Commentary

Do Liberals Want These Migrants to Die?

Terence P. Jeffrey
By Terence P. Jeffrey | April 25, 2018 | 4:43 AM EDT

(Photo of U.S.-Mexico border/Customs and Border Protection)

Last September, two children illegally crossed over the U.S.-Mexico border into the United States. One was accompanied by a parent who compelled the child to cross; the other was not.

Soon, liberal activists were working to make sure one of these children died.

Which one did they want to see dead? The child compelled to cross the border by the illegally crossing parent.

What was this child's offense? Physical location.

You see, this child was the unborn child of the other.

His or her greatest problem was not having crossed illegally into the United States, it was not having yet crossed out of the womb.

The American Civil Liberties Union, representing a guardian appointed for the mother, sued in federal court claiming that this "Jane Doe" had a "right" inside the United States to take the life of her unborn child.

As this column noted in October, Judge Karen Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia accurately described the basic facts of the case — in a dissenting opinion.

"In or about early July 2017, 17-year-old Jane Doe became pregnant," wrote Judge Henderson. "On or about September 7, 2017, she attempted to enter the United States illegally and unaccompanied.

"By J.D.'s own admission, authorities detained her upon arrival," the judge wrote. "She has since remained in custody — in a federally funded shelter — because she is an 'unaccompanied alien child.'"

 

"And it is highly likely she knew when she entered the United States that she was pregnant, as she was at least eight weeks pregnant at the time," wrote Judge Henderson.

"Notably," the judge said, "elective abortion is illegal in J.D.'s home country."

The Office of Refugee Resettlement is the federal agency responsible for taking care of unaccompanied alien minors. It had custody of Doe, and it also had a policy of not facilitating abortions.

The ACLU argued this policy violated Doe's "right" to kill her unborn child.

"After four weeks of court battles, Jane was finally allowed to obtain her abortion," the ACLU later reported on its blog.

This was a liberal triumph: An innocent unborn child who had been illegally brought across the border by his or her mother was deliberately killed by an American doctor with the help of an American liberal advocacy group and with the consent of American judges.

Thus was this shining city upon a hill turned into a tomb for an innocent migrant child.

The ACLU has continued to pursue its case as a "class action" aimed at establishing that all female unaccompanied alien minors in federal custody have a "constitutional" right to abortion inside the United States.

In February, in deposing ORR Director Scott Lloyd, the ACLU exposed a falsehood at the core of its case.

It denies basic science.

"So this particular minor ... had your attention about the type of procedure that she was going to undergo because in your mind, it was a procedure that would involve the destruction of human life?" the ACLU lawyer asked Lloyd.

"Well, it's not just in my mind. That's objective," Lloyd responded.

"That's objective?" asked the ACLU lawyer.

"Um-hum," said Lloyd.

"You believe everyone regardless of their belief systems believes that abortion is the destruction of human life?" asked the lawyer.

"I think the objective facts are that it involves the destruction of a human life," said Lloyd.

"Is your belief that the abortion is the destruction of human life informed by your religion (sic) faith?" asked the lawyer.

"It's informed by the reality of the situation and the scientific facts," said Lloyd.

Lloyd could also have asked this ACLU lawyer: What is two plus two? If the lawyer had managed to correctly answer that it is four, he could have followed-up: Do you believe that everyone regardless of their belief system believes that two plus two is four?

Is your belief that two plus two is four informed by your religious faith?

Someone could have further asked this lawyer: Are you both human and alive? And, therefore, are you a human life?

The ACLU is at war with both the facts of life and the laws of nature.

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSnews.com.

DONATE


Please support CNSNews today! (a 501c3 non-profit production of the Media Research Center)

DONATE