It was billed as a Trump-led war on women and immigrants. However, wording and facts are integral to getting the whole story. Before we begin, lets hear the back story.
THE BACK STORY
The undocumented teen was apprehended by U.S. border security and taken into custody. She was transported to a U.S. government-funded shelter.
There’s no confirmation if she was traveling alone or with other people.
Initial reports indicate she had no family traveling with her and none were living close to the facility where she was staying.
So there’s your back story. Now, the issue.
THE ISSUE
Once at the shelter, the young teen received a medical exam.
After being examined, it was discovered she was 15-weeks pregnant. Reports indicate she was surprised by the news and requested an abortion.
Texas state law doesn’t permit minors to get an abortion without parental consent.
If a minor doesn’t have parents or guardians to represent them, the law requires they seek approval from a state judge. The ACLU presented her case before a Texas court who approved her request.
That’s when Trump Administration officials stepped in and appealed the original ruling.
REASON FOR INTERFERENCE
Constitutional Rights
ACLU lawyers, representing the foreign teen, argued her constitutional rights were being violated.
While women have the constitutional right to abort (kill) their children in the United States, the RIGHT refers to legal American citizens. Undocumented immigrants don’t have a “constitutional right.” Oddly, ACLU lawyers apparently weren’t aware of this as this was their initial defense.
Due to President Trump’s stance on abortion, and the fact the girl was residing in a federally funded shelter, the government wasn’t jumping up and down to help facilitate an abortion. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Undocumented and Illegal
The undocumented teen came to the United States illegally, refused to leave, and demanded America help her obtain an abortion.
Originally, a federal appeals court ruled if the girl can get someone to sponsor her, then the government would release her to the sponsor’s custody. However, if the girl was not able to get a sponsor by Oct. 31, an appeals court would be ready to rule in favor of the immigrant getting an abortion regardless where she resided. In that event, the government would have been allowed to appeal the decision one more time.
Sadly, a federal appeals court sided with the ACLU a week ago today to allow the girl to get an abortion. As of Oct. 25, 2017, the baby was murdered in the womb. Nine weeks living in a womb, and the child was dismembered with the carcass being removed from the mother.
Aside from liberals simply pushing their ‘My body, my choice to kill a baby‘ agenda, some medical professionals were urgent to get the teen to an abortion clinic more sooner than later.
WHY THE RUSH?
When the teen was detained and transferred to the Texas federal shelter, she was 15-weeks pregnant.
If she were to have reached 20-weeks pregnant, per Texas state law, she would not have been able to get an elective abortion. She would have had to travel to another state which permits abortions over 20 weeks.
Plus, medical physicians supporting the teen’s wish to obtain an abortion said the longer the teen waited, the riskier the abortion procedure will have on her life.
While this may be true, it is also true that the child inside the womb was going to be executed. As already mentioned, supposedly this young immigrant’s life is at risk if she was denied getting an abortion soon. But was this really the case? After all, the ACLU constructed the narrative it’s a ‘now or never‘ dire situation.
The Left doesn’t even consider the option of her having the child. Why not? At this stage, much of the baby is formed. Therefore, another option could have been carrying the child to term and giving it up for adoption. It is possible that the young immigrant’s life had even a greater chance to experience serious complications if she had the baby, but is that an excuse for murder?
While there’s research to support the reality of potential pregnancy complications, some can be predicted but the science is not perfect. Imperfect science certainly doesn’t justify killing a child.
In this specific case, no medical professional had come forward to say this immigrant ‘could’ or ‘is likely’ to die giving birth. The statement was just used to create an urgency to get the abortion done. There was the only speculation she ‘may‘ have complications if she doesn’t get the abortion soon or if she carries the baby to term.
This is being done to push a sinister anti-life agenda. The groups supporting this girl are ones who want ‘abortion on demand‘ to continue being the law of the land. With so much ruckus over the issue, the Left could not simply give in. Not just because they despised Trump, but also because it’s vital to the Left’s narrative there’s ‘no other option’ when – in fact – there was.
The girl in question chose to engage in intercourse and found herself pregnant. Her situation falls within the majority of women who have had abortions; a decision to preserve a lifestyle and negate responsibility. These are the facts that the leftists refuse to acknowledge.
This is a prime example of the Left manipulating judges and society into believing abortion is a ‘necessary‘ action which needs to supposedly remain legal.
The angle used in this case as ‘urgency due to the girl’s health possibly being in danger.‘ Their limited understanding believed there were no other options available in this girl’s case. Throughout this case, the ACLU interchanged ‘abortion‘ with such terms as ‘treatment‘ and ‘procedure‘ in an attempt to prove the so-called necessity of killing the innocent child.
If one did not know any better, they would have the young teen needed a tumor removed. Something which requires a ‘procedure,‘ ‘surgery,‘ and ‘treatment.‘ Yet, if a human being is growing and developing inside, it too can apparently be demonized as a cancerous tumor which needs to be removed – for the sake of a lifestyle and a political agenda.
