{"id":345,"date":"2022-03-25T12:12:36","date_gmt":"2022-03-25T16:12:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/?p=345"},"modified":"2022-05-24T12:15:30","modified_gmt":"2022-05-24T16:15:30","slug":"ice-detainees-denied-access-to-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/2022\/03\/25\/ice-detainees-denied-access-to-abortion\/","title":{"rendered":"ICE Detainees Denied Access to Abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"

Laws regulating abortion have been around longer than modern abortion techniques, first appearing as early as 1500 BC.[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Since then abortion has become one of the safest medical procedures available \u2013 patients have a higher chance of suffering a serious complication during a colonoscopy, wisdom-teeth removal, or a tonsillectomy than as the result of an abortion.[2]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Abortions have become commonplace as well, with 1 in 4 American women having an abortion in their lifetime and 3 in 10 pregnancies worldwide ending in induced abortions every year.[3]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Unfortunately, in the United States, access to safe and legal abortions is becoming increasingly difficult. Pregnant immigrants in detention are routinely being denied access to abortion services despite their right to reproductive healthcare while incarcerated.[4]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The passing of Texas Senate Bill 8 (\u201cSB8\u201d) has made the situation even more desperate for immigrants detained within the state. Pregnant immigrants are often denied their clearly established constitutional right to an abortion due to state restrictions, federal policies, and a detention system unwilling to enforce its own protocol.<\/p>\n

The Right to Abortion<\/strong><\/p>\n

In 1973, Roe v. Wade<\/em> legalized elective abortions in the United States.[5]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> To this day women have the \u201cfundamental right \u2026 to choose whether to have children,\u201d despite endless attempts to have Roe<\/em> overturned.[6]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Even under the controversial Texas law SB8, abortion remains legal in all 50 states.[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Activists have been struggling against tighter and tighter restrictions for decades, but ultimately the \u201cconstitutionally protected right \u2026. to terminate a pregnancy\u201d remains.[8]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> A person\u2019s right to chose and make personal medical decisions remains in their own hands.<\/p>\n

By law, immigrants \u2013 regardless of their immigration status \u2013 have many, if not all, of the same constitutional rights as American Citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment protects \u201call persons\u2026without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.\u201d[9]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Citizens and non-citizens alike are entitled to the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment \u2013 as well as the due process and privacy rights granted under the Fifth Amendment \u2013 shielding their private decisions from the interference of state action.[10]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Roe v. Wade<\/em> utilizes the \u201cguarantee\u201d of \u201cfundamental rights\u201d granted by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to \u201cmake clear\u201d that personal decisions surrounding \u201cprocreation [and] contraception\u201d are constitutionally protected rights.[11]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Roe v. Wade<\/em> combined with protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments guarantees anyone within the United States has the same rights to an abortion regardless of their citizenship status.<\/p>\n

Immigrants who are being detained by the Department of Homeland Security (\u201cDHS\u201d) and Immigration and Customs Enforce (\u201cICE\u201d) are guaranteed the same right to abortion as American citizens, both by law and by ICE\u2019s own procedural standards. ICE publishes its official standard for medical care on its website, stating that the \u201cdetention standard\u201d of healthcare \u201censures that female detainees in ICE custody have access to appropriate and necessary medical and mental health care.\u201d[12]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The manual states that pregnant women \u201cshall have access to \u2026 abortion services\u201d within \u201ctwo working days\u201d if requested.[13]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> ICE accepts the responsibility of arranging \u201cfor transport at no cost to the detainee for the medical appointment.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> When ICE included an immigrant\u2019s right to an abortion in its official medical protocol procedures they further ensured that pregnant immigrants had the choice and the ability to terminate the pregnancy if they wished. Not only is the right to an abortion a constitutional right for immigrants, but it is protected under ICE protocols.<\/p>\n

Unaccompanied minors who are detained by ICE have explicitly been given the right to an abortion by the Supreme Court of the United States as well as by the Administration for Children and Families. In 2018, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (\u201cORR\u201d) was sued by Jane Doe, a minor in ICE detention, and her guardian when \u201cthey did not allow Doe to go to an abortion clinic.\u201d[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The District of Columbia Circuit Court granted two temporary restraining orders to Doe to ensure her \u201cconstitutional right to an abortion\u201d was not blocked.[16]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The orders forced ORR to allow Doe\u2019s representatives to schedule several appointments with the clinic and transport her to the clinic for the procedure.[17]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> When the case landed in front of the Supreme Court, the court held that Doe\u2019s attorney had zealously advocated on her behalf, and thanks to the attorney\u2019s efforts the case was moot.[18]<\/a><\/sup> The Supreme Court did assert that it had the ability to hear cases that are moot if it wished, but that it was not necessary in the case at hand.[19]<\/a><\/sup> In other words the Supreme Court did not find an issue with the Circuit Court\u2019s ruling that Doe was entitled to an abortion.<\/p>\n

The Administration for Children and Families, in conjunction with ORR, requires \u201ccompliance with Garza v. Azar <\/em>for pregnant unaccompanied children.\u201d[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> While ORR providers are \u201crequired to comply with state law governing access to abortion,\u201d they are also additional policy procedures to comply with Garza v. Azar.[21]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> <\/em>In conjunction with DHS, ORR must inform pregnant unaccompanied minors of their right to access abortion care during their initial health screening.[22]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> If the pregnant minor \u201crequests an abortion at any point,\u201d ORR has 24 hours to submit a Transfer Request to DHS in order to ensure the minor has full access to appropriate healthcare services.[23]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> This policy further legitimizes a minor\u2019s right to an abortion while in ICE custody.<\/p>\n

Abortion Restrictions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal appropriation legislation has included language barring the use of federal tax dollars to fund abortion since 1976.[24]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Colloquially known as the Hyde Amendment, there is an exception to the ban for \u201ccases of rape, incest, and life endangerment.\u201d[25]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The ban restricts the use of federal funding for all women in \u201cdetention centers, including those detained for immigration purposes.\u201d[26]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> While this would require many immigrants to find the funds to pay for their own abortion, ICE does state that it will cover the cost of access an abortion \u201cif the life of the mother would be endangered by carrying the fetus to term, or in the case of rape or incest.\u201d[27]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The Hyde Amendment has a disproportionate impact on women who rely on Medicaid for their healthcare as well as women who are incarcerated, either in the criminal justice system or the immigration detention system.[28]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Women relying on government-subsidized healthcare or who are incarnated are not able to choose their own healthcare and are thus their access to abortion is limited to the scope of situations covered by the Hyde Amendment.<\/p>\n

In addition to federal legislation, many states have taken it upon themselves to pass their own abortion legislation. A Texas bill called SB8 recently survived its first challenge in front of the Supreme Court.[29]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> SB8 threatens to nearly ban abortion access in the state for all, but is most limiting to people of color and other marginalized communities.[30]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Like all forms of oppression, the intersectional identities of marginalized communities result in barriers stacking against one another. For example, undocumented immigrants who are not in detention are not able to leave Texas to access abortion care in a nearby state.[31]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The socioeconomic challenges of such a long-distance prohibit most pregnant immigrants from accessing abortion that is hundreds of miles from their homes, but they are unable to freely cross DHS checkpoints that they may encounter if they try to leave Texas.[32]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Immigrants living in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas are especially threatened by the commonality of ICE checkpoints that impede their route to leave the state, and thus their ability to obtain an abortion after 6 weeks of gestation.[33]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

Certiorari has been granted for two separate lawsuits seeking to strike down SB8 and the Supreme Court failed to grant injunctive or declaratory relief of any kind in the meantime.[34]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> SB8 does not make abortion illegal but instead offers \u201c$10,000 in damages to anyone who sues a person who provides an abortion [after a fetal heartbeat can be detected], \u2018aids or abets\u2019 such abortion, or intends to engage in such conduct.\u201d[35]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> A fetal heartbeat is generally detectable around six weeks after a person\u2019s last menstrual cycle, meaning that SB8 effectively \u201cimposes a near categorical-ban on abortions\u201d after six weeks gestation.[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> The sole exception to the ban is in the case of a \u201ca medical emergency [requiring] the abortion,\u201d or when the pregnant person\u2019s life is in danger.[37]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Rape, incest, or viability of the fetus are not included in SB8.<\/p>\n

It is important to note that Texas detains the highest number of unaccompanied immigrant minors of any state.[38]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Texas also detains approximately the same number of majority-aged migrants as the other southern border states \u2013 California, Arizona, and New Mexico \u2013 combined.[39]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> SB8 thus impacts the majority of pregnant migrants who are detained.<\/p>\n

Unaccompanied minors face additional challenges when seeking an abortion in ICE detention. In addition to having to either prove that the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother or a result of rape or incest, unaccompanied minors seeking an abortion in the border states of Texas, Arizona, and Louisiana must receive parental consent or go through a process known as \u201cjudicial bypass.\u201d[40]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> This process includes the minor being appointed a guardian by ICE and going with the guardian to the courthouse to speak with a judge.[41]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> For the duration of his complicated legal process, the minor remains in ICE detention.[42]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

What does this look like today?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nearly 10% of women detained by ICE test positive when given a pregnancy test as part of a mandatory health screening given to all new detainees as part of the intake process.[43]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Combined with the fact that an estimated 80% of Central American women and girls are sexually assaulted on their journey to the United States border, many of these pregnancies are likely the result of a sexual assault.[44]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Sexual assault is so common that women report taking contraception \u201cto prevent pregnancy in the event of rape.\u201d[45]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Minors especially, as young as 14 or 15 \u201cappear to have become pregnant as a result of sexual assault,\u201d with many of the girls not realizing they are \u201cpregnant until they reach the detention facility.\u201d[46]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Anyone pregnant as a result of a sexual assault has the right to an abortion funded by the government even under the strictest interpretations of the Hyde Amendment and ICE medical protocol.<\/p>\n

Local abortion clinics lament the fact that they \u201chave no idea what goes on inside\u201d detention facilities.[47]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Gathering statistically accurate information about the access pregnant immigrants have has been nearly impossible due to a variety of different factors. For one, many immigrants do not know they have the right to an abortion in the United States, and ICE or ORR do not have the obligation to tell them.[48]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Government reports on ICE detention facilities parse data on pregnancy outcomes, making outside analysis nearly impossible.[49]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

In practice, despite being \u201clegally entitled to the option of an abortion,\u201d immigrants, especially those in Texas, have lost the practical ability to receive a requested abortion once detained.[50]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Advocacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union, Jane\u2019s Due Process, Sue\u00f1os Sin Fronteras, Planned Parenthood, and Whole Women\u2019s Health report several known cases of detained minors, in particular, being denied an abortion despite Roe v. Wade<\/em> and Garza v. Azar.[51]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/em> Proving rape can be difficult, and many \u201cwomen might not necessarily be aware of the abortion exemption for rape.\u201d[52]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> \u201cLanguage and cultural barriers\u201d only exacerbate the problem, leaving vulnerable pregnant immigrants with \u201cno understand[ing] of what reproductive resources there are.\u201d[53]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

New laws like SB8 are only adding to the roadblocks immigrants face. In the month after it took effect, a single practitioner was unable to provide abortions to \u201cat least a handful of pregnant minors.\u201d[54]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> \u201cIf it weren\u2019t for SB8, every single\u201d unaccompanied pregnant minor that was seen at the Whole Women\u2019s Health Clinic in Texas \u201ccould have [been] treated no problem.\u201d[55]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Instead, several pregnant minors \u201chave accused [ORR] of blocking them from getting abortions\u201d while being detained.[56]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> Even the lucky few who are able to be transferred from Texas to another state once they pass the 6-week threshold suffer. The transfer process can take several weeks, which for young people especially can be a \u201cmore involved, potentially more painful dilation process.\u201d[57]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

Adult women face the same issue as minors do with even less protection. From listening to pregnant immigrants tell their stories, it is clear \u201cwomen in detention centers are already being denied abortion care.\u201d The Supreme Court has never made a ruling affirming a pregnant detainee\u2019s right to an abortion as it has for minors. \u201cU.S. agencies routinely deny voluntary access to abortion\u201d both through direct action as well as coercion by the staff and third-party anti-abortion agencies.[58]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> \u201cDetention centers often stand between pregnant detainees and abortion centers,\u201d preventing immigrants from accessing abortion even if they had the funds to pay for one..[59]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> While in detention, there simply \u201cis no access to abortion providers.\u201d[60]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup><\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pregnant immigrants in detention have no access to abortion services. They are being denied their constitutional right to make a highly personal decision. The barriers pregnant immigrants face are unique to each individual, but all pregnant immigrants face \u201cundue burdens\u201d if they are seeking abortion care.[61]<\/a><\/sup><\/sup> By allowing bills like Texas\u2019s SB8 to pass, states are only erecting new roadblocks to unconstitutionally deny pregnant immigrants abortion access. It is imperative that these issues be addressed so all pregnant people are able to make the decision that is best for them without interfere from ICE or any other government agency.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Malcolm Potts & Martha Campbell, History of Contraception<\/em>, The Global Library of Women\u2019s Medicine (2009), http:\/\/www.glowm.com\/section-view\/item\/375. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  2. Amanda Arnold, Abortion Is Safer Than Getting Your Wisdom Teeth Out<\/em>, New York – The Cut, March 10, 2020, https:\/\/www.thecut.com\/2020\/03\/abortion-is-safer-than-getting-your-wisdom-teeth-out.html. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  3. Abortion Is a Common Experience for U.S. Women, Despite Dramatic Declines in Rates, Guttmacher Institute (2017), https:\/\/www.guttmacher.org\/news-release\/2017\/abortion-common-experience-us-women-despite-dramatic-declines-rates; Abortion<\/em>, World Health Organization (2021), https:\/\/www.who.int\/news-room\/fact-sheets\/detail\/abortion; This article will refer to \u201cwomen\u201d and \u201cgirls\u201d when talking about abortion statistics and the rights of individuals despite the fact that not all seeking abortions identify as such. The author wants to take a moment to recognize that women are not the only folks seeking abortions. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the data available on abortion statistics and all of the language taken from government documents use highly gendered terms when discussing a person\u2019s right to reproductive healthcare, including their right to an abortion. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  4. Lauren Holter, Detained Immigrant Women Are Facing A Grueling Abortion Struggle<\/em>, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice (2017), https:\/\/www.latinainstitute.org\/es\/node\/4620. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  5. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 (1973). https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/roe-v-wade. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  6. Id.<\/em>; Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, (1992). https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/planned-parenthood-of-southeastern-pennsylvania-v-casey-casey-v-planned-parenthood-of-southeastern-pennsylvania; Jackson Women\u2019s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019)., (2019), https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/jackson-womens-health-org-v-dobbs-1. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  7. Kaia Hubbard, A Guide to Abortion Laws by State<\/em>, US News & World Report, September 1, 2021, https:\/\/www.usnews.com\/news\/best-states\/articles\/a-guide-to-abortion-laws-by-state. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  8. Abortion in Texas, ACLU of Texas, January 20, 2016, https:\/\/www.aclutx.org\/en\/know-your-rights\/abortion-texas. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  9. Lynch v. Cannatella, 810 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir. 1987). https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/lynch-v-cannatella. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  10. Id.<\/em> at 1372, 1373. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  11. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93, supra<\/em> note 5 at 152. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  12. 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, 322, https:\/\/www.ice.gov\/detain\/detention-management\/2011. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  13. Id.<\/em> at 323. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  14. Id.<\/em> at 325. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  15. Azar v. Garza, 138 S. Ct. 1790 (2018), , 1 (2018), https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/azar-v-garza-1. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  16. Id.<\/em> at 2. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  17. Field Guidance #21 \u2013 Compliance with Garza Requirements for Pregnant Unaccompanied Children in Texas, 4 2 (2021). \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  18. XX CITE GARZA , supra<\/em> note 15. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  19. XX CITE, Id.<\/em> \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  20. Id.<\/em> at 1. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  21. Id.<\/em> at 1. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  22. Id.<\/em> at 2. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  23. Id.<\/em> at 3. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  24. All Above All, Fact Sheet: The Hyde Amendment<\/em>, All Above All (2022), https:\/\/allaboveall.org\/resource\/hyde-amendment-fact-sheet\/; Text – S.142 – 113th Congress (2013-2014): Hyde Amendment Codification Act, (2013), https:\/\/www.congress.gov\/bill\/113th-congress\/senate-bill\/142\/text; Planned Parenthood, Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion<\/em>, Planned Parenthood Action Fund , https:\/\/www.plannedparenthoodaction.org\/issues\/abortion\/federal-and-state-bans-and-restrictions-abortion\/hyde-amendment. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  25. Fact Sheet: The Hyde Amendment<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 24; Text – S.142 – 113th Congress (2013-2014), supra<\/em> note 24. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  26. Fact Sheet: The Hyde Amendment<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 24. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  27. 2011 Operations Manual ICE Performance-Based National Detention Standards, supra<\/em> note 12 at 325. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  28. Planned Parenthood, supra<\/em> note 24; Fact Sheet: The Hyde Amendment<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 24. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  29. Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson, 141 S. Ct. 2494 (2021)., (2021), https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/whole-womans-health-v-jackson-1. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  30. Nancy C\u00e1rdenas Pe\u00f1a, How Texas\u2019s Abortion Ban Affects Immigrant Communities<\/em>, Refinery29 (2021), https:\/\/www-refinery29-com.cdn.ampproject.org\/v\/s\/www.refinery29.com\/amp\/en-us\/2021\/09\/10657648\/immigrant-texas-abortion-law-effects?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQKKAFQArABIIACAw%3D%3D#aoh=16429787426751&amp_ct=1642979420686&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.refinery29.com%2Fen-us%2F2021%2F09%2F10657648%2Fimmigrant-texas-abortion-law-effects. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  31. Elizabeth Nash et al., Impact of Texas\u2019 Abortion Ban: A 14-Fold Increase in Driving Distance to Get an Abortion<\/em>, Guttmacher Institute (2021), https:\/\/www.guttmacher.org\/article\/2021\/08\/impact-texas-abortion-ban-14-fold-increase-driving-distance-get-abortion. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  32. Id.<\/em> See also: Nancy C\u00e1rdenas Pe\u00f1a, How Texas\u2019s Abortion Ban Affects Immigrant Communities<\/em>, Refinery29 (2021), https:\/\/www.refinery29.com\/en-us\/2021\/09\/10657648\/immigrant-texas-abortion-law-effects. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  33. Id.<\/em> \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  34. Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Jackson, 141 S. Ct. 2494 (2021)., , 55, 56 (2021), https:\/\/casetext.com\/case\/whole-womans-health-v-jackson-1; United States v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 14 (2021)., , 14 (2021), https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/21pdf\/21-463_3ebh.pdf. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  35. United States v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 14 (2021), supra<\/em> note 34 at 15; Tex. Health & Safety Code \u00a7 171.204 (LexisNexis, Lexis Advance through the 2021 Regular Session of the 87th legislature, 2021 1st, 2nd and 3rd Called Sessions, and is current with the 2021 ballot proposition contingencies)., 7, https:\/\/statutes.capitol.texas.gov\/Docs\/HS\/htm\/HS.171.htm#171.204; Hughes, et al., 2021 Tex. SB 8, 2021 Tex. Gen. Laws 62, 2021 Tex. Ch 62, 2021 Tex. ALS 62<\/em>, https:\/\/capitol.texas.gov\/tlodocs\/87R\/billtext\/html\/SB00008I.htm. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  36. United States v. Texas, 142 S. Ct. 14 (2021), supra<\/em> note 34 at 14. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  37. Hughes, et al., supra<\/em> note 35 at Sec 171.205. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  38. Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by State, , https:\/\/www.acf.hhs.gov\/orr\/grant-funding\/unaccompanied-children-released-sponsors-state; Shefali Luthra, Pregnant undocumented minors can\u2019t get abortions in Texas<\/em>, The 19th (2021), https:\/\/19thnews.org\/2021\/10\/undocumented-minors-can-no-longer-access-abortions-in-texas\/. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  39. Katharina Buchholz, Infographic: These States Detain the Most Undocumented Immigrants in ICE Facilities<\/em>, Statista (2019), https:\/\/www.statista.com\/chart\/16980\/undocumented-immigrants-detained-by-ice-per-state\/. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  40. Parental Consent & Notification Laws | Teen Abortion Laws, , https:\/\/www.plannedparenthood.org\/learn\/teens\/stds-birth-control-pregnancy\/parental-consent-and-notification-laws. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  41. ACLU in Court to Fight Federal Officials for Blocking Young Woman\u2019s Abortion in Texas, American Civil Liberties Union, October 10, 2017, https:\/\/www.aclu.org\/press-releases\/aclu-court-fight-federal-officials-blocking-young-womans-abortion-texas; Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  42. Fact Sheet: The Hyde Amendment<\/em>, supra<\/em> note 24; Holter, supra<\/em> note 4; 2011 Operations Manual ICE, supra<\/em> note 12. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  43. Kevin Sieff, Access Denied<\/em>, The Texas Observer, February 20, 2009, https:\/\/www.texasobserver.org\/2963-access-denied\/. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  44. Anja Parish, Gender-Based Violence against Women: Both Cause for Migration and Risk along the Journey<\/em>, The Online Journal of the Migration Policy Institute (2017), https:\/\/www.migrationpolicy.org\/article\/gender-based-violence-against-women-both-cause-migration-and-risk-along-journey. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  45. Id.<\/em>; Sieff, supra<\/em> note 43. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  46. Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  47. Sieff, supra<\/em> note 43. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  48. Holter, supra<\/em> note 4. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  49. Gretta Goodwin, Immigration Detention: Care of Pregnant Women in DHS Facilities<\/em> 109 50 (2020), https:\/\/www.gao.gov\/products\/gao-20-330. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  50. Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  51. Texas abortion law complicates San Antonio group\u2019s mission to help undocumented immigrants \u2014 even those raped en route to the U.S., , The Texas Tribune , https:\/\/www.texastribune.org\/2021\/11\/12\/texas-abortion-law-undocumented-immigrants\/; Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38; ACLU in Court to Fight Federal Officials for Blocking Young Woman\u2019s Abortion in Texas, supra<\/em> note 41. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  52. Holter, supra<\/em> note 4. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  53. Sieff, supra<\/em> note 43. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  54. Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  55. Id.<\/em> \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  56. Carter Sherman, Trump officials discussed \u201creversing\u201d abortion for undocumented teen<\/em>, VICE News, 2018, https:\/\/news.vice.com\/en\/article\/yw5a5g\/exclusive-trump-officials-discussed-reversing-abortion-for-undocumented-teen. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  57. Luthra, supra<\/em> note 38. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  58. Molly Bangs & Ashley Underwood, Cruelty and Control: Reproductive Rights and Health Care in the U.S. Immigration System<\/em>, Equity Forward (2021), https:\/\/equityfwd.org\/research\/cruelty-and-control-devastating-state-reproductive-rights-and-health-care-us. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  59. Sieff, supra<\/em> note 43. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  60. Id.<\/em> \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n
  61. Roe v. Wade, supra<\/em> note 5, at 93. \u2191<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

     <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Laws regulating abortion have been around longer than modern abortion techniques, first appearing as early as 1500 BC.[1] Since then abortion has become one of the safest medical procedures available \u2013 patients have a higher chance of suffering a serious complication during a colonoscopy, wisdom-teeth removal, or a tonsillectomy than as the result of an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10,4],"tags":[51,47,180,176,181,182,49,183,184,178,177,179],"class_list":{"0":"post-345","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-constitutional-law","7":"category-human-rights","8":"category-immigration-law","9":"tag-abortion","10":"tag-children","11":"tag-constitutional-right","12":"tag-detainee","13":"tag-dhs","14":"tag-homeland-security","15":"tag-ice","16":"tag-orr","17":"tag-pregnant","18":"tag-reproductive","19":"tag-reproductive-healthcare","20":"tag-rights","21":"czr-hentry"},"aioseo_notices":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/9"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=345"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":346,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345\/revisions\/346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawblogs.uc.edu\/ihrlr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}