant, they do it together.

          2. By your analogy, killing a newborn would not be much of a crime, while doing a Doctor Kevorkian, and ending the life of a person, whose life-force has run to its full extent, would be magnitudes worse.
            When we base punishment on the value of inanimate objects, whether for being stolen, damaged or destroyed, it is because that value can be measured, objectively.
            Civilized people don’t use the same type of measurement for the value of human life.
            An acorn, if planted and growing, is still an oak tree but the value of its parts can be objectively quantified. The same cannot be measured for a human, especially at the very beginning of it’s, scientifically established, life.
            No one is advocating, that the monthly ejection of a woman’s unfertilized egg, or the result of a man “spilling his seed upon the ground” be criminal, or even the spontaneous loss of a newly formed human, be illegal but when it is done intentionally to destroy that life, it should be treated as when it is done at any other stage.

            1. Not using logic (saying acorn = tree) is religion not science, nor even common sense. It’s not any sort of “civilized” unless you are a theocrat.

      5. What a fool!
        Abortion is the holy grail of the women, who want to be able to let any man get into her pants and then be able to escape the natural consequence of the action, like the men do.
        It comes from a jealousy of men, not having to worry about becoming pregnant, while being the male version of a slut.
        Sluts gotta slut, they’ve just managed to get the court to unconstitutionally legalize their willingness to murder the predictable outcome of their sluttery.

        1. Yes, you’ve exposed the reasons for the pro-birth agenda. They all want to punish the sluts. No sex without results.

      6. “For many-many women (excluding hookers) there is an implied contract that the man that they have sex with, will honor here by being reasonably faithful, loving, kind, considerate. And THEN she finds out that he has 5 other girlfriends!”

        We addressed that issue long ago by creating a public declaration and registry for these contracts, called marriage. If your don’t use it, don’t complain that others are unwilling to support your implied contracts.

    4. “You might even look at it like a judge enforcing a contract. No, the state isn’t compelling you to honor the terms of a contract–you willingly signed that contract. You can you really be “compelled” to do something you legally and willfully agreed to do?”

      Well on the contract question (sidestepping the application to the analogy completely here), I’d say yes. Or actually no, I guess, in practice. But the point is that breach of contract is a civil violation. The injured party suffers damages and can sue for them, but can’t necessarily just compel you to honor the contract as some kind of temporary slavery.

    5. Women giving birth by natural processes to which they gave consent is not “compulsion”.

      It is when the “natural process” is the government criminalizing the natural process of a woman using her mind, making a choice, deciding not to carry a fertilized egg to term, and getting an abortion.

      Your premise is generally incorrect. Consenting to sex does not entail consent to bringing any resulting fertilized egg to term.

      1. Brace thing to say for one already born.

        1. *brave

      2. “Convention to sex does not entail consent to bringing any resulting fertilized egg to term.”

        It should.

  8. Unless she was raped, no one forced her to have a child. She made a choice and now wants the government to pay for killing someone so that she can avoid the consequences of her choice. As Mickey Rat points out above, the rationale for saying life does not begin and rights do not attain until the magic trip down the birth canal is entirely utilitarian. In no other area do Libertarians buy into utilitarian justifications. Abortion is the lone example. The same people who claim that the government has no right to take the life of a convicted murderer turn right around and say an unborn child gets absolutely no benefit of the doubt and is deemed a unperson with no rights whatsoever because doing so is convenient and makes sense as a utilitarian measure.

    1. She doesn’t want the government to pay, you lying sack of shit.

      You, on the other hand, have the government paying for your whole lifestyle.

      1. She is in government custody. The government most certainly will pay for it. Meanwhile, come back when you have a rational response. There is really nothing to say to you.

        1. Glad to see illiteracy is no bar to working for the feds.

  9. The justifications used for saying an unborn child isn’t really a person apply equally well to saying people who are disabled or otherwise a burden on society or unable to live on their own are not people. Libertarianism is supposed to be built on the idea of the absolute sanctity of the individual. That is totally counter to the declaring individuals to be less than human. Yet, that is exactly what pro-choice Libertarians do. Why is an unborn child not a person? Because it can’t live on its own? Because it can’t speak? Because it is a burden on the woman who carries it? Even if the issue is in doubt, why does the doubt not go towards life and rights instead of death and no rights? Can the pro-choice Libertarian honestly say that they are 100% convinced an unborn child is not a person such that no reasonable argument can be made saying it isn’t? And if you are not, in what other context does any Libertarian say that it is okay to murder someone without justification beyond reasonable doubt?

    1. The same pro-choice libertarians would argue that even beyond reasonable doubt is insufficient to kill someone. That’s the problem with simply dismissing a fetus as a non-human. There’s really no good reason that such an arbitrary criterion can’t be used post-birth, especially in the case of individuals demonstrating their sociopathy. And if we want to bring up wrongful convictions, well, there’s really no arguing that a fetus has committed any crime.

    2. […] in what other context does any Libertarian say that it is okay to murder someone without justification beyond reasonable doubt?

      I believe “I was scared” is now acceptable.

      1. Especially if you are an irresponsible cop!

    3. “The justifications used for saying an unborn child isn’t really a person apply equally well to saying people who are disabled or otherwise a burden on society or unable to live on their own are not people.”

      Really? Let’s try that: “Fetuses in the first trimester have never experienced any form of consciousness.”

      How does that apply to the disabled or people who are a burden on society?

    4. There is no difference between relegating lack-of-personhood to an unborn human than there was to doing the same to those held as slaves.
      When Thomas Jefferson wrote that “all men are created equal”, he could not have believed that those he held in bondage were “men”.

      1. Slaves do not have the cognitive abilities of sea-slugs.

  10. The take home message is that it took less time for the Feds to allow an undocumented minor to have an abortion than it is taking to have her deported.

    At any point she could have probably volunteered for deportation and gotten a quick abortion.

    Oh, wait. Mexico has much stricter limits on abortion than we do.

    1. She absolutely could have left the facility and gone back home at any point. She was only there because she was considered a risk not to show up at her immigration hearing and refused to leave the country. Reason never mentions this fact and makes it seem like the feds are going down to Guatemala and randomly locking people in prison.

      1. There is also the conflation of this with the Chinese population control policies which theoretically apply acrosd the whole of their population, rather than someone who is living in a federal facility.

        This ruling is consistent with the court’s insistence that abortion is the only truly unrestricted right.

        1. I also see kind of an important difference between a forced abortion and prevention of a desired one. Maybe that’s old-fashioned though. Also the restrictions on the freedom of a 17 year-old versus on adults.

      2. Why don’t you just up and go to Mexico John.

        Is anyone in your party even capable of basic empathy?

  11. What about the obligation to protect the unborn American citizen in federal custody?

    1. Only if it takes a knee at the national anthem.

  12. Maybe I missed it in the article, but who paid for the abortion exactly?

    1. The only thing clearly stated on that is “not the government”.

      Because they’re keeping the girl anonymous, many details are left out.

      1. Hmm…I’m not so sure. Both of the below things are a problem for me, so as far as I can tell there is no ‘good guy’ here.

        The government refused to let her leave the shelter to get an abortion?though it offered to let her leave for medical treatment if she agreed to give birth. At each stage, it found ways to block her access.

        So government would pay for the birth?

        The girl was not asking the government to pay for the operation, provide a doctor, or transport her to the clinic. The only thing her lawyers asked of the government was “to stop blocking the door.”

        I presume the government did not pay since, as far as I’m aware, government funds are still prohibited from being used to pay for abortions but with the way they treat Planned Parenthood I’m not so sure about that.

        Either way it’s a cost that shouldn’t be carried by the taxpayer. It’s pathetic that it took less time to get her an abortion that it did to deport her. I suspect she was fighting deportation on the basis of ‘abuse’ back home, which likely delayed the process leading to this result.

        The Justice Department said that because she is a minor and here illegally, it is entitled to impose its own preferences on her. If she wanted to have an abortion, it said, she had the option of returning to her home country?though she said that doing so would expose her to more abuse.

        Yep, no good guys.

  13. “Forced childbirth…”

    Now that is some fine Orwellian doublespeak right there!

    1. You want to outlaw abortion, you endorse the government forcing women to give birth against their will. Nothing Orwellian about it, just factual.

      1. Laws against murder are “the government forcing someone not to kill someone else”.
        Now that’s something Orwell could wrap his analogies around.
        The government forces me to not kill people whom I think are very deserving of it.
        How is forcing people not to kill someone else different?

        My favorite bumper-sticker: SOME PEOPLE ARE ALIVE, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL TO KILL THEM

        1. When cops arrest a woman for “attempted miscarriage” (the evidence of which is that she fell down the stairs while pregnant) and then hold her in custody, restrained to a bed at most times, until she gives birth, it’s pretty hard to see that as anything other then “forced birth”.

          It’s also the repeated consequence of anti-abortion laws.

  14. The administration doesn’t “force women to give birth”. It’s the natural outcome of getting pregnant, its like saying someone forced you to digest the cookie you chose to eat.

    It’s pretty clear that reason left Reason a long time ago.

  15. “the Supreme Court…has ruled that even undocumented immigrants enjoy constitutional protection, including “due process of law.””

    So illegal immigrants have the right to due process of law before being deprived of life, but apparently unborn human beings don’t have that right.

  16. “Forcibly commandeering someone’s uterus to advance the government’s purposes may be standard procedure in China, but not in America.”

    Is this why they gave the article to Chapman, not ENB? Because Chapman can be relied on to be even crazier?

    There’s no indication in this screed that this is some problem pregnancy, despite the hyperventilation of danger to health. There’s no indication why it would be uniquely tortuous to say that if she wants to terminate her pregnancy in the U. S. (where she isn’t entitled to be in any case), she should terminate it in the usual way – by giving birth to the baby.

  17. This was a simple choice: Compel the girl to give birth or let her get an abortion. The fact that she is undocumented doesn’t change that reality. As Judge Millett wrote, “Surely the mere act of entry into the United States without documentation does not mean that an immigrant’s body is no longer her or his own. Nor can the sanction for unlawful entry be forcing a child to have a baby.”

    Well, being a criminal in custody kinds of shows that the body is no longer her own – – – – – –
    If her body were truly her own, she could leave at any time.
    And some stories say she came here specifically to get an abortion; this one say she ‘discovered her pregnancy’. Kind of a significant distinction I would think.
    Either way, the correct process is a speedy fair trial and deportation. Baby is not our problem.

    1. The “judge” using the verbiage of the progs – entering without documentation – instead of the term of the law – becoming an illegal alien – shows her proggie bias.
      Yes, a quick deportation would have been the order of the day – let her deal with it in the country of her citizenship.
      Funny how quickly this decision to let her murder her child was made, when it seems the decision and act to deport her would have taken too long.
      It was, also, a bastardization of the law to allow her access to the refugee process, when there was no evidence that her return would have had an individualized, government initiated threat to her existence.
      You aren’t a “refugee”, nor can you request asylum, if you are just claiming that life sucks, back where you came from.

  18. Yeah, just suck the baby out with a vacuum cleaner and throw her in the trash because to do otherwise would be imposing your will on a female with violence.

  19. Steve Chapman supports women murdering their own children.
    If that’s what American values are right now, then we deserve to be nuked.

  20. It’s so fascinating how what obviously originated as a desire to control female’s lives and reproductive choices has morphed into an actual, genuine belief that a fetus is a person with rights. Not a single human on earth 200 years ago would have taken that claim seriously. That is some good fucking propaganda work right there.

    1. As usual, you are talking through your arse.
      You cannot, possibly know what no single person on the Earth would have taken seriously at any time in history.
      In fact, I’ll wager there were a great many people, who thought that the efforts to terminate pregnancies was ending the baby’s right to a life.

  21. Uh, slight mistake here. The gubmint isn’t “making” her give birth. I’ll give all you pro-abortion folks a little lesson on the birds and the bees. Getting pregnant by engaging in sexual intercourse forces one to give birth. She has no right to get that pregnancy terminated on my dime. Being pro life and against anchor babies are not mutually exclusive positions to take.

    1. An abortion is not on your dime. There’s this thing call the Hyde Amendment. What’s on your dime is the result of the unwanted birth when it goes on welfare.

  22. Words have meaning.
    Childbirth is what happens in the absence of an applied force called abortion.
    Not PROVIDING a service called abortion does not force anything.
    No matter what your viewpoint at least be honest in your words

    1. Proggies can’t be honest.
      If they were, there’s a good chance they would be killed off, or just expelled to somewhere that would be more to their stated liking – Cuba comes to mind.

  23. And here I thought it was her body that was compelling her to give birth…

  24. Why do we have all these social conservative theocrats on a libertarian site?

    1. They’d get flamed even worse on proggy sites?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.