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
"In just the first six months of 2017, state legislators in six states introduced measures to ban all abortions, and legislators in 28 states introduced measures to ban abortions under some circumstances, all of them supported by the Trump administration." (Photo: Debra Sweet/flickr/cc)
Jane Doe's Ordeal Illustrates the Trump Administration's Threat to All Women's Reproductive Rights
"Trump has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe, and earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirement."
Oct 27, 2017
Last night was the first night in a month that I was able to fall asleep without worrying about whether Jane Doe would get the medical care she needs. Jane, a 17-year-old unaccompanied immigrant minor, received her abortion yesterday after being held hostage by our federal government for over a month. But while the legal drama and Jane's plight captured the country's attention, her battle is part an overall war being waged by the Trump Administration against reproductive rights and immigrants' rights.
Jane crossed the U.S. border on her own in September. She was detained and placed in a government-funded shelter where she discovered she was pregnant. She immediately asked for an abortion. But what federal officials did next is straight out of dystopian fiction.
Under their new Trump-era policy, which drastically restricts abortion access for minors in their custody, they ordered the shelter to block Jane from accessing an abortion. Government officials then forced her to visit a "Crisis Pregnancy Center," a religiously-affiliated counseling center that is not staffed by healthcare professionals, to try to coerce her to carry her pregnancy to term. As Jane herself said, "People I don't even know are trying to make me change my mind."
Jane was resolute in her decision to have an abortion, and she bravely decided to challenge the government's unlawful and inhumane actions. It might be easy to dismiss Jane's case as unique. But make no mistake: The Trump Administration would do to all of us what it has done to Jane if it could.
Anti-abortion politicians always start by targeting the most marginalized. Shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, a member of Congress, Henry Hyde, introduced a law that banned Medicaid from covering abortion. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman," he said at the time. "Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill."
To this day, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds to cover abortion for those who have Medicaid for their health insurance, forcing one in four poor women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can't raise the money to pay for an abortion. Though separated by time, the Trump administration's actions mirror those of Hyde. They aim to put an end to abortion, and they target low-income and marginalized people in our society.
Trump has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe, and earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage requirement. There is no doubt that more attacks are coming.
In just the first six months of 2017, state legislators in six states introduced measures to ban all abortions, and legislators in 28 states introduced measures to ban abortions under some circumstances, all of them supported by the Trump administration.
If you were outraged by what our government did to Jane, you should know that there are so many more Janes out there. Not just unaccompanied immigrant minors, who are in a similar situation to Jane, but everyone in this country who is unable to access the care that they need because of the sham laws put in place by ideological politicians. As we did for Jane, let's stand together and say: If you want to come for any of these Janes, you have to go through us first.
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 |
© 2023 ACLU
Brigitte Amiri
Brigitte Amiri is a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. Brigitte is currently litigating multiple cases, including a challenge to South Dakota's law that requires women seeking abortion to first visit a crisis pregnancy center before obtaining an abortion, a restriction on Medicaid funding for abortion in Alaska, and a law in Texas that has forced one-third of the abortion providers to close their doors. Brigitte is also heavily involved in the challenges to the federal contraception benefit, and was one of the coordinators for the amicus briefs in the Supreme Court.
Last night was the first night in a month that I was able to fall asleep without worrying about whether Jane Doe would get the medical care she needs. Jane, a 17-year-old unaccompanied immigrant minor, received her abortion yesterday after being held hostage by our federal government for over a month. But while the legal drama and Jane's plight captured the country's attention, her battle is part an overall war being waged by the Trump Administration against reproductive rights and immigrants' rights.
Jane crossed the U.S. border on her own in September. She was detained and placed in a government-funded shelter where she discovered she was pregnant. She immediately asked for an abortion. But what federal officials did next is straight out of dystopian fiction.
Under their new Trump-era policy, which drastically restricts abortion access for minors in their custody, they ordered the shelter to block Jane from accessing an abortion. Government officials then forced her to visit a "Crisis Pregnancy Center," a religiously-affiliated counseling center that is not staffed by healthcare professionals, to try to coerce her to carry her pregnancy to term. As Jane herself said, "People I don't even know are trying to make me change my mind."
Jane was resolute in her decision to have an abortion, and she bravely decided to challenge the government's unlawful and inhumane actions. It might be easy to dismiss Jane's case as unique. But make no mistake: The Trump Administration would do to all of us what it has done to Jane if it could.
Anti-abortion politicians always start by targeting the most marginalized. Shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, a member of Congress, Henry Hyde, introduced a law that banned Medicaid from covering abortion. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman," he said at the time. "Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill."
To this day, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds to cover abortion for those who have Medicaid for their health insurance, forcing one in four poor women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can't raise the money to pay for an abortion. Though separated by time, the Trump administration's actions mirror those of Hyde. They aim to put an end to abortion, and they target low-income and marginalized people in our society.
Trump has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe, and earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage requirement. There is no doubt that more attacks are coming.
In just the first six months of 2017, state legislators in six states introduced measures to ban all abortions, and legislators in 28 states introduced measures to ban abortions under some circumstances, all of them supported by the Trump administration.
If you were outraged by what our government did to Jane, you should know that there are so many more Janes out there. Not just unaccompanied immigrant minors, who are in a similar situation to Jane, but everyone in this country who is unable to access the care that they need because of the sham laws put in place by ideological politicians. As we did for Jane, let's stand together and say: If you want to come for any of these Janes, you have to go through us first.
Brigitte Amiri
Brigitte Amiri is a Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project. Brigitte is currently litigating multiple cases, including a challenge to South Dakota's law that requires women seeking abortion to first visit a crisis pregnancy center before obtaining an abortion, a restriction on Medicaid funding for abortion in Alaska, and a law in Texas that has forced one-third of the abortion providers to close their doors. Brigitte is also heavily involved in the challenges to the federal contraception benefit, and was one of the coordinators for the amicus briefs in the Supreme Court.
Last night was the first night in a month that I was able to fall asleep without worrying about whether Jane Doe would get the medical care she needs. Jane, a 17-year-old unaccompanied immigrant minor, received her abortion yesterday after being held hostage by our federal government for over a month. But while the legal drama and Jane's plight captured the country's attention, her battle is part an overall war being waged by the Trump Administration against reproductive rights and immigrants' rights.
Jane crossed the U.S. border on her own in September. She was detained and placed in a government-funded shelter where she discovered she was pregnant. She immediately asked for an abortion. But what federal officials did next is straight out of dystopian fiction.
Under their new Trump-era policy, which drastically restricts abortion access for minors in their custody, they ordered the shelter to block Jane from accessing an abortion. Government officials then forced her to visit a "Crisis Pregnancy Center," a religiously-affiliated counseling center that is not staffed by healthcare professionals, to try to coerce her to carry her pregnancy to term. As Jane herself said, "People I don't even know are trying to make me change my mind."
Jane was resolute in her decision to have an abortion, and she bravely decided to challenge the government's unlawful and inhumane actions. It might be easy to dismiss Jane's case as unique. But make no mistake: The Trump Administration would do to all of us what it has done to Jane if it could.
Anti-abortion politicians always start by targeting the most marginalized. Shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, a member of Congress, Henry Hyde, introduced a law that banned Medicaid from covering abortion. "I certainly would like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle-class woman, or a poor woman," he said at the time. "Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the Medicaid bill."
To this day, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds to cover abortion for those who have Medicaid for their health insurance, forcing one in four poor women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term because she can't raise the money to pay for an abortion. Though separated by time, the Trump administration's actions mirror those of Hyde. They aim to put an end to abortion, and they target low-income and marginalized people in our society.
Trump has vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices that would overturn Roe, and earlier this month, the Trump Administration rolled back the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage requirement. There is no doubt that more attacks are coming.
In just the first six months of 2017, state legislators in six states introduced measures to ban all abortions, and legislators in 28 states introduced measures to ban abortions under some circumstances, all of them supported by the Trump administration.
If you were outraged by what our government did to Jane, you should know that there are so many more Janes out there. Not just unaccompanied immigrant minors, who are in a similar situation to Jane, but everyone in this country who is unable to access the care that they need because of the sham laws put in place by ideological politicians. As we did for Jane, let's stand together and say: If you want to come for any of these Janes, you have to go through us first.
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.