NRL News

Reward for ensuring “Jane Doe’s” abortion? Judge should be at the top of the line next time Democrats choose Supreme Court nominee, writer says

by | Oct 27, 2017

By Dave Andrusko

Judge Patricia Millett

Judge Patricia Millett

Opening the floodgates for (short-term) hundreds of abortions for undocumented women and girls and an unlimited number going forward—well, you would expect pro-abortionists to very grateful. The prospect of Texas becoming an “abortion sanctuary,” as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton feared in opposing the abortion of “Jane Doe,” is music to the ears of the likes of Mark Joseph Stern of Slate magazine .

That is why he lavished praise on Judge Patricia Millett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. You’ll recall she was the dissenter last Friday in a three-judge panel of the same court which concluded it only made sense, legally and otherwise, to give the Trump administration until the end of October to find a sponsor for the 17-year-old girl.

When on Tuesday the full court D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the panel’s decision, the 6-3 ruling was to send the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan. Within hours, Judge Chutkan ordered the government to “promptly and without delay” transport the teen to a Texas abortion provider. Soon after “Jane Doe” aborted her 16-week-old baby.

Stern correctly points out the full court’s majority dutifully followed Judge Millett: “Her dissent was so powerful that when the full D.C. Circuit eventually reversed the panel’s ruling, it did nothing more than explain in a single paragraph that Millett had it right.”

What should be her reward for advancing “a woman’s right to bodily autonomy?” Stern says nothing but gold: “It should also earn Millett a spot at the very top of the Supreme Court shortlist the next time a Democratic president gets tasked with making a selection.”

Two quick points. First, pro-abortionists see the death of a sixteen-week-old unborn baby as the triumph of light over darkness. It’s actually a means to a dark and dreadful end.

Thanks to your great work, pro-abortionist propagandists such as Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and their think-tank mouthpiece, the Guttmacher Institute, routinelyu lament that not enough babies are being aborted. Their two-sizes too small hearts are all aflutter at the thought that untold thousands of undocumented women and girls can slip into Texas and then abort their children.

Second, and forgive me if this is the third or fourth time I’ve mentioned this, but all that was requested was there was some time to find the young girl a sponsor. Here was Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s thoughtful explanation why this was so important.

The majority seems to think that the United States has no good reason to want to transfer an unlawful immigrant minor to an immigration sponsor before the minor has an abortion. But consider the circumstances here. The minor is alone and without family or friends. She is in a U.S. Government detention facility in a country that, for her, is foreign. She is 17 years old. She is pregnant and has to make a major life decision.

Is it really absurd for the United States to think that the minor should be transferred to her immigration sponsor – ordinarily a family member, relative, or friend – before she makes that decision? And keep in mind that the Government is not forcing the minor to talk to the sponsor about the decision, or to obtain consent. It is merely seeking to place the minor in a better place when deciding whether to have an abortion. I suppose people can debate as a matter of policy whether this is always a good idea. But unconstitutional? That is far-fetched. After all, the Supreme Court has repeatedly said that the Government has permissible interests in favoring fetal life, protecting the best interests of the minor, and not facilitating abortion, so long as the Government does not impose an undue burden on the abortion decision.

Attorney General Paxton may have been it best in response to the court’s decision and Jane Doe’s abortion: “Today’s loss of innocent human life is tragic,” he said.

“This ruling not only cost a life, it could pave the way for anyone outside the United States to unlawfully enter and obtain an abortion. Life and the Constitution are sacred. We lost some of both today.”

Categories: Judicial