A global abortion destination?

Do illegal immigrants detained at the U.S. border have constitutional rights? And if so, is the government required to facilitate their legal right to an abortion?

The answers to those questions remain unclear after a lawsuit that ended last week in the court-sanctioned abortion of an undocumented, unaccompanied minor’s unborn baby.

“Jane Doe,” the pseudonym for the 17-year-old girl caught entering the country illegally from Mexico, allegedly requested an abortion after U.S. government workers told her she was pregnant. When they refused to transport Doe to an abortion center on the taxpayer’s dime, she filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Her court-appointed guardian, Rochelle Garza, claimed in an application for a temporary restraining order that the government was “holding her hostage.”

But long-standing precedents stood between Doe and what her advocates argued was her constitutional right to an abortion.

In addition to the Texas law requiring parental consent for a minor’s abortion, which Garza said Doe bypassed with judicial authorization, pro-life experts say the federal government has a policy of promoting childbirth over abortion and that immigrants detained at the border don’t automatically have constitutional rights.

“You have a lot of cases where the courts said, yes, there’s a constitutional right to abortion, but that doesn’t mean the government has to promote it,” Family Research Council attorney Travis Weber told me. “That doesn’t mean the government can’t promote childbirth. It doesn’t mean the government has to fund [abortion] and advocate for it.”

Weber cited the 1977 Supreme Court case Beal v. Doe, in which the court ruled that “the state has a strong interest in encouraging normal childbirth.” Other rulings, such as Maher v. Roe, Harris v. McRae, and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, have since upheld that ruling.

U.S. Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Eric Hargan, named as a defendant in the ACLU’s lawsuit, said in legal filings his department in no way violated Doe’s constitutional rights: “The government has not imposed any undue burden, but instead has exercised a legitimate choice to refuse to facilitate an abortion.”

A volley of court decisions terminated with last week’s ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordering the government to take Doe to the abortion center or allow someone else to do so. Doe, then about 16 weeks pregnant, had an abortion two days later.

The D.C. Circuit previously ruled Doe had a constitutional right to an abortion, something Weber disputes based on existing immigration law. As a detainee, Doe doesn’t share the same constitutional rights as a U.S. citizen or even illegal immigrants, he noted.

“In that context, it’s not clear that there’s an abortion right,” Weber said. “No court’s held this. The D.C. Circuit sort of skipped that analysis.”

It’s also not clear what precedents this case might set for future government involvement in providing abortions for immigrants detained at the border, but pro-life advocates anticipate the worst.

Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, called the case an “attempt to create a Roe v. Wade 2.0.”

“It’s the worst form of patriarchy to tell a young woman that without an abortion, she can’t accomplish great things, and we hope the Trump administration will continue to fight to protect the lives of all on U.S. soil,” Hawkins said. “The United States should not become the abortion capital of the world.”

Concerned Women for America CEO Penny Nance told me she was “heartbroken” by the case’s outcome and called it a “sad day in our nation’s history,” adding that it sends the message to the rest of the world that the United States will readily provide free abortions to pregnant minors outside our borders.

“The United States is a place of life and goodness and freedom,” Nance said. “We do not want to become a global abortion destination.”

Abortion laws halted in Iowa, Alabama

The Iowa Supreme Court temporarily blocked the state’s three-day waiting period requirement for abortions in response to a lawsuit by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. Iowa District Judge Jeffrey Farrell upheld the law earlier this month, saying it does not overly burden women seeking an abortion. The law requires abortionists to offer an ultrasound to women seeking abortion and give them information about the procedure’s risks.

In Alabama, a U.S. district judge struck down two state pro-life laws last week: one banned abortion centers from operating fewer than 2,000 feet from an elementary school and the other banned dismemberment abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama filed suit against the laws after Republican Gov. Robert Bentley signed them last year. —S.G.

Missouri abortion law clears first legal hurdle

A county judge ruled last week that a new Missouri law does not place an “undue burden” on women who want an abortion, striking down a legal challenge by Planned Parenthood. The law adds a provision to the state’s 72-hour waiting period, requiring abortionists to be the one to counsel women about the procedure’s risks and obtain informed consent. Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri filed suit against the new requirement earlier this month. —S.G.

Scotland legalizes at-home chemical abortion

Women in Scotland now can take the labor-inducing abortion drug misoprostol at home, under a new rule approved by the Scottish government. The misoprostol dose follows the initial drug mifepristone, which abortionists use to cut off the pregnancy-sustaining hormone progesterone. In the United States, abortionists have sent women home with a dose of misoprostol ever since the Food and Drug Administration changed its regulations early last year. But Scotland is the first nation in the United Kingdom to allow it. —S.G.

Canadian pediatricians recommend euthanasia for children

The Canadian Paediatric Society claims nearly half its doctors are in favor of legalizing euthanasia for children who have “progressive or terminal illness or intractable pain.” The group’s latest report outlines the number of minors and their parents who have requested euthanasia in the last year. The figures include several dozen parents of children under 1 year old. The government is slated to review whether or not to extend its new Medical Aid in Dying law to minors by December 2018. —S.G.