SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
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."
Oct 25, 2017
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, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. 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. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
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:
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy