Do YOU admire Jane?

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:24 am

In the hearings, an immigration lawyer who is trying to convince the senators not to vote for Judge Kavanaugh, just told the story of a young teenager named Jane, who wanted an abortion, and had to fight to get it. This attorney lamented the fact that young Jane’s mother was told about her situation, against Jane’s will, and that Jane ultimately “prevailed” and got her abortion. The attorney then lauded Jane, praised her to the sky, and gushingly professed her admiration for this girl’s bravery, courage, and greatness. I’m astounded. Does the teen Jane really deserve our praise? For standing firm and getting an abortion? That’s courage? Bravery? Heroism? Is this how all democrats think?

watergirl

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:31 am

You have an interesting way to tell it.

From https://www.thecut.com/2018/09......html

Senator d!ck Durbin grilled Kavanaugh on his decision in a case involving a young immigrant who wanted an abortion.
Last year, while serving on the D.C. Circuit Court, Kavanaugh issued a decision that would have delayed a 17-year-old girl in immigrant detention from getting an abortion — even though she was already almost 16 weeks into her pregnancy. In Kavanaugh’s decision (which was eventually overturned), he described her case as an instance of “abortion on-demand.”

Democratic senator d!ck Durbin grilled Kavanaugh on this point, noting that the minor had obtained a judicial bypass, which should have allowed her to get the procedure without parental consent, and “complied with every legal requirement, including Texas state requirements, placed in front of her, so she could move forward with her decision.”

In response, Kavanaugh emphasized that Jane Doe was a minor. If she were an adult, he said, “she would have a right to obtain the abortion immediately.” He added that his interpretation of parental consent laws meant she had to be placed with an immigration sponsor with whom she could consult about the decision “if she wished” before getting the procedure — even though, as Durbin pointed out, she had already jumped through all the legal hoops put in her way by Texas law, including by obtaining the aforementioned judicial bypass.

Saher Khan
✔
@SaherMKhan
· Sep 5, 2018
Replying to @SaherMKhan
Sen. Hatch asks Kavanaugh about his record on environmental issues. Kavanaugh's been reiterating this since yesterday: “I’m a pro law judge."

Kavanaugh - "In some cases I ruled against environmentalists' interests and in some cases I’ve ruled for environmentalists interests"

Saher Khan
✔
@SaherMKhan
Sen. Durbin asks Kavanaugh about Hargan v. Garza, a case of undocumented teen in ICE custody who sought abortion. When asked why he dissented, Kavanaugh said he was following precedent of her status as a minor. JaneDoe had gotten judicial bypass of Texas' parental consent law

1:44 PM - Sep 5, 2018
34
23 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Senator Richard Blumenthal compared the way Kavanaugh talks about “existing precedent” to a “current wife.”
While Senator Blumenthal was questioning Kavanaugh about his dissent in Hargan v. Garza (the aforementioned case involving a 17-year-old in immigrant detention being denied an abortion) and pushing him to clarify his position on Roe v. Wade, Blumenthal made a curious analogy. Blumenthal’s apparent intent was to challenge Kavanaugh’s reference to Roe v. Wade as a “current precedent” during questioning.

“It’s a little like somebody introducing his wife to you as ‘my current wife,’” said Blumenthal. “You might not expect that wife to be around for all that long.”

Despite the odd phrasing, Blumenthal was firm in his line of questioning. He asked Kavanaugh if he would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if the decision came up. Kavanaugh declined to answer.

And here's another link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0......html

SixOfWands

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 11:41 am

Ruchel wrote:

I didn't hear of that story. I certainly can admire being strong headed for the right. But not for death.

Jane Doe was a 17 year old unaccompanied minor, undocumented alien who was detained after crossing the border. While detained in a private shelter, she decided to have an abortion, which was her right under US law. However, the government barred her from going to abortion-related appointments. For Doe, the government's actions were pushing her later into the pregnancy.

Kavanaugh argued that the government should be given time to place Doe with a sponsor so she could be with a "family member," -- possibly someone she's never met before. More problematic for her was that it usually takes weeks or months to locate a suitable sponsor, she had already made her decision to abort, she had obtained a court order allowing her to consent to the abortion on her own, and she actually already had a court-appointed guardian looking out for her best interests.

In essence, this case was about whether the government may deprive administrative detainees of constitutional rights. The decision was no. Kavanaugh dissented.

I don't know Doe's situation. It doesn't matter to me. What if I told you that she was pregnant as a result of being gang raped when she crossed the border? Or that she came to the US to escape her father who raped her? Or that she knew she was the carrier of a severe genetic condition? What if she were Jewish, and her rabbi told her to abort? Are you still OK with the government saying no?

watergirl

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:19 pm

MiracleMama wrote:

Can I admire a young girl sticking up for her rights even though I don't agree with what she was fighting for? At all.

I also have an issue that this was her right in the first place, as she was here uninvited and illegally. Why does she have rights at all? And who paid for the abortion? US tax payers?

Not happy with any of that.

But I can still admire something about her. I mean, if we're looking for the good, there is certainly something to find.

I'm not very political. But it seems like "Jane" was in a lose-lose situation here. I hate talking about a person in terms of tax-payer dollars, but humor me for a second. If Jane were to keep the baby, she's damned because she's just had a "border baby" and will cost tax payers even MORE in terms of WIC, foodstamps, medicaid, and the birth itself. Jane is in a lose situation because people hate when undocumented immigrants come over the border to give birth to babies that will be American and eligible for all that stuff.
So she has the abortion and is a lose now because tax payers paid for it. She's actually SAVED a lot of money.

Where does she win? She's had a safe procedure in the States.

We know NOTHING about this young woman's situation. We dont know why she came and we dont know why she wanted the abortion. My assumption is that she had a darn good reason for wanting it, and she knew that she could not properly care for it. We DO know that she has followed the appropriate laws (aside from sneaking into the country, small detail) to go about this.

Now, can we stop talking about another women' difficult decision? May we all never know from it.

Last edited by watergirl on Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:36 pm; edited 1 time in total

pesek zman

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:27 pm

MiracleMama wrote:

Would you gave preferred that "US taxpayers" pay for her child's (who would have been a US citizen if born in the US) pay for her child's Medicaid? If $ is your issue than an abortion is certainly cheaper for taxpayers than lifelong medical care

pesek zman

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 12:29 pm

watergirl wrote:

I'm not very political. But it seems like "Jane" was in a lose-lose situation here. I hate talking about a person in terms of tax-payer dollars, but humor me for a second. If Jane were to keep the baby, she's damned because she's just had a "border baby" and will cost tax payers even MORE in terms of WIC, foodstamps, medicaid, and the birth itself. Jane is in a lose situation because people hate when undocumented immigrants come over the border to give birth to babies that will be American and eligible for all that stuff.
So she has the abortion and is a lose now because tax payers paid for it. She's actually SAVED a lot of money.

Where does she win? She's had a save procedure in the States.

We know NOTHING about this young woman's situation. We dont know why she came and we dont know why she wanted the abortion. My assumption is that she had a darn good reason for wanting it, and she knew that she could not properly care for it. We DO know that she has followed the appropriate laws (aside from sneaking into the country, small detail) to go about this.

Now, can we stop talking about another women' difficult decision? May we all never know from it.

I posted before I read your (on point and eloquent) response. Agree with all of it

MiracleMama

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:23 pm

pesek zman wrote:

Why is it one or the other? Why should US citizen be paying for either option?

And why are you mixing up the issues. I said that I did not agree with her aborting this child. (Presuming it was not due to great medical risk or some other unusual circumstances beyond "it's not convenient for me to have a child right now.")

I also mentioned as a side note that while I could admire a young woman for fighting for her rights (even if I disagree with what she specifically fighting to do) I don't really understand why we give illegal alliens any rights to begin with or pay for any services for them.

This was a side comment. My comment was NOT about finding the most economically expedient way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.

pesek zman

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:36 pm

MiracleMama wrote:

This has been discussed extensively in other threads but the bottom line is that the pregnant woman was actually a girl, a child, a minor. That may have been a factor in he wanting to abort, but her reason doesn't matter to me. It varies from state to state but for the most part, undocumented minors are eligible for limited health insurance becaise the objective is not to 'punish' a child (by denying them access to healthcare)

33055

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 1:57 pm

pesek zman wrote:

Shouldn't illegal immigrants get greater benefits than Americans? Legal American 17 year olds can't have medicaid fund their abortions in 35 states including Texas.

https://abortionfunds.org/medicaid/

Why should illegal aliens be accorded more benefits than Americans? That 17 year old broke the law to enter the United States.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:08 pm

watergirl wrote:

And so, the answer to the question I posed is....she’s deserving of gushing praise?

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:10 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

I love how dems and liberals won’t use the truthful term for people who are here illegally: illegal. Not “undocumented.” Illegal.

Cheiny

Fri, Sep 07 2018, 2:11 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

And if she was, G-d forbid, your daughter? Would you feel the same? Would you be ok with you not being told?