Many were horrified by news accounts of an 11-year-old girl in Argentina who, 23 weeks pregnant, underwent a procedure like a C-section rather than the abortion she had sought weeks earlier. The girl had been raped by the boyfriend of her grandmother, with whom the girl had been living. In language that will be hard to forget, she wanted doctors “to remove what the old man put inside me.” Lucia (a pseudonym) was placed in state care a week after her pregnancy was discovered because “self-inflicted lesions” indicated suicide attempts.
Argentina law allows abortions in the case of rape or to protect the life of a pregnant person. In the U.S., Lucia might still have been in elementary school. Her pregnancy was discovered long before fetal viability, when the fetus/baby would have a reasonable chance of surviving outside the womb. Some news reports said 16 weeks, others 19. But government-created delays caused the pregnancy to progress to the point where there were calls to “save both lives.” Doctors performed a procedure similar to a C-section, even though the infant was unlikely to survive. The baby died after 10 days in intensive care. Two children, then, were harmed by the abortion delay.
It’s easy to think that would never happen in the U.S. But which part? Certainly, such a rape can and does happen here. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that approximately one in four girls are sexually abused before the age of 18 in the U.S.
What about the delay in the abortion? What do we think the restrictive laws passed in conservative states are about? As long as the Supreme Court upholds the right to abortion, those laws’ primary effect is to delay abortion, to force a pregnancy to term.
Some laws directly delay abortion, like mandatory counseling and waiting periods. Some are less direct, placing unnecessary and expensive regulations on clinics in an effort to close them down. Fewer clinics mean more travel distance. More travel distance means more time off from work, and more transportation and lodging costs. More financial burden means more time needed to collect the money from friends and family. Seventy-five percent of those seeking an abortion are low income; every obstacle put in their path is magnified by their limited resources.
These obstacles do not ultimately deter most abortions. They are just delayed. But delays mean a more developed fetus that starts looking more like a baby. That makes abortion morally more difficult for the pregnant person, for the providers, for everyone. It also makes the abortion riskier. According to one study, each week an abortion is delayed increases the mortality risk by 38 percent, although abortion is still safer than carrying a pregnancy to term.
In the case of Lucia, there were early reports that a C-section was performed at the behest of health authorities who wanted physicians to try to save both lives. The physicians pushed back, saying the C-section was safer for Lucia. Whatever the truth on that question, the greater truth is that it never needed to reach that point. Reaching that point caused grave harm to Lucia; she became a mother against her will as physicians cut her open to pull out the baby the old man put inside her.
How far back would we have to look for a prominent case of intentional government delay of an abortion for a minor in the U.S.? Not far at all, it turns out.
An unaccompanied minor, “Jane Doe” or “J.D.,” crossed the southern U.S. border illegally in September 2017, and while in federal detention, discovered that she was pregnant. She wanted and was clearly entitled to an abortion. Under the United States Constitution, a minor can access an abortion without parental involvement if she is mature enough to make the decision for herself. In J.D.’s case, a state court — in the conservative state of Texas, no less — determined that she was.
Yet J.D. had to wait. The Department of Health and Human Services refused to let her temporarily leave the detention facility to obtain an abortion on the baseless assertion that she needed a U.S. sponsor to do so. With the aid of the ACLU, J.D. went to court, obtaining a federal court order allowing her access to abortion care.
But now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was sitting on the D.C. appellate court at the time. In a 2-to-1 opinion that never received the attention it should have during his confirmation hearings, he voted to reverse the lower court.
His decision elicited a strong rebuke from the dissenting judge. The government’s refusal to temporarily release the teen from custody in order to obtain the abortion was, according to Judge Patricia Millett Miller, “a full-on, unqualified denial of and flat prohibition on J.D.’s right to make her own reproductive choice.”
J.D. had already waited almost four weeks because of government obstruction, and if Kavanaugh’s order had prevailed, she would have had to carry the pregnancy “for multiple more weeks.” Fortunately, when the ACLU asked for a full panel review by the appellate court, they reversed.
What happened to Lucia could happen in the U.S. We have laws that work, both singularly and in the aggregate, to delay abortion. We also have officials, agencies and judges who will deliberately obstruct the abortion of a minor — or an adult — despite their clearly established right to obtain one. Ultimately, these tactics lead to later-term abortions. If abortion opponents believe that later-term abortions are reprehensible, they’ll need to stop creating delays that contribute to them.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today during our fundraiser. We have 7 days to add 432 new monthly donors. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.