A full bench appeals court in D.C. on Tuesday ruled that the Trump administration may not prevent an undocumented teenager in federal custody from seeking an abortion. (Photo: Jordan Uhl/flickr/cc)
#JusticeforJane Step Closer as Full Appeals Court Affirms Teen's Body Is "Her Own"
"The court of appeals recognized what we knew all along: This was an egregious overreach, & abortion access is a human right."
Reproductive rights advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief on Tuesday when a full federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned a decision by a three-judge panel and ruled that Trump administration officials may not prevent a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody from aborting her pregnancy.
The recent series of court battles over attempts by Jane Doe, as the teenager is being called, to get an abortion while being held at a "government-funded shelter in Texas" brought to light a broader policy by the Trump administration's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that effectively bans the procedure for minors in federal custody.
Last Friday, a three-judge panel had denied demands from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--which is representing Jane Doe--to uphold a lower court's ruling to require the government to allow the abortion, and gave officials until Oct. 31 to find a sponsor for the 17-year-old, such as a family member living in the country, so Jane could have the procedure after leaving the shelter.
The ACLU appealed that 2-1 decision, and on Sunday requested input from a full bench appeals court, which ruled Tuesday that the district court should update its timeline from the initial ruling in favor of Jane and the ACLU, as the dates have since passed.
Those who have advocated for the teenager celebrated the latest decision, with many praising the concurring opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett, who wrote: "today's decision rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government."
In her detailed rebuke of the federal government's arguments, Millett also wrote, "the government bulldozed over constitutional lines" when it argued Jane Doe "has the burden of extracting herself from custody if she wants to exercise the right to an abortion that the government does not dispute she has."
"The court today correctly recognizes that J.D.'s unchallenged right under the Due Process Clause," Millett concluded, "affords this 17-year-old a modicum of the dignity, sense of self-worth, and control over her own destiny that life seems to have so far denied her."
Several advocates and rights groups--including Jane's ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri--praised the ruling on Twitter, often using the hashtag #JusticeForJane:
NARAL president Ilyse Hogue celebrated the decision while also warning of the Trump administration's broader efforts to curb women's healthcare rights and calling for further action to ensure undocumented people in the United States have unfettered access to reproductive care:
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Reproductive rights advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief on Tuesday when a full federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned a decision by a three-judge panel and ruled that Trump administration officials may not prevent a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody from aborting her pregnancy.
The recent series of court battles over attempts by Jane Doe, as the teenager is being called, to get an abortion while being held at a "government-funded shelter in Texas" brought to light a broader policy by the Trump administration's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that effectively bans the procedure for minors in federal custody.
Last Friday, a three-judge panel had denied demands from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--which is representing Jane Doe--to uphold a lower court's ruling to require the government to allow the abortion, and gave officials until Oct. 31 to find a sponsor for the 17-year-old, such as a family member living in the country, so Jane could have the procedure after leaving the shelter.
The ACLU appealed that 2-1 decision, and on Sunday requested input from a full bench appeals court, which ruled Tuesday that the district court should update its timeline from the initial ruling in favor of Jane and the ACLU, as the dates have since passed.
Those who have advocated for the teenager celebrated the latest decision, with many praising the concurring opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett, who wrote: "today's decision rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government."
In her detailed rebuke of the federal government's arguments, Millett also wrote, "the government bulldozed over constitutional lines" when it argued Jane Doe "has the burden of extracting herself from custody if she wants to exercise the right to an abortion that the government does not dispute she has."
"The court today correctly recognizes that J.D.'s unchallenged right under the Due Process Clause," Millett concluded, "affords this 17-year-old a modicum of the dignity, sense of self-worth, and control over her own destiny that life seems to have so far denied her."
Several advocates and rights groups--including Jane's ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri--praised the ruling on Twitter, often using the hashtag #JusticeForJane:
NARAL president Ilyse Hogue celebrated the decision while also warning of the Trump administration's broader efforts to curb women's healthcare rights and calling for further action to ensure undocumented people in the United States have unfettered access to reproductive care:
Reproductive rights advocates breathed a collective sigh of relief on Tuesday when a full federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. overturned a decision by a three-judge panel and ruled that Trump administration officials may not prevent a 17-year-old undocumented immigrant in federal custody from aborting her pregnancy.
The recent series of court battles over attempts by Jane Doe, as the teenager is being called, to get an abortion while being held at a "government-funded shelter in Texas" brought to light a broader policy by the Trump administration's Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) that effectively bans the procedure for minors in federal custody.
Last Friday, a three-judge panel had denied demands from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)--which is representing Jane Doe--to uphold a lower court's ruling to require the government to allow the abortion, and gave officials until Oct. 31 to find a sponsor for the 17-year-old, such as a family member living in the country, so Jane could have the procedure after leaving the shelter.
The ACLU appealed that 2-1 decision, and on Sunday requested input from a full bench appeals court, which ruled Tuesday that the district court should update its timeline from the initial ruling in favor of Jane and the ACLU, as the dates have since passed.
Those who have advocated for the teenager celebrated the latest decision, with many praising the concurring opinion penned by Judge Patricia Millett, who wrote: "today's decision rights a grave constitutional wrong by the government."
In her detailed rebuke of the federal government's arguments, Millett also wrote, "the government bulldozed over constitutional lines" when it argued Jane Doe "has the burden of extracting herself from custody if she wants to exercise the right to an abortion that the government does not dispute she has."
"The court today correctly recognizes that J.D.'s unchallenged right under the Due Process Clause," Millett concluded, "affords this 17-year-old a modicum of the dignity, sense of self-worth, and control over her own destiny that life seems to have so far denied her."
Several advocates and rights groups--including Jane's ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri--praised the ruling on Twitter, often using the hashtag #JusticeForJane:
NARAL president Ilyse Hogue celebrated the decision while also warning of the Trump administration's broader efforts to curb women's healthcare rights and calling for further action to ensure undocumented people in the United States have unfettered access to reproductive care: