Following the decision of a federal appeals court, a Mexican teenager in Texas has had an abortion, the Associated Press reported Wednesday afternoon.
That abortion was authorized by the U.S. government and paid for by U.S. taxpayers, as the 17-year-old illegal immigrant has been living in a detention center in Brownsville, Texas, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services since crossing the border from Mexico last month.
The case has been closely watched by abortion advocates, who argued that by not authorizing or paying for the procedure, the U.S. government would be violating the girl's right to an abortion. The government argued that it was not preventing the girl from having an abortion, as she was free to leave the detention center and return to Mexico to have an abortion, or could find someone to take responsibility for her in the U.S.
Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that Texas risked becoming a sanctuary for abortions if the government was forced to pay for the procedure for Jane Doe, as the teenager was referred to in court documents. Texas was joined on the brief by 11other states: Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota and West Virginia.
Pro-life groups expressed dismay Tuesday at the ruling by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where a three-judge panel ordered the girl to be taken to a clinic to have an abortion, and sorrow after the news Wednesday that the abortion had taken place.
"Americans United for Life is heartbroken at the loss of the innocent life at the heart of this court battle, and deeply troubled that this baby, yearning to breathe free, was afforded neither a voice in our courts nor the basic dignity and rights inherent to all human beings and due by law to all those on American soil," said Catherine Glenn Foster, president and CEO of Americans United for Life in a statement to the media.
"This is an appalling and unconscionable misuse of taxpayer dollars, and a violation of the principles of the Hyde Amendment. It threatens to conjure a so-called right to immediate abortion on demand from the U.S. Constitution, and to recast America, which has historically aspired to be a haven and place of refuge for the most vulnerable, into a destination for abortions."
Catholic leaders in Texas had commended the state and federal government for defending the right to life of the unborn child in court, and Bishop Daniel E. Flores of the Archdiocese of Brownsville had issued a statement before the ruling on Tuesday, offering to help the mother and her child.
"As the case of Jane Doe is played out in courtrooms, I call upon the local community to keep in mind that there are two vulnerable human lives that will be forever impacted by these legal decisions, one an unaccompanied minor, the other her unborn child," said Flores. "The local Catholic Church, through the Diocese of Brownsville, stands ready at any time to assist the mother and her child with practical support and aid. It is our prayer that the mother may find peace and her child may be given a chance to live."
The ACLU, meanwhile, which represented the pregnant teenager, was triumphant in announcing the news that the abortion had been performed.
“Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe. But make no mistake about it, the administration's efforts to interfere in women's decisions won't stop with Jane,” Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said in a statement on the ACLU's website. “With this case we have seen the astounding lengths this administration will go to block women from abortion care. We will not stop fighting until we have justice for every woman like Jane.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton also released a statement calling the abortion tragic and saying it will now make it possible for anyone to cross our border illegally to get an abortion.
“Today’s loss of innocent human life is tragic,” he said. “And it may have been avoidable. The ruling that paved the way for the abortion violated long standing Supreme Court precedent on the rights of an unlawfully present person. Even the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice acknowledged that unlawfully present aliens without substantial connections to the country lack the same constitutional rights as citizens. 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.”
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/illegal-immigrant-17-year-old-has-u-s-taxpayer-funded-abortion/
"The ACLU, meanwhile, which represented the pregnant teenager, was triumphant in announcing the news that the abortion had been performed.
“Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe. But make no mistake about it, the administration's efforts to interfere in women's decisions won't stop with Jane,” Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project said in a statement on the ACLU's website. “With this case we have seen the astounding lengths this administration will go to block women from abortion care. We will not stop fighting until we have justice for every woman like Jane.”
We see that the ACLU used this case to set precedent - we can expect more of the same now
And what precedent would that be? That a person can come to the US and get a legal medical procedure done? Taxpayers did not pay for this abortion and she is still in the detention center awaiting deportation or processing.....so what are you talking about?
On nonsense....illegals have been coming into this country for decades to get all the freebies they can, including health care, housing, schooling, food stamps, driver's licenses, etc....and as a place to have abortions and anchor babies at tax payer expense.
Didn't you read the article?
here Willie:
Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that Texas risked becoming a sanctuary for abortions if the government was forced to pay for the procedure for Jane Doe
It threatens to conjure a so-called right to immediate abortion on demand from the U.S. Constitution, and to recast America, which has historically aspired to be a haven and place of refuge for the most vulnerable, into a destination for abortions."
Taxpayers did not pay for this abortion and she is still in the detention center awaiting deportation or processing.....so what are you talking about?
Wrong again Willie:
That abortion was authorized by the U.S. government and paid for by U.S. taxpayers, as the 17-year-old illegal immigrant has been living in a detention center in Brownsville, Texas, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services since crossing the border from Mexico last month.
Apparently a lot better than you! Newsflash abortions are legal in the US and as long as those illegal immigrants pay for it themselves, what precedent does it show?
So you expect me to believe a biased news site? When the facts are, once the DC District Court made their ruling she was immediately released to a guardian who took her to an abortion provider which was paid for by the ACLU!
The AP is biased?
Again - prove your claims
Your citation is a nutty bible-babble site, not the AP. So stop making a false claim.
But you seeded an article by Lizette NOT the AP. If you would have linked the AP article it would have clearly stated that she had obtained private funding!
It was paid for with PRIVATE FUNDS
Are you kidding? The entire article is about tax payers being stuck with the bill.
"That abortion was authorized by the U.S. government and paid for by U.S. taxpayers, as the 17-year-old illegal immigrant has been living in a detention center in Brownsville, Texas, funded by the Department of Health and Human Services since crossing the border from Mexico last month."
E.A Lets take it one step at a time::
Is that person in the country seeking residency?
Does the Abortion now allow that person to seek residency, and as pointed out by others now, she has a " Legal Right to claim persecution " if returned to her country?
So then the whole " Gambit " was for what purpose and who is the Final Payer for all costs incurred?
IE: Do " personal Funds " come under " Citizens costs " and are some claimable as Tax deduction, and IF they are, who pays those deductions?
And that’s why I don’t take the word of just this article!
But you know what I do find interesting, this administration had no problem spending taxpayer money in attempts to make her KEEP the baby!
The point is that the article lied to you. Apparently gullible people get their "news" from the op-eds at bible-babble sites, not from legitimate news agencies.
While the op-ed claims to cite an AP report, the op-ed gets most of the key facts completely wrong. In fact had the Breitbart-affiliated op-ed author bothered to actually read the AP report she'd have learned that her truly moronic claims were false.......No taxpayer funds were used for the abortion. The woman wasn't from Mexico but from a country in Central America. And the DOJ never challenged her constitutional right to have an abortion, they just tried to put so many roadblocks in her way that she wouldn't be able to get one.
Fortunately the good guys won and the bible-babbling theocrats lost.
Maybe like your ancestors did when coming to this country. Are you sure they came legally, did they have a background check, were criminals in their own country, fleeing justice?
And did she? I haven't seen proof yet
Link please!
And the ACLU had to get the case to one of their liberal circuit courts:
"On Tuesday, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit took the unusual step of reversing a three-judge panel of the same court without first holding oral argument.
The panel's decision, issued Friday, would have postponed the abortion.
Instead, the D.C. Circuit's 6-to-3 ruling sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who hours later reissued an earlier order requiring the government to let the teen have the abortion "promptly and without delay."
Yes absolutely!
Yed they did
No they were not
My ancestors immigrated to this country accirding to the laws in place at the time. The followed the laws in place for living andcworking here. They learned to speak and read English. They did not take to the streets to demand that they get services that they were not entitled to. The did not demend that others conform to their wishes.
Here's some more debunking of your false claims:
Ironically, even the Trump DOJ did NOT argue that the right to an abortion was one of the Constitutional rights that 'unlawfully present aliens' lack...
With or without such argument, the Court should have upheld the Constitution instead of extending rights to non citizens
That comment reveals that you don't understand that constitutional protections generally extend to all persons under US jurisdiction. There are only a few places in the text where citizens alone are protected.
Where is the Constitutional right to an abortion for a non-citizen?
The exact same place it's in for a citizen, in the 5th Amendment right to due process......which also protects liberty and privacy.
I suggest you read Roe v Wade, Griswold v CT, and the 5th Amendment.
Show me where anyone has the right to get an elective medical procedure paid for by the government. Isn't there a law that prohibits feferal money being used for an abortion?
Ummmm.....that's not the issue here, contrary to the totally false claims made by the nutty bible-babbler site which Vic seeded.
Also note that the lawyers for the Justice Department have not disputed that the woman has the right to an abortion.
They did.
And that's why we need to start charging Illegals criminally with steep jail sentences if found guilty. That way we can offer them a deal at their first hearing that if they agree to leave and not come back they get a suspended sentence.
The Bill of Rights, with the exception of the 2nd, applies to all people in the US regardless of citizenship status. This is a long-held idea.
Dubya tried to deny detainees held in Gitmo and black sites their 4-7th Amendment rights and the SCOTUS slapped his hand over it.
They did, you are wrong. It's been settled law for over a century. You need to catch up.
However, the Bill of Rights do not apply to Native Americans nor Illegal Aliens.
False. Only a few protections are not applied.
Native Americans are US citizens and gave all the right as any other citizen. In some respects they may enjoy a few more on the reservations.
Native Americans became citizens of the U.S. in 1924.
No, we did not enjoy the protection of the Bill of Rights. It wasn't until 1968 with the passage of ICRA that those protections were available to us.
Indian Civil Rights Act (1968) [ edit ]
With the passage of the Indian Civil Rights Act (ICRA) in 1968, also called the Indian Bill of Rights, Native Americans were guaranteed many civil rights they had been fighting for. [6] The ICRA supports the following: [7]
Other civil rights such as sovereignty , hunting and fishing, and voting are still issues facing Native people today.
Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy.
See below for when the Bill of Rights became available to us. 1968 with the passage of ICRA.
Citizenship was granted to Native Americans in 1924.
Correct, but note that my comment concerned both of the false claims about tribal members and about undocumented persons. I believe that the Establishment clause doesn't apply to the tribes, so there is that one exception......but in respect to the states and the feds the full set of civil rights applies. You'd know better than I on that anyway but for tribal members it usually boils down to the scope of jurisdiction for the relevant governmental body.
Regarding undocumented persons most of the bill of rights applies, especially things related to criminal or civil prosecution. But they're far more vulnerable to things like government retaliation for expressing unpopular political views.
I'm not sure where T-baggers and other RWNJs got their bogus claim that these groups don't have civil rights, but I know that Glenn Beck and Lush Dimbulb both have repeated that nonsense. At the very least it reveals a failure on the part of our high schools to teach civics, or a failure on the part of conservatives to understand such basic concepts.
I was speaking to the Native part of the comment only.
No, we were not covered or guaranteed the rights provided by the Bill of Rights, thus the ICRA of 1968 was passed.
That claim is BS. The BoR applies to all people in the US, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status, even if they are tourists or POWs.
After suffering many years of genocidal levels of eradication, Native Americans had largely been relegated to tribal lands where the United States Constitution does not apply. Tribal lands are plots of land designated by the United States government on which Native Americans can live in sovereignty. This situation was far from ideal for Native Americans, though. If they chose to live away from a tribal land, they experienced discrimination similar to that which African Americans of the time faced, and if they chose to live on tribal lands, the United States Constitution did not apply to them.
The Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 granted Native Americans, for the first time, full access to the United States Bill of Rights. This guaranteed them the right to freedom of religion, the right of habeas corpus--or justification of lawful imprisonment, and the right to a trial by jury (among others). The idea behind the extension of the Bill of Rights to Native American communities was that it would protect individuals from potential abuses within tribal lands and pave the way for formal trial courts that would extend the sovereignty of Native American reservations to include legislative authority. This means that Native Americans' civil rights would be protected but they would also be able to govern themselves in sovereignty. There were, however, some legal gray areas that resulted from the passage of the act, and conflict arose between respecting Native American sovereignty and adhering to the principles of the United States Bill of Rights.
Although all of the Bill of Rights applies to the federal government and most of it now applies to state government, it does not—and never has—applied to tribal governments. As a result, the Constitution would allow tribal governments to shut down newspapers, search tribal members without cause, and lock up tribal members without a fair trial.
No, in most respects, they enjoy less freedoms on Reservation lands.
Read -
Section 202 of the Indian Civil Rights Act
No Indian tribe in exercising powers of self-government shall—
Section 203 of the Indian Civil Rights Act
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall be available to any person, in a court of the United States, to test the legality of his detention by order of an Indian tribe.
You were whenever you were subject to the jurisdiction of a state or the feds.
The ICRA was passed to address the failure of the tribes to protect the civil rights of their own tribal members when they were on tribal land, pretty much the same reason that the 14th Amendment was passed to protect the civil rights of persons subject to the jurisdiction of a state. It was not passed to protect the civil rights of natives when they were subject to state or federal jurisdiction, and note that it uses that same prohibitive format of the US bill of rights, ie that it restrains the actions of a specific government entity, in this case just the tribal governments. Given subsequent SCOTUS rulings I'm not sure how effective the ICRA is in practice or whether it merely amounts to suggestions to those governments.
Correct. One caution here is that people seem to be confusing the scope and the context of these constraints on the government. So the BoR protects all persons in contexts where they're subject to US jurisdiction or state jurisdiction, and that includes Native Americans when they're not on tribal land. But when they're on tribal land those constraints on the tribal government are much more limited (ie just the ICRA.....to the extent that the tribe even recognizes those constraints).
In essence it's better to think of the BoR (or the ICRA) as being a constraint on a particular government in a specific context, not as a set of "rights" which are applied to a certain set of persons.
"The states or the Feds" - you should have added some caveats to that.
Because of all the abusive powers utilized by the Tribal/Nation governments, Sam Rayburn, during a six year period, got ICRA written and passed.
The states, and in most cases the Feds, have/had no jurisdiction on Indians on Tribal/Nation lands which include within reservation boundaries and within "Aboriginal Lands", unless they have concurrent jurisdiction. The Feds have jurisdiction over most Criminal cases with the exceptions listed in the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 2013. Those two acts have increased the jurisdiction of the Tribal/Nation law enforcement to allow them to arrest and hold all violators of Tribal/Nation laws/regulations - subject to Habeas Corpus rules.
ICRA was written specifically to curb the abuses of the Tribal/Nation governments on tribal/nation members. Granted ICRA covers "most" of what the Bill of Rights cover for all citizens not subject to Tribal/Nation jurisdiction - BUT - it doesn't go far enough - IMHO. Six jury members??? An attorney "if the defendant" pays for them??? And there are other "loop-holes" that need to be filled/replaced.
It is quite true that when Tribal/Nation members are off their reservation, the "Constitutionally" guaranty of their "Bill of Rights" is there - and, depending on the state, most cases it is adequately addressed. But, when on their reservation, Tribal/Nation members are covered ONLY by ICRA, not the Bill of Rights.
Pretty much - you're right.
An additional caveat - if a Tribal/Nation member is off the reservation conducting Tribal/Nation business specifically for the Tribe/Nation, the Feds have concurrent jurisdiction with the Tribe/Nation - not the state - unless the state also has concurrent jurisdiction (PL 280 state who has chosen that option) - which doesn't happen too often.
Correct. That's what I just stated. It wouldn't even make sense to have the US BoR apply to a sovereign nation.
And due to subsequent SCOTUS rulings even the constraints listed in the ICRA aren't guaranteed.
You betcha
Again, a copyright violation...
Here is the source:
So, you are now positing yourself as a "Copyright" enforcer???
Steve Russell, whom I sure you obviously know, a Cherokee Judge, an instructor of Indian Law and a guest speaker for the Society of American Indian Government Employees, gave a presentation at our (SAIGE) training session in Phoenix, AZ in June of 2015. I was the moderator of the sessions.
Judge Russell gave hand-outs to all the participants which he stated were available to all and the information is free to utilize in our work and class projects. Nothing was "copyrighted" meaning that there is no "Intellectual Property" license to any of the information he provided.
The information I posted is a conglomeration of Judge Russell, four other authors and myself.
Judge Russell has published the presentation in six other sources. You want those also?
Your issue with that is???????
What are the other "violations" you have deemed me guilty of?????
At the very least an ethical violation by representing other people's work as your own. You really should block quote the text you're copying and link to it if it's available online.
Steve Russell is a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, although born and raised in the Muscogee Creek Nation. He is currently Associate Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice, Indiana University at Bloomington.
Russell came to university teaching after retiring from 17 years as a trial court judge in Texas, where he is still eligible to hear cases by assignment.
His academic research focused on the necessity to redefine national sovereignty to settle disputes arising from globalization and the need for American Indians to redefine tribal sovereignty and Indian identity in response to national and international change. Articles from this research have appeared in Crime, Law & Social Change, Chicago Policy Review, Georgetown Public Policy Review, Wicazo Sa Review, American Indian Culture and Research Journal, and American Indian Quarterly.
If this was copyright material I would believe that Mr. Russell would know this and act accordingly.
That's kind of my point
Is that why the ACLU needed the liberal DC Circuit to reverse it's own 3 judge panel?
"Judge Brett Kavanaugh said the majority had created a new right for undocumented immigrant minors in custody to "immediate abortion on demand."
Well, if you had actually read Roe v Wade you'd notice that nowhere in the text or in the underlying due process rights are those rights restricted to citizens alone.
So what, he made a claim. Nothing says that the claim is correct, it's nothing more than his opinion.
Of course, if we had just left her alone, she would have paid for her own abortion.
Or she would have given birth
on the taxpayers dime AND she would have a child with US citizenship
Where do you get off forcing women to have a child against their wishes? Your religious beliefs do not apply to the bodies of other people!
She did pay for it with Private Funds.
Link Please
Vic, why did you misrepresent who paid for the abortion and then erroneously claim that the girl is Mexican? Was it your intent as a True Christian to lie so obviously? Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
And liberals believe that abortion is OK up to the date of expected delivery. That gives them better developed body parts to sell.
that's just a foul thing to say
Where did you get this lie? The limit of abortion, except in the case to save the mothers life, is the age of viability without extreme medical measures. That age is now about 28 weeks of gestation.
I did neither - I didn't write the article. The details were provided by the Associated Press. You dispute what the article said?
Either that is just a bad joke or a flat out lie. Which is it?
Neither or did you forget that you dear leader supported legislation in Illinois that would have allowed a baby born alive and possibly viable go be cast aside and allowed to die from neglect.
Or both!
Trump?
Never even heard of it. Source?
You wrote the title and you seeded an article which contains rather obviously false information. You might want to edit it and post a disclaimer since the woman isn't from Mexico and no taxpayer funds were used to pay for her abortion.
Been waiting 4 years....hope you have better luck!
If the article is false - PROVE IT
Actually I was wrong. Illinios had a bill that would have given human rights to a baby that was alive even if it was because of a botched abortion. Obama opposed this legislation wanting to instead have that baby die because of the abortion even if it was possible to survive. And no I dont beleive you have never heard of this and are just feigning ignorance.
Sorry Vic - I'm not going to waste any more time debunking complete crap you posted from a nutty anti-abortion site. You also falsely claimed that your source was the AP.
You need to man-up and learn to read real news. At the very least you should read the links other people have posted here which prove your article gets basic the facts wrong.
I don't really care if you believe me or not. I asked for a source. That's all.
The ONLY details that were 'provided by the Associated Press' were in the first paragraph. The rest is mostly misinformation written by Margaret Menge ala breitbart/lifezette.
Conservatives think that masturbation is murder.
That is ridiculous!
And you have a link that proves that stupid statement
his link is that stupid ass people say stupid ass things ie. leaving sperm on the ground or some such nonsense. I've heard that said, but it was said by stupid ass people.
Oh i know. I dont really ecpect him yo actually come up with anything. The thing is the only people I ever see making stupid comments like that are liberals.
No more ridiculous than saying liberals approve of abortion up to the due date!
Read 1.4.1, prove that stupid statement?
Ducking the question huh? Not surprised.
I would be happy If one single liberal would define the "acceptable" cutoff date for abortion. Still waiting....
arkpdx said:
Gordy327 said:
Willjay9 said:
Doesn't take luck just a willingness to look......
Barack Obama’s Actions and Shifting Claims on the Protection of Born-Alive Aborted Infants -- and What They Tell Us About His Thinking on Abortion
This is the national right to life's white paper on Barack Obama's actions in relation to passage of the Illinois version of the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002
He actually voted to kill it three times even after claiming that he supported the federal bill and would vote for it. In the end he was the deciding vote killing the illinois bill even though it incorporated the entire text of the federal bill with no changes. (except for the designated language that made it a state bill) All the provisions were identical with the federal law.
Also it documents where he lied about it and his statements of what it entails....
His lies were called out by Factcheck.....
Now as far as abortion goes, I am a right to lifer and support Infants Protection Act. A child makes it to the real world alive it is entitled to said life as is any other human being. The only choice a true libertarian can make. It is sad that we need a federal law to perfect that right.
As far as a woman's right to choose goes, the right to choose what happens to a persons body is as inviolate as their right to speak their mind, their right to self defense. The only course a true libertarian can take, otherwise, we admit that others can make and force decisions upon the individual. This can not be allowed under any system of free society.
So yes in a manner of speaking, Former President Obama while he was a state senator in Illinois, supported a live birth abortion. essentially that of a child came into the world live but the procedure was an abortion procedure, the child should be either killed or allowed to die.
In other words, the decision to not have a child dictates over all other outcomes including live birth.
So two things we learn here. (actually proven)
Former President Obama is a liar and that he is an absolutist when it comes to ideology.....
Not that I needed this example to establish those facts, but it was just needed to establish the point others were refusing to see.
Viability.
Why not posit a date yourself?
What links ??????
That's what iv'e been asking for. I'm always open to the possibility that I'm wrong, but I've only been able to find one article which definitively says who paid for the abortion. Neither you nor anyone else here has offered up any proof otherwise. What is interesting about all this is that on Thursday night Rachel Maddow had one of the ACLU lawyers from this case on her show. Maddow asked her directly who paif for the abortion. The answer came back very vague and quite misleading - "Well she did raise money for it".....
Now I understand why you are so convinced the abortion was paid for with private funds yet cant prove it
So we may be getting somewhere - you admit some details were provided by the AP - which ones?
There's a NY Times link at # 2.1 which was posted 2 days ago. In the future you might want to do a little more research before posting op-eds from RWNJ bible-babble sites and falsely claiming that they're the AP.
This whole seed is false.
The only things the seeded article got right were that she was an undocumented immigrant in DHS custody who wanted an abortion, the Trump admin tried to block that and they lost in court. The other details about where she was from and who paid for the abortion, the Trump admin's motives, Hyde Amendment violations, Ken Paxton's claims, etc, were all totally false.....and those completely false claims were the main reason why the article was seeded.
The age of viability without heroic medical measures is now approximately 28 weeks with an otherwise normal pregnancy.
It's time for you to put up..
You may want to read the Times article yourself - it was written before the abortion was performed and nowhere does it say the abortion was paid for privately. It must be frustrating I know.
Sounds like you're actually admitting that the "government-paid abortion" nonsense was completely bogus crap from the get-go. And you obviously missed or didn't comprehend this part of the NY Times article:
.
It's also clear that you didn't bother to read the court decision which the NY Times article links to, nor did you read the WaPo link or the CBS link which others have cited here. This is from the court ruling linked from the article:
.
Note that the bible-babble article you seeded makes a number of lies which I haven't seen any legitimate news source make on this story. Those lies were pure inventions intended to delude the gullible. And it's definitely not the job of the NY Times to debunk (much less predict) the random crap posted by right-wing op-eds at moronic bible-babbling sites like "Lifezette".
The procedure was not paid for by the taxpayers.
I am proud to be a 20+ year card-carrying member of the ACLU. It is her body and she gets to make that choice. Her healthcare choices are not to be made by a grandstanding politician or any religion.
The anti-abortion crowd have no problem being dishonest and lying in an effort to get their way. The only thing the government supposedly has to pay for is her transport to and from the clinic because they insist on keeping her in custody. This is in no way "paying for an abortion".
That sounds like a statement made before the abortion was performed. There may be proof that she did raise funds, but there is no proof they were used to pay for the abortion.
You also didnt provide us with your source
The government did not pay for the procedure or even the travel costs, despite your claim. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true and believing that falsehood doesn't make it true either.
Again that statement is before the fact....Where is the proof the abortion was privately paid for?
Where is your proof that the government paid for the procedure? What fund was used to pay for it? The US government doesn't pay for voluntary abortions because of the Hyde Amendment restrictions on abortion with the exception of rape incest or the life of the mother is in danger.
If private funds were raised to pay for the abortion then why wouldn't they be used to pay for both the abortion and the travel costs? The fact that you disagree with the 2 sources that I posted doesn't mean that you are correct. A confirmation bias fallacy isn't proof.
Your source is a conservative mouthpiece. Laura Ingram is a conservative talking head and not a respected journalist.
Here is another source that also says that the government didn't pay for the procedure or the transport costs. You have only your biased opinion.
You keep showing what the ACLU said they were prepared to do before the operation - it's the same stuff as the Times article - none of which says that it was privately paid for!
You cant prove that it wasn't paid for by private funds. All you have is a biased source that you believe in because it confirms your bias.
Why would they raise those private funds and then not use them, as you claim?
Her body, her choice, it was paid for by private funds. Yet the "government" sent her to a "crisis" center (pro life propaganda center) to try to change her mind.
The ironic part about this is if they would have succeeded, then her child would be a US citizen and taxpayer may have to be paying for it!
Well wouldn't that depend on whether she was deported prior to the child's birth or not?
They were creating an anchor baby. Religious conservatives aren't very intelligent. These people aren't pro-life because they don't care about the fetus once it becomes a person at birth. They are forced birth fundamentalists who gleefully trample on the rights of others, as long as they aren't members of their own church.
You keep saying it, but still no proof
That is what the ACLU said and I'd believe them over some nutty prolifer bs site.
Even they (scum that they are) never said it was privately paid for
Again, your proof?
Boy! Trump Administration logic at it's finest here!
You have a problem with this how? She is here illegally- she is legally free to return to her country of origin; or private funds could be used to help her. Leave it to the left to defend those that violate our laws with impunity.
Comedy! So basically the Trump administration is fine with an illegal immigrant being in the US as long as they can find someone that will take responsibility for them?!
Hmm.....sounds kind of like Obama's immigration policy don't you think?....btw private funds will be used, so the headline is blatantly false, what they are trying to stop her from getting an abortion period!
Boy! the hypocrisy knows no bounds when trying to defend the Tangerine-in-Chief!
That is EXACTLY what happened.
Leave it to the 'right' to jump to conclusions that support their agenda.
BTW, did you read the part were the government argued that she was free to:
Wouldn't that have allowed her to 'violate our laws with impunity'?
YEP!!
Because it's a lie. She isn't Mexican and it isn't an option to return her there.
"Abortion is banned in Jane Doe’s home country in Central America, which has not been identified."
I love it when the facts come home
Are you saying that Planned Parenthood is all privately supported and no taxpayer money is used for abortions?
She's still illegal and not a citizen
Yup, they want to extend rights to non citizens - to the whole world
No taxpayer money is used for elective abortions, per the Hyde Amendment.
You might want to read the US constitution before you comment. In general it applies to all persons under US jurisdiction.
Not for providing an abortion or for that matter entering the US.
We can go on and on until you back up what you claim
I'll point you to the US constitution and Roe v Wade. You clearly are a bit clueless as to whom the constitution applies and in which circumstances it explicitly protects just citizens rather than all persons (the latter being the general case).
It's funny - most T-baggers and other conservatives don't seem to know that the constitution generally protects all persons who are under US jurisdiction regardless of their citizenship. It's like they skipped high school civics entirely or they have some mental block on this topic.
What part of the Constitution? There is BIG difference between being a resident and being a citizen.
Here's a simple example from the 14th Amendment. Note the explicit use of citizen in one place, but person in others:
.
Similarly, all persons have a 5th Amendment right to due process......and the right to an abortion is found within the liberty and privacy aspects of due process. So Vic's claim is simply false and ignorant of the law.
This might help you understand the distinction:
That pretty much limits the country of origin to either Honduras or Nicaragua. If it is Honduras, when she is returned she'll go to jail for up to 6 years.
Pretty good reason for her to apply for asylum.
BTW, are you claiming that Honduran law will jail her for having an abortion in the US? If so, please provide a link.
Skrekk - you need to review your thought process on exactly what Jurisdiction means.
" Jurisdiction - the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases. Federal courts have jurisdiction over lawsuits between citizens of different states, cases based on federal statutes such as fair labor standards and antitrust violations, charges of federal crimes, appeals from bankruptcy proceedings, maritime cases or legal actions involving federal constitutional questions. Under federal and state laws and court rules, a court may exercise its inherent authority only if it has two types of jurisdiction: personal and subject matter. Personal Jurisdiction is the authority that a court has over the parties in the case. Subject Matter Jurisdiction is a court's authority over the particular claim or controversy."
A state, city, county nor country can not have "jurisdiction" over anyone from a foreign country UNLESS that person waives their immunity/immunities as a foreigner to that state, city, county or country. The 14th Amendment, as you have pointed out, does NOT grant Illegal Aliens protection because they still hold allegiance to their home country - unless they waive that allegiance.
You might also want to read the link you posted, as it sez - If I am arrested for immigration violations, do I have the right to a hearing before an immigration judge to defend myself against deportation charges ? Yes. In most cases only an immigration judge can order you deported. But if you waive your rights or take “voluntary departure,” agreeing to leave the country, you could be deported without a hearing. I f you have criminal convictions, were arrested near the border, came to the U.S. through the visa waiver program or have been ordered deported in the past, you could be deported without a hearing ."
Hmmm- "Were arrested near the border" - ooopppsss.
As do you. The definition you posted is of COURT jurisdiction. The definition of 'jurisdiction' in the 14th Amendment is the 'geographical territory' of a state. The 14th Amendment exclusively limits STATES actions against those within said STATE.
Where did you get that idea? Seriously, per your posit, the US [country] has no jurisdiction over a foreign national while they are in our country. Ridiculous on it's face.
Actually, that is the OPPOSITE of what Skreek said. The 14th Amendment DOES grant 'illegal aliens' protection because they are PEOPLE.
That's complete nonsense. The only persons in the US not subject to its jurisdiction are those with diplomatic immunity which is a very small subset of foreigners here, generally just ambassadors and their staff.
Note that if this Central American women were not subject to US jurisdiction then she couldn't be held by DHS and she wouldn't be in federal court trying to assert her rights.
Why is knowledge of the Hyde Amendment Kryptonite to conservatives? The government only pays for abortions in the case of rape, incest and the life of the mother is at risk. No on-demand abortions are paid for with public funds.
Can you read a balance sheet? The funding for demand abortions is paid for entirely with donations and not with public funds per the Hyde Amendment. A few of my dollars are part of that funding.
No woman should be forced to give birth to a child she doesn't want. It's just fiscally pragmatic to pay $1000 for an abortion than 20 years social aid costs for a child that isn't wanted. The fact that the earth is already overpopulated can't be ignored.
Government funding should not be going to crisis pregnancy centers that are merely a front for religious propaganda. That nonsense should be funded 100% by the churches who support lying to women.
Don't you also claim to be a Christian? Your Bible has a few words about how immigrants are to be treated.
I am not referring to the physical process. I and referring to the fact that she is denied having an abortion because she is poor or because of a law that is based on patriarchal religious belief.
No child is killed. It is a fetus that is terminated. If you want to intelligently discuss the subject then use the proper terms instead of an emotional strawman.
Your impression is very incorrect. An abortion is the last resort and not a usual form of birth control. Why do you think that you can determine the intimate health care of women? Is that because you are a man and we are supposed to be subservient, or is it because of your religious beliefs?
PP funding isn't as if the government gives money straight to PP for them to use however they want. Federal funds are made through medicaid reimbursements. So like any medical care, service is provided and Medicaid is billed for said services for reimbursement. But reimbursement does not cover abortions, per the Hyde Amendment, with specific exceptions outlined. It's also reasonable to assume that PP is probably one of the most heavily watched and audited agencies to ensure compliance, primary due to the issue of abortion. If there was misappropriation of funds, no doubt the outcry would be deafening.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
The two gentlemen (Howard/Cowan) were the drafters of the 14th Amendment.
So show me in the law that prevents the federal government from paying for non medically necessary abortions, which this was, if the woman requesting the abortion is a) an illegal alien, b) is in detention and c) unable to legally get an abortion in her home country.
Sorry but that's a neoconfederate myth. The congressional record makes clear that Congress considered but explicitly rejected restricting the 14th Amendment that way. The language of the amendment is clear that it generally applies to all persons, and the record shows that one of the main concerns was to protect immigrants and Catholics from irrational discrimination by the government. Another concern was that it not be written so broadly as to grant women a federal right to vote. I suggest you learn about the role John Bingham had in the framing of the language:
Not being clairvoyant I can honestly say I have no idea what would happen to her if returned, hell I can't even say where she's actually from. I made a simple statement of fact that abortion is a punishable crime in Honduras (and Nicaragua but I ran out of edit time). If you want to have an argument about some unknowable future event you'll have to find someone else, I'm not interested.
That's another false claim made by neoconfederates. It's also illogical......how would one determine the allegiance of any infant?
As "US v Wong Kim Ark" found, all persons born in the US are US citizens, except those born to foreign ambassadors and other such persons who have diplomatic immunity.
The Civil Right Act of 1866 gave the definition of who a citizen of the U. S. was, including the phrase "excluding Indians not Taxed".
However, because there were concerns that the Civil Rights Act might be subsequently repealed or limited the Congress took steps to include similar language when it considered the draft of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Citizenship is defined in the first clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, as modified to exclude "excluding Indians not Taxed", as:
The amendment's language was drafted by the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. The language defining citizenship was not in the introduced version of the amendment (H. J. Res. 127), but, was moved by Senator Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866. It was adopted by the Senate that day and later adopted by the House. The Senate's consideration of the Howard language can be found in volume 36 of the Congressional Globe, pages 2890 to 2897. - www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf, page 2890 under the discussion of "Reconstruction".
The debate in the Senate was conducted in a somewhat acrimonious fashion and focused in part on the difference between the language in the definition of citizenship in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the proposed amendment. Specific discussion reviewed the need to address the problem created by the Dred Scott decision, but also the possibility that the language of the Howard amendment would apply in a broader fashion to almost all children born in the United States. Interestingly, the vast majority of the discussion dealt with reasons for NOT giving "Indians not Taxed" U. S. citizenship.
The specific meaning of the language of the clause was not immediately obvious. In 1884 the Supreme Court of the United States in Elk v. Wilson, 112 U.S. 94, held that children born to members of Indian tribes governed by tribal legal systems were not U.S. citizens. In 1924 the Congress extended citizenship to all Indians by passing the Indian Citizenship Act, 43 Stat. 253, ch. 233.
In 1898 the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, ruled that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents was a United States citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the parents of such child had to have authorization from the Fed government to reside in the U. S. and they had to have established "roots" to substantiate their intent to reside in the U. S. permanently.
Per the Congressional Records, John Bingham was not a drafter of the specific section of the 14th we are discussing.
A fetus is not a baby and legally it is not alive until it is living independently from the mother's body. Nobody is forced to terminate a pregnancy so they have a right to disagree. What they don't have the right to do is to force their views on abortions on other women.
You certsainly have the right to disagree with me, but you don't have the right to force me to live by your opinions.
According to the Bible, a person isn't alive until it breathes air, so a fetus isn't alive.
I'll give a damn about any man's view on abortion when they manage to get pregnant.
Ahhh, but those "people" in the 14th are U. S. Citizens - not foreigners.
She is subject to the laws of the U. S., but that doesn't make her a citizen.
Yes, they will jail her for many years for having an abortion if she is from Honduras and is forced to return home.
The Hyde Amendment.
The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the government. It is not a list of what our rights are. Freedom is the right to act until the law says otherwise.
The SCOTUS has ruled on many occasions that the Bill Of Rights applies to all people residing in the US, even POWs, prisoners and tourists, instead of just full citizens. Only voting and the full 2nd Amendment is limited to US citizens. Geo. W. Bush tried to deny Gitmo prisoners their 4th -7th Amendments rights and the SCOTUS slapped his hands over this issue.
E.A LOL so then all female has to do to get a residency is get an abortion, then claim that if returned to their country they face " Legal persecution " what a RIP Off, and guess who " Sponsor it "
E.A See 4.1.3.3.… Eagle Averro
First of all, that is the second post that you've made that I believe qualifies as copyright infringement. Unless your real name is Fred Elbel, you really should remove your post since it's too late to edit it and properly post a link for citation.
Secondly, your comment in no way refutes my post.
Maybe you should have read the rest of the opinion -
In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
Nope. They used the word 'citizens' where they wanted it and 'any person' where they wanted it. I don't get why that so hard for you to accept. It's clear and cogent in the text.
You're getting there...
Bingham was the primary author of the equal protection clause as adopted, and the link I provided to the congressional record summary shows that "race" was rejected in favor of "all persons". That's the erroneous part of your comment I first responded to before I responded to your false claims about citizenship.
Ahhh - proper citation? Lemme see - this was part of my thesis in Law School in which I have 32 cites regarding immigration/citizenship. FAIRORG.com should lead you to a complete listing of articles/threads.
Donno who Fred Elbel is - he's certainly not affiliated with FAIR and he wrote nothing that I have posted.
Care to show me those potential "infringements"?
But it is not clear and cogent in the law.
I suspect you didn't understand what I said or what the court ruling said. The only persons born in the US who aren't US citizens at birth are those who are born to persons like foreign Ambassadors (and obviously their staff). In essence it means those parents who aren't under the jurisdiction of the US due to their diplomatic immunity.
That means that except for this one exception, everyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen regardless of who their parents are, where they're from or what their immigration status is.
And the illegal alien in question was not in danger of losing her life, had no other medical condition that warranted an a abortion and there was no indication that the pregnancy was because of rape or incest. Since those reasons to not apply in this case , it was illegal to have tax payer funds pay for the abortion.
There are many countries that prosecute the act of having an abortion. Conservatives would love to be able to enforce their religious belief and prosecute a woman who has an abortion in the US. I doubt that many politicians agree with this idea but conservatives know that their socially conservative voters like this idea so every time they'air are up for reelection they toss this red meat out to their voters as a way to engender themselves to fundamentalists.
This is why we need to have a much stronger separation of church and state in the US so as to prevent creeping theocracy. The fact that not all Christian sects are opposed to abortion is ignored by the religious right Abortion used to be Catholic only issue until self-serving conservative hypocrites discovered that Christian fundamentalists were eager to be led around by the nose by self-serving politicians who will willingly pander to them via religious legislation.
Abortion recently isn't as much of an issue not that Religious extremists have discovered that they can hate LGBT people who lack the legal protections of the Roe' decision.
I think you're referring to FAIRUS.org, the anti-immigration hate group founded by white supremacist John Tanton.
E.A So then in reality this is an all out " WAR " on any one that has ANY respect " For Human Life " and also for any respect for the GENETIC Code that allows Humanity to Exist?
E.A BINGO!!
And that has already been Proven that it is Unconstitutional and against " Human Rights " so watch This Space "!
It's actually quite clear to any literate person, and both clear and settled as a legal matter. When the constitution refers to "person" it's referring to any person within the geographic boundaries of the US and any other person subject to US jurisdiction. When the constitution refers to "citizen" it's referring to those who have US citizenship, which is a subset of all persons subject to US jurisdiction.
Which means that any child born to her in the US is automatically a US citizen.
Knew/know nothing of them. Was given a list of sites by our professor for those interested in the immigration debacle.
I'm wasn't/not interested in those type sites - prefer Cornell or Yale or SCOTUS sites for my legal information.
She didn't need to have a medical reason to have an abortion before 20 weeks. It has been explained to you many times that the taxpayers didn't pay for the procedure.
"to any literate person" - I'm quite sure you're not putting a dig at me, right?
The Constitution repeatedly uses the words "persons" or "people" when it refers to rights and never, NEVER, the word "citizen." Citizenship is not required to enjoy the rights under the Constitution in this country. Try reading that document that you people claim to worship and yet seem to know nothing about.
Read the discussions regarding the amendment. There is complete agreement as to what "citizen" and "person" and "all person's" mean -Congressional Globe, pages 2890 to 2897. - www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf, page 2890 under the discussion of "Reconstruction".
E.A what was NOT explained Is the whole Gambit, of Forcing the Government to accept her as a resident!
And once that is achieved, who pays?
See also 4.1.3.3.… Eagle Averro
E.A Is that the same Ploy as " Human Traffickers " that is " we pay but then YOU owe us your Life your Blood and what ever else WE demand "?
Anyone who thinks that having "respect for the GENETIC Code that allows Humanity to Exist" justifies anti-LGBT discrimination is a theocratic loon.
As far as it being an "all out WAR on any one that has ANY respect For Human Life", I'd say it's a war on all the nosy theocratic bible-babblers who think other people's wombs are their business.
You're welcome.
From the seeded article:
You need to learn how to distinguish facts from the fake news peddled by bible-babbling RWNJs.
Well that certainly doesn't explain why you cited a white supremacist group instead of credible references for the law.
So far you've gotten several very simple and basic facts about the constitution completely wrong. What sort of law degree did you claim to have and where is it from?
I believe you're referring to one anti-immigrant Congressman's understanding of that language, not to what Congress intended when it passed the 14th Amendment, much less to how SCOTUS has ruled on their interpretation of that language.
I see now where you're getting your neoconfederate nonsense from.
Obviously you didn't read it then. 14 Senators discussed the amendments - why do you select the one Senator from California or the one from Wisconsin or the one from Pennsylvania (gypsies, Indians, Chinese) - and they defined/refined their definitions of "citizen", "person", and "all persons".
Try reading it and then we'll talk.
Federal Indian Law - University of Tulsa, School of Law
Yours?
Wow - that's a helluva jump.
I presume you meant 32 citations. You have NONE in the 2 comments here.
Fred Elbel claims to be the author of your comment, his article entitled 'Original intent of the 14th Amendment' states exactly what you posted VERBATIM. He is the CEO of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Here is the link.
"Cites" abbreviation for "Citations" when you're writing tons of friggin' papers.
Wouldn't go near Fred with a 10 foot pole that was extended 40 feet.
Our professor gave us a listing of links (probably should have used that term instead) for discussion on immigration and how it "might" impact Tribal Sovereignty. I deleted 'bout half of them 'cause of their leanings. He said he added the "fringe" elements just to see where we would go with them.
Most of the information I'm posting I had actually used in writing some of my papers - so, I won't be "citing" myself.
Which part didn't you comprehend?
And what is your actual degree? At the very least it seems that your school skipped con law.
Just as a for example that supports your statement, my parents were in the US with no intention of immigrating there when I was born. Because of that I am a US citizen even though I have no memory of the place (we left when I was 3). I know I am a citizen because when I was around 21 I received a notification to register for the draft and when my Dad retired I legally sponsored him for his US citizenship so he could move to Florida
That explains a lot too given that you've been quoting or citing as authoritative right-wing hate groups like FAIR and CAIR.
You deprived yourself of an education and have only yourself to blame for that.
That's probably the biggest drawback of US citizenship although today it's only a theoretical issue.
Even though I was born in the US and lived there until I started traveling internationally beginning in my mid 20s I never had to register for the draft....I fell into a loophole of a few years when I turned 18. I'm not sure what I would have done otherwise.
I posted the website. The freaking article that states the comment you posted VERBATUM, is COPYRIGHTED.
Author: Fred Elbel
Website by Elbel Consulting Services
Copyright 2007-2017 - all rights reserved
She is not yet a legal US resident, so I am not sure where you are getting this claim. Her life may be in jeopardy if she returns to her home country, so she may have the standing to apply for political asylum to stay in the US.
That does NOT address the FACT that you COPY AND PASTED your comment and that it is NOT your own content. Since you refuse to remove your post I'll deal with it per the CoC.
The OP posted a lie! I posted this response to that lie yesterday. The abortion wasn't authorized by the US government. Federal courts ruled the Trump administration could not prevent her from having an abortion.
This is the truth of the matter, despite if you believe it or not.
What supposed human rights does Roe violate?
The Roe decision was made by the SCOTUS so logically it cannot be unconstitutional because the job of the SCOTUS it to define what is constitutional.
The Roe decision has been revisited many times ( PP v. Casey, Webster v. Reproductive health services, and Stenberg v. Carhart among others) but it has never been overturned because we have the right to make the intimate medical decisions free from the meddling of the government. The right to privacy is well established.
1st,
That needs to have the website cited. It is copyright infringement and I could get into trouble. Thanks.
E.A LOL so YOU think that SCOTUS in infallible, and that THEY " Make the Laws "??
Hmm I wonder how many time SCOTUS has been overturned
And " Human Rights " are far beyond the Preview of SCOTUS!
The SCOTUS is the last word in constitutionality of US laws. That is why they exist. Do you understand the Marbury v. Madison decision that established the precedent of constitutional review for the SCOTUS?
The mess of Dred Scott decision lead to the US Civil war.
The SCOTUS has revisited and occasionally overturned or modified a previous decision. The most famous being the Lochner debacle.
What are these human rights that you are referring to?
E.A No Please take the time to understand the Process::
1 Law Makers those elected by the CITIZENS make the Laws
2 When any CITIZEN claims that the LAW that was enacted is Misapplied, then it goes before a JUDGE to see where and how.
3 When a Judge makes a Decision, that is NOT Supported by the " Law Makers " they can then make CHANGES to the Legislation or ask a " Higher Court " for a review.
4 When it get to the HIGHEST court SCOTUS, and the LAW MAKERS and or CITIZENS still do not like it, then the PEOPLE make a ruling to change the LAW, the SCOTUS can do nothing. BUT enforce the LAW it is GIVEN!
Where do you get this outrageous claim? How do the people make a ruling to overrule the SCOTUS? Did you graduate from high school?
Your random capitalization doesn't help your nonsense arguments.
The Supreme Court doesn't enforce the law. That is the job of the DOJ and the 50 states.
Where are those supposed human rights that you keep referring to?
E.A Thank you I have now Ended any further communication with YOU on this take care!
She didn't make either claim, those are just your twisted failures to understand her comment. And it's a fact that SCOTUS alone determines the constitutionality of a law.....no other branch of government can logically or fairly do that. The founding fathers understood that in federalist paper #78.
.
An explicit reversal has only happened a few times like in Lawrence v Texas where SCOTUS explicitly reversed their own ruling In Bowers v Hardwick and said: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided, is not correct today, and is hereby overruled."
And note that only SCOTUS can reverse its own rulings.
.
That's an obviously false statement. You clearly know nothing about how the US legal system works.
I don't know about Honduras but a number of US states and various countries have had such oppressive laws. Heck....Wisconsin even has penalties for going out of state to have a marriage which isn't recognized by Wisconsin.
What are the WORDS on top of this Document Perrie?
The Document has NO power other then that GIVEN to it by?
WE The PEOPLE
Means what?
E.A One and Only " Irrevocable Rights " mean what?
Seems that some one does not know what irrevocable is, and how NO one is empowered to make any changes to IT.
What Parts of that agreement are Irrevocable?
A Lot of TALK about no comprehension!
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I'll reply if you reconsider, which I hope that you will do.
Almost any part of the Constitution is subject to change and modification with time. The Constitution could not continue to be effective if it didn't have the ability to change. We have both rulings by the SCOTUS and the amendment process to effect that change.
We as a country are not importing anything. Our country has traditionally been a sanctuary for people seeking asylum. The poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty is proof of that idea. My ancestors came to the US to escape European religious wars between Protestants and Catholics in the late 1800s.
E.A You Place me in a very difficult position here is why::
I By nature Faith and whatever makes me me, love to communicate with people of ALL types.
But Communication has to be Two Sided, I have tried countless times to point out what the LAW and what the Constitutions IS, to no avail.
But I am willing to try again, Only if respect is Two sided and YOU do not treat me as a Child and a Moron!
E.A OK this will be " The Test of Fire ":
See meaning of the Word Irrevocable, that is an Addendum on a Contract.
I will explain it this way if I May:
You have some property you want to sell, on the Sale Contract you add a Caveat, or addendum that to time immemorial those trees must NOT be cut down.
Can The Buyer after purchase go to a court to get permission to cut those trees?
How is this in any way relevant to the US Constitution? Where is the legal precedent for this action?
What rights do you fear will be taken away from you?
BTW, How do the people make a ruling?
E.A See this 4.1.3.3.… Eagle Averro
Take the time and read ALL of what I said to YOU till this point,
I am not treating you like either a child or a moron. I am questioning your claims.
It doesn't appear that you know what the law is or how the US Constitution functions. I am trying to follow your claims but they are not at all clear or concise. Capitalizing random words does not help your arguments.
E.A NO, and this is " Where do you get this outrageous claim? How do the people make a ruling to overrule the SCOTUS? Did you graduate from high school? "
OK lets make an amicable separation!
Please explain how the people of the US make a ruling to overrule the SCOTUS if you aren't referring to Congress? The POTUS doesn't have the power to do so because the founders didn't want the President to have too much power. I am not aware that the people can overrule the SCOTUS, so I want you to explain this to me because I have never heard this claim.
Have the people ever overuled the SCOTUS in the past, and if so when did it happen?
Wrong - "The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship By Birth to Non-Americans", The 14th Amendment, By P. A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, February 1, 2005, Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only." - www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Perrie - as I've told you before, for some reason I can't "copy/paste" website addresses for some reason, nor can I "copy/paste" titles, etc. from articles - only the article. Maybe we can "talk" about a solution.
But, my wife LUV's Apple.
So now you admit that the content of your comment isn't from your 'thesis' and that it IS a copy and paste from another article SOMEONE ELSE WROTE.
Why LIE?
NO credibility.
Then Type in the Link, till a solution is found
Where in that link does it state:
Or any of the other content of you post after that?
Hint, it doesn't.
Oh BTFW, didn't you just tell Perrie that couldn't manage to post the title or the link of an article? It sure as hell looks like that was BS too.
Stop digging...
It was no big deal for me either I called up the 800 number in the letter, explained my situation and they told me to forget about it.
Nah - we had to take the Intro to Con Law for a semester but we studied mostly SCOTUS ramifications to Indian Law, specifically the Marshall Trilogies and the Rehnquist courts with a little review of the Robert's court.
Actual degree - I have six degrees - three undergrad and three Master's including the law degree - English, Safety Engineering, Environmental Science, M.A. Management, M.S. Air Operations and Space Superiority, Master's of Jurisprudence in Federal Indian Law.
Helpful?
Since you have a personal burr under your saddle for me - quite honestly, I am technically uneducated with computers, iPhones, iPads, iPods and have explained this to Perrie a number of times over the years. She tries to help, but for some reason, not all the help works.
I quoted Madison's work - no one else's. I give credit where credit is due. Four years of Indian Law produced over 4,000 pages of writings of which ALL of my cites were accurate and in accordance with the MLA. But, I didn't have to copy/paste and all of the writings are mine to do with as I please which includes copy/paste from Word Documents I have already written.
For some reason, my "system" won't allow me to copy/paste from websites. Heck, I can't even post pictures or memes. Apple Support has been of no assistance and they blame my fingers and lack of ability to understand the finer points of utilization of their marvelous toys in today's world.
I wish you well.
So it's not actually a JD, more like a certificate in a specialty program for those who might interact with tribal courts. That explains why you didn't have con law.
However before you opine about con law (or quote extensively from your sources) I'd suggest checking your sources. It kind of sounds like you tossed the good ones and kept the bad ones.
I explained the Con Law to you - our emphasis dealt with how SCOTUS has handled the "Supreme Law of the Land"(which includes Treaties with the tribes/nations) specifically with those three Justices as Chief - and the decision/consensus is/was - friggin' apathetically.
No, not a "State Barred" attorney as I haven't taken the state's Bar Exam - no way will that happen. However, can represent tribes/nations in courts, serve as a tribal/nation attorney, and represent tribe/nations in other venues as they see fit.
Yes, there's a lot of bad law out there - and a lot of good law. Unfortunately, in the arena of Federal Indian Law - it is mostly bad law. Any doubts, read Felix Cohen's Handbook on Federal Indian Law - you'll be flabbergasted.
After doing more research, found that Fred is the HEAD of his group, but he did not author the article - P. A. Madison authored it and did not copyright it. P. A. Madison is a writer/contributor to the "Federalist Blog".
That's not what I was referring to. I was stating that you made erroneous claims about the US constitution upthread, the 14th Amendment in particular. And then you admitted to discarding sources your professor provided because you thought they were "biased", while at the same time passing off articles from neoconfederates as your own by failing to link or blockquote, and then even citing white supremacist groups like FAIR as credible.
The Trump administration said in court that it has a new policy of refusing to "facilitate" abortions for unaccompanied minors taken into federal custody after crossing the border illegally.
When I look at the states that were signatories along with Texas it says a lot. They speak loudly of the violation of principles concerning th Hyde amendment then ignore the Johnson Amendment, pick and chose in religion as well as politics.
What bothers me more than anything else is that TX forced the woman to get an unnecessary sonogram and get "counseling" by anti-abortion bible-babblers. And they also illegally violated her privacy by notifying her parents in Central America. There are several constitutional violations in those deliberate actions by the state & feds.
Pregnancy crisis centers should be banned....false advertising.....bunch of busy bodies that feel the need to butt into other people's lives.
Yep, and the state's endorsement of that fraud is pretty clearly a violation of the Establishment clause.
Would you rather she have her baby here in the US and it become an Anchor Baby?
You guys can't have it both ways ya know
Exactly!
Well actually, from an institutional standpoint i think both need to be reformed.
When my Grandparents came through Ellis Island in the early 1900's there were not massive social programs like today to take care of them. They were expected to assimilate, get a job, become productive citizens and not become a financial burden to society. And that is exactly what they did while raising seven children. Federal assistance was limited to non existent.
I'm not saying we shut the door on either of those things completely but we must take care of our own first. That is not happening and it's a damn travesty.
None of those things were requirements for immigration in the 1900's. There was ZERO follow up on immigrants once they left Ellis island. Many never learned English or left the ethnic neighborhood they first lived in. I went to school in the 50's and 60's with quite a few Poles whose parents didn't speak English and never left the NW side of Chicago. The neighborhood shop owners spoke Polish and the Church held mass in Latin and Polish [many of the Nuns were from Poland]. The same can be said for Chinatown in both Chicago and San Francisco. In SF, there is a Russian Orthodox area that in the late 1980's still had Russian speaking servers at all the shops [including fantastic bakeries BTW].
The coal mining towns in Western PA had neighborhoods like that. One street would be where the Russians lived, one where the Polish lived, one where the Ukrainians lived, so on and so forth
So no....the immigrants in the early 1900's didn't really assimiliate all that well
I didn't say they were requirements, i said it was expected. How else would they have survived? The social programs that provide assistance to immigrants today were basically non existent back then.
The point is they faired just fine without them. My grandparents were proud to be Americans. So much so they refused to speak their native tongue. Much to the chagrin of their grandchildren who wanted to learn to speak it.
The gulf between them and immigrants today is vast on many levels. That much can not be debated. It is fact.
So that is how my grandparents ended up in bumfuck michigan and became farmers?
Not all immigrants were huddled masses in big cities
Not all immigrants became farmers or miners or lumberjacks who worked in rural areas either. My dads side ended up in a very small German community in Minnesota who started out as carriage makers and later became inventers of 'modern' farm implements.
Much of that was done right at Ellis Island on their first official documents.
BTW, Thompson is an English name.
You inferred that those expectations were external, they weren't. As for 'social programs', the fact is that in the vast majority of cases, they went into ethnically diverse tenement neighborhoods that DID have assistant programs, some were just within each tenement, some organized in the community and church. Look up Jane Adams, she was and is a heroine in the Chicago immigrant community.
As did my Grandfather who came here when he was 16. He did however work two full time jobs and he would speak his native tongue to his elderly neighbor, mostly about their gardens.
Yes, the vast majority of immigrants today are much more highly educated and almost all speak English, have a job pending and are sponsor in the US by an employer or a family/friend. They ARE EXPECTED PROVE that they are able to support themselves so or that someone in the US [national or citizen] will be responsible for them. I personally sponsored a family and never had a days worry about my decision to take on that responsibility. 15 years later they are still hardworking and prosperous.
That's shortsighted and uninspired
I never said they did.
You apparently are operating off the false assumption that i am against immigration. Nothing could be further from the truth but i infer nothing. My points have been made plain and simple. Not my problem if you feel a need to twist them into something that fits closer to the narrative you're trying to push. Difference is i'm not pushing a narrative. I'm stating facts.
Bottom line and again, immigrants today have a plethora of tax payer funded options available to them that my grandparents did not have. I can go into all the acronyms if you want but i'm sure you'll find a way to rationalize all that away as well so i won't bother.
Regardless, nothing you say can change the variance in federal assistance made available to immigrants from then to now. Nothing rational that is.
Spot on and on point!
The problem is that unless you are 100% Native American, you are the result of immigrants coming here. So, in essence, they are ALL us. We are a nation of immigrants, always have been, always will be.
NOT "Always has been". My family has been here for thousands of years - and we weren't "immigrants".
I have never known a sponsored immigrant that received 'taxpayer funded options'. Because of the requirement to be self sufficient, they are NOT eligible. You may be thinking of refugees [who get assistance for a short period of time] or 'illegal immigrants' [who receive many of the same assistance for their childre as poor citizens].
Your comment supports my assertion.
Neanderthals?
Yeah your ancestors migrated here also. Some indications are that the ancestors of todays "Native Americans" were about the third wave to migrate over the land bridge
Neanderthals are strictly european.
Everyone migrated from Africa. That is the roots of Homospains. Everyone else spread out from there, with the exception of Neandertals, which came from another branch of humanoids.
As for Indians. the three wave theory no longer holds true due to further studies of DNA. In fact, tracing the roots of Indians is very difficult since the DNA record shows them to be both Asia as well as Oceania.
Well, there you have it.. If the History Channel says there were 'Ancient Aliens', well beam me up Scotty!
The problem with that is, American Indians are not native to this continent either. Technically they are immigrants as well.
Edit: My bad, i see this was already dealt with very nicely above.
Then you need to study harder. Many lawful immigrants (green card or otherwise) are eligible for programs like TANF, SNAP. CHIP, WIC an SSI.
Even unlawful immigrants have access to other programs like WIC, CACFP, and TEFAP.
And none of that accounts for state programs available to them depending on the state.
It is disingenuous as hell to compare US immigrants from the early 1900's to US immigrants of today in that regard. By comparison the earlier immigrants had nearly zero state and federal assistance to help them along their way. They HAD TO make it on their own.
Saying otherwise is simply ...... revisionist history.
Used to have a guy named Walter that worked for me. He was Ukranian and immigrated here with his parents in his early 20's. His real first name was Vododimir. Not sure why they changed it. Americanization or just couldn't spell it right.
Nah - Neanderthals were from 430,000 BCE to 40,000 BCE.
And the Ancient Aliens came from the ''Red Planet''...
The Clovis Culture was originally though to date back 13,000 years. With recent discoveries that time line has been moved back to 25,000 years. A few years back the advanced DNA testing of ''Montana Boy'' showed a direct DNA link between the Clovis people and modern day Native Americans.
Many linguists believe that the populating of the Americas dates as far back as 50,000 years ago. The study of language and it's changes that are known are the basis for this belief.
As more and more discoveries are made, the date of populating the Americas will be moved further and further back in time, IMO.
Well, to be fair, "1000's of years", does qualify.
The big problem is that the primary coastal migration route is now under several hundred feet of water.
The coastal routes are underwater, but Naia was discovered off the Yucatan in a 140 feet of water. She is between 12 and 13,000 years old. Off the coasts of California in the Santa Cruz islands 11,000 plus remains have been found. Montana boy was 12,500 years old. Montana boy skeleton is quite away inland. Also finds in Texas dating back over 14,000 years have been discovered.
What is interesting is that Naia was on the east coast of Mexico far from the coastal routes of the west coast.
With the advancement in DNA, drones, submersibles and ground penetrating radar I feel that many more discoveries will be made, both on land and offshore which will keep setting back the time frame of the populating of the Americas.
You know some stuff!!
Where did I say it was?
Those are all English too...
My comment had nothing to do with study, it had to do with personal experience.
Please do not block quote your own comments in your replies to me.
I did 'prove myself' by referring to your comment.
No, I would rather the US streamline it's deportation process so that there was no chance of her having the baby here; or needing to have an abortion before being shipped back to Mexico.
Of course that is asking for too damn much. Just like legitimate immigration reform is. Which would include dropping US citizenship from just being born on US soil- to include that either one of the biological parents is from the US and willing to care for the child financially once born.
The corporate oligarchy makes too damn much profit to let that happen. There won't even be mandatory E verify.
So just the little thingy of Amending the Constitution and then getting the US parent to sign a contract to ensure financial responsibility [otherwise that 'willingness' doesn't mean bupkis].
There is a term for that, it's called, "theft".
So taking someone else's property without consent isn't theft to cons? Good to know, and one more reason to keep them off my property.
No, pretty sure taking someone's property without consent or permission is called theft, something the cons are very good at.
2 points.
#1. One of the arguments from Texas was that she wasn't old enough to make the decision. Yet, they also conceded that if her choice had been to continue the pregnancy, they would have accepted it. It's called hypocrisy.
#2. The decision to not allow her to get an abortion had no legal backing, any other medical procedure that she needed would have been provided. It was a theological decision, and states are not allowed to have an official theology.
Both of the excellent.
The good news is.....she can be deported!
Hopefully she will very soon.
You do realize this article is a blatant lie right? Taxpayer NEVER had to pay for her abortion, what they were doing was trying to not let her get an abortion.
And this is were I shake my head at the hypocrisy of the right
So in their eyes this fetus had more of rights on American soil than this teenager!
The fetus is "sacred", the woman be damned.
Private funds. NO taxpayer money.
Where did I say in my response about the tax payer footing the bill for her abortion?
I said....she can be deported now!
Actually, there is still a question of due process, which is another Constitutional right that she enjoys merely by being a human being in this country.
damn that pesky constitution!
Willie, why dont you disprove it - how about a link?
Why don't you do some research on a topic before posting an error-riddled article whose initial premise is false?
It dosen't work that way - you say it's false, it's on you to back it up.
Sorry Vic - I stopped debunking nutty bible-babbler sites long ago. I suggest you get your news from a legitimate news site next time otherwise you'll face the same ridicule when you post such complete nonsense.
the sooner the better
I'd rather help pay for her responsible decision now, as opposed to paying for her kid for the next 18 years, or worse, paying for her kid's kid when the time comes.
We could have and should have just sent her back where she have come from and let her be tgeir problem.
Such would be another anchor baby and the establishment of residence for this "woman" which would likely turn into a haven for others to follow and "be safe".
Absolutely!
But, how do we know how her pregnancy came about? She is ok now. She needs to go back to her home.
and hopefully never to return again