Taxpayers could be soon paying for a 17-year old illegal immigrant to have an abortion. The teen in question is 15-weeks pregnant, and would not only be having her abortion very late in term, but it could also be at the taxpayer’s expense.
The initial ruling from a federal judge required involvement from the Department of Health and Human Services.
On Friday, however, a federal appeals court issued a stay. The Trump administration has until October 31st to find a sponsor for the young woman to be able to have her abortion, without involving the agency. Otherwise, the agency will be involved, though they, and the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the administration to facilitate the abortion, can appeal the decision.
The ruling is good news for taxpayers who do not wish to fund abortions with their hard-earned money. Unless the young woman changes her mind, however, she will be going forward with the abortion.
Abortion, especially on young women, is shown to lead to physical and/or psychological complications. It may take years for the scars to appear, however, especially for psychological ramifications. Abortion also carries increased medical risks with it further along in pregnancy.
While the Department of Health and Human Services may not have to participate directly in the abortion, the agency has still been directed by court order to find a sponsor. This is participation nonetheless, and for an agency of a pro-life administration, which has just declared it is committed to “serving and protecting Americans at every stage of life, beginning at conception,” this would be considered antithetical to the goal.
The ACLU and judges who would rule in favor of such an abortion, speak to a supposed right to an abortion, found to exist as a penumbra (or “feeling”) of the Constitution from the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade.
On their website, the ACLU not only emphasizes they believe the administration’s decision is “unconstitutional,” but “shocking” and that the young woman is “being held hostage.” They also referred to U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, who ruled that the young woman could have her abortion:
I am astounded by that position. I have to tell you, I’m astounded that the government is going to make this 17-year-old girl who has received judicial authorization for a medical procedure to which she is constitutionally authorized choose between a pregnancy that she does not want to go forward with to term or returning to the country from which she left. Those are her options. And is it your position that that does not constitute a substantial obstacle? She can leave the country or she cannot get her abortion, those are her options?
Obama appointee, Judge Patricia Millett, of the appeals court, said in her dissent that the ruling of “Forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy,” goes against the young woman’s “constitutional liberty, autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reason.”
The ACLU acknowledges that the government’s argument is “‘there is no constitutional right’ for an immigrant minor to get an abortion while in federal custody. They do not, however, respond to the larger issue as to if illegal immigrants have constitutional rights that American citizens do, especially those so dubious as abortion. Further, granting this young woman her abortion could spell a troubling trend, as others may cross our borders illegally to take advantage of the system.
Likewise, pro-choice advocates, particularly Judge Millett, fail to acknowledge the position of taxpayers who do not wish a pay for an abortion, one late in term, which appears to be for elective reasons. Certainly that is a “justifiable governmental reason?”
Above all, however, these advocates fail to recognize both the dignity and sanctity of life for the unborn child and his or her mother. If the young woman has an abortion, her child will die. What will become of her, however? Will the ACLU come to her aid should she suffer physically and/or psychologically from her abortion?
We may never know, as this young woman’s story may be lost, just as the life of her child will be. This child may yet be unseen to us, but he or she is seen to and known and loved by God the Creator all the same, and is thus worthy of protection as a member of the human family.
We may never have to know, however, as this young woman could still change her mind, even though she vowed not to. There are other opportunities available to her, as highlighted in a Live Action News article by Kristi Burton Brown. We can only pray and watch to see what fate should befall not merely taxpayers, but this young woman and her child.