Jane Doe Abortion Legal

PUBLISHED: 7:12 PM 4 Jun 2018
UPDATED: 7:14 PM 4 Jun 2018

Supreme Court Dismisses Abortion Case, Doesn’t Penalize ACLU

They 'miscommunicated' so they could deny the DoJ's appeal.

The ACLU manipulated the court system to ensure that by the time the Supreme Court heard their case, the point would be moot. However, they cannot do the same for a similar case that the court will hear shortly.

The Supreme Court has been busy today, releasing some major decisions. There have been few court cases concerning abortion that received as much attention as the case of an unnamed, under-age illegal immigrant, generally called ‘Jane Doe’ in court documents, who sought an abortion while in federal custody. The denial, handed down by E. Scott Lloyd, led to a flurry of legal actions and multiple cases.

Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the decision from a lower court which allowed her to get an abortion, even though the federal government protested the choice. Now, the ACLU is saying that it was a narrow decision that won’t impact a similar class-action case. However, they could be wrong.

The order on the case, which came in at a shockingly-thin five pages, simply dismissed the claim that ‘Jane Doe’ made against the federal government.

Frankly, that’s about the best that the Supreme Court could do in this case. The case, which began when the unidentified teen was 17, was mostly dismissed because the ruling comes after the fact. She already got an abortion.

After all, Ms. Doe is now 18, and no longer in federal custody. Since she already had the abortion, at this point the outcome of the case will have literally no impact on her, her life, or her ability to attain the abortion she sought.

In other words, she managed to undermine the federal government thanks to what some might call a ‘manipulative’ use of the court system.

However, it could have an impact on the next underage migrant who demands that US taxpayers foot the bill to kill their baby.

The ACLU is currently involved in suing to challenge the federal government’s policy for pregnant teens in federal custody. That case was not dismissed, and is currently pending in a district court in Washington.

The woman who served as her lawyer, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Brigitte Amiri, suggested that the dismissal was a narrow one, and that it had no impact whatsoever on a broader challenge to the federal government’s abortion policy.

The dismissal came in an unsigned opinion, and with no dissenting opinion attached.

According to Amiri, now that this ‘minor’ case is out of the way, she and the ACLU’s legal team will be better able to focus on trying to “strike the policy down” permanently.

While dismissing the case, the court did not agree with the Donald Trump administration that the ACLU lawyers who represented Doe should be disciplined for their actions in the case.

Lawyers at the Department of Justice stated that they ‘thought’ they had a deal with Doe’s lawyers that would provide them time to appeal a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. region that allowed the abortion to go forward.

Instead, the legal team from the ACLU made sure that she had her abortion before the DOJ was even able to file their case.

This not only undermined the DOJ’s case and its validity; it also allowed leftists to claim that the government was moving too slowly on such a ‘time-sensitive’ topic.

When in front of the Supreme Court, the ACLU claimed that the request from the administration that the court admonish or penalize them was “both extraordinary and baseless,” and that they had never seen something similar before.

The court said that it took claims that lawyers tried to keep the justice from hearing the case seriously, but that lawyers also had a duty to their clients to work in their best interests.

The court also said that not all miscommunications “constitute misconduct.”

The need for this case originally arose when U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued an order, forbidding the government from “interfering with or obstructing” access to ‘all’ “pregnancy-related care” for teenagers detained in the federal government’s immigration custody.

It’s interesting that Judge Chutkan, a lawyer born in Kingston, Jamaica and who was appointed, along with her husband, to federal courts by Barack Obama, would think that abortion procedures were ‘pregnancy-related care.’ Perhaps it’s not so strange, though, especially given her willingness to stick to the leftist agenda in cases like the one against Imran Awan.

She also represented, when she was still a lawyer, a company called Theranos, which hired Fusion GPS to threaten the media with.

The issue of abortions and the federal government is a complex one, and one that immigration authorities continuously have to deal with. In 2017, there were at least 420 pregnant ‘unaccompanied minors’ in custody with the government. 18 requested abortions.

In Jane Doe’s case, she allegedly learned that she was pregnant only after crossing the border with her parents.

She claimed to authorities that she was mature enough to make the determination to get an abortion on her own, and she feared her parents’ response if she asked them.

Frankly, the entire case is strange, and though the ACLU managed to abuse the legal process to ensure she got an abortion, that didn’t do much to shore up their ability to force the federal government to give out abortions on-demand.

Still, it’s strange to see judges pretend that abortions are ‘pregnancy care.’ Doing so stretches the definition of the word ‘care’ almost to the point of breaking.