Supreme Court sides with Trump: won’t declare ‘right’ to abortion for illegal immigrants
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 4, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Today, the Supreme Court tossed out a lower court ruling allowing a 17-year-old illegal immigrant in government custody to obtain an abortion despite the Trump administration’s protests.
Even though the baby at the center of the case has already been aborted, the Supreme Court has prevented it from setting a legal precedent establishing a “right” to abortion for underage illegal immigrants.
“The Trump Administration deserved this victory in court, as they continue to create policies designed to support a pro-life culture in America, including defunding abortion-related policies,” said Kristan Hawkins, President of Students for Life of America.
The Trump administration’s Health and Human Services has been fighting efforts by the pro-abortion ACLU to force the government to facilitate abortions for illegal immigrant minors in its custody. Pro-life advocates have called this an effort an attempt at a “Roe v. Wade 2.0,” establishing a “right” to abortion on American soil for non-citizens.
“The ACLU, Planned Parenthood and others want to create Roe v. Wade 2.0, a ‘right’ to abortion for all who are on U.S. soil, which is not in the interests of our great nation,” said Hawkins.
By throwing out the past court ruling, even though the teen in question has already aborted her child, the justices “eliminated a precedent at the federal appeals court level that could have applied in similar circumstances in which detained minors sought abortions,” reported Reuters. “In the unsigned opinion with no dissents, the justices threw out the appeals court decision on the grounds that the dispute became moot once the unnamed teenager had the abortion.”
The Trump administration had asked the Supreme Court to “discipline” the ACLU lawyers behind the case for misleading them about the timeline of the teen’s abortion. The Court today declined to do that.
The “Court [did] not rule on the government's request for sanctions against the ACLU attorneys,” wrote Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog as the decision came out.
The Court makes clear that it takes these kinds of allegations by the government “seriously.” “On the one hand,” the per curiam opinion says, “all attorneys must remain aware of the principle that zealous advocacy does not displace their obligations as officers of the court. Especially in fast-paced, emergency proceedings like those at issue here, it is critical that lawyers and courts alike be able to rely on one another's representations..”
“On the other hand,” the court continues, “lawyers also have ethical obligations to their clients and not all communication breakdowns constitute misconduct.”
The ACLU said in a press release the “decision does not affect the ongoing-class action lawsuit challenging the government’s policy barring young immigrant women in government custody from getting abortions.”