# data[].attributes.body
In the overall project I learned very much so what to look for when looking for a reliable media source (such as if one has more bias than another). I also was able to learn about other people's perspectives when learning about other's projects and when talking to people about my own. An example of a perspective I learned about was "S" when researching my topic. "S" was very avidly pro-life and yet after speaking to them I learned that even with a very avid bias to one side of the overall issue, they understood the struggles underwent by Jane Doe and the ACLU. After my research I actually found myself more strongly agreeing with my initial opinions but I do understand the other side of the argument more and can easily see where both sides of the argument are coming from. This was also supported by my in class discussions where others equally saw both sides of the issue and in turn influenced me to step out of my political bubble and look to see all sides.

# data[].attributes.headline
Conversation with person who chooses to remain anonymous. "Its her fault for becoming pregnant but the government shouldn't step in on issues like these."

# data[].attributes.subject
Conversation with person who chooses to remain anonymous. "Its her fault for becoming pregnant but the government shouldn't step in on issues like these."

# data[].attributes.body
In my conversation with "S", a person who chooses to remain anonymous because of their standpoint within the issues, I learned that they were very adamantly pro-life, as they had clearly stated for the rest of the conversation that, "if you are willing to have sexual relations with someone, it is your fault for getting pregnant and you shouldn't get rid of the child." However, upon further explanation of what issue had occurred with Jane Doe and the court case, S sympathized with the young woman, coming to the conclusion that, "while it is her fault for becoming pregnant the government does not have the right to prevent her from making the choices about her body she wants to make." Through this conversation I have learned that even those with more conservative-like viewpointson abortion can agree that the government is overstepping powers and involving itself too much in Jane Doe's situation that (as I explained to S) has now been resolved.

# data[].attributes.headline
How the ACLU gamed the  legal system to get an abortion for an illegal immigrant

# data[].attributes.subject
How the ACLU gamed the  legal system to get an abortion for an illegal immigrant

# data[].attributes.body
Within the article it is opinionated that the ACLU was making a plan to win the case all along, stating, "The ACLU has a perverted sense of justice". The article also mentioned that the ACLU had planned to ask for more time from the courts to allow Jane Doe to get her abortion and prevent "the higher court reversing the D.C court decision". In my opinion I disagree with the article because it criticizes the American Civil Liberties Union for its plans to help the young woman because it is her constitutional right. The article, like the previous one that I agreed with was very biased towards one side which could possibly indicate facts being omitted or even changed. This in turn makes the article less reliable as a source since it does not cover both sides of the issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wednesday morning, the official Twitter account of the American Civil Liberties Union gleefully announced:

BREAKING: Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe. She was able to get an abortion early this morning. #JusticeforJane- ACLU (@ACLU) October 25, 2017

The ACLU has a perverted sense of justice. First and foremost, of course, is a supposed defender of civil liberties celebrating the death of an innocent human being. But also appalling is the ACLU's gaming of the judicial system.

On Friday, Brigette Amiri, the attorney for the ACLU, expressly told the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals that if Jane Doe was not allowed to have an abortion on Saturday, October 21, 2017, she would need to receive mandatory counseling on Monday and the abortion on Tuesday because the abortion doctor who had already counseled her was not the abortion doctor at the facility the following week. And if that window passed, Jane Doe's abortion would be pushed out to the following week's Thursday, Friday, or Saturday.

Here is a transcript of the relevant exchange in full. The audio is available at this link beginning at the 1:13:25 mark:

Judge Patricia Millett: Can I ask bit more on the timing thing. So she got the counseling yesterday [Thursday, October 19]. And it one is there any expiration date on that counseling or will that continue for the next be valid for the next five weeks. Just need to get the day if it worked be approved for her to go.
Attorney Amiri: So your honor this is a complicated layer of Texas abortion restrictions.
So Texas law requires counseling at least 24 hours in advance of the procedure by the same doctor who is to provide the abortion. Because of the limited availability of abortion in Texas, the same doctor is not always at the facility in South Texas. So for example, the doctor that provided the counseling yesterday to J.D. is there today and on Saturday, but is not the same doctor who is there next week.
So next week there is a different doctor on Monday and Tuesday. And so if J.D. were allowed to have the abortion next week she would have to be, unless this court declares otherwise, would have to be counseled again by this different doctor on Monday and wait 24 hours and have the abortion on Tuesday. So it is a complicated layer of--
Judge Millett: And then after Tuesday after Tuesday.
Attorney Amiri: Then we're looking at the following week. And the doctor that is there Thursday, Friday and Saturday the following week. But your honor we are really hoping we don't get that far.
Judge Millett: I thought there was one doctor who didn't do them after 15 weeks?
Attorney Amiri: After 15.6 weeks. And that is the doctor next week. And we are very concerned that she's on the cusp and so even if she's able to go next week she may be past the limit for that particular doctor.

Similarly, the revised Temporary Restraining Order entered by the district court judge Tuesday night presumed that Jane Doe would receive counseling before the abortion. The court's order stated that the government was...:

[r]equired to transport J.D.-or allow J.D. to be transported by either her guardian or attorney ad litem-promptly and without delay, on such dates, including today, and to such Texas abortion provider as shall be specified by J.D.'s guardian ad litem or attorney ad litem, in order to obtain the counseling required by state law and to obtain the abortion procedure, in accordance with the abortion providers' availability and any medical requirements. If transportation to the nearest abortion provider requires J.D. to travel past a border patrol checkpoint, Defendants are restrained from interfering with her ability to do so and are ordered to provide any documentation necessary for her to do so

Jane Doe's attorneys did not violate the terms of the district court's order assuming, as is likely the case, the same doctor who counseled Jane Doe last week Thursday performed the early-morning abortion this Wednesday. But on Friday, in arguing that time was of the essence, Amiri expressly represented to the court that after Tuesday, Jane Doe would need to wait until the following week for an abortion.

So what happened? Did Jane Doe's attorney spontaneously decide to sprint the 17-year-old to the South Texas late-term abortion provider for an earlier-morning procedure? And was that always the plan? Either way, the why seems obvious enough: The ACLU did not want the government to have time to seek a stay from the Supreme Court and risk the higher court reversing the D.C. Circuit's decision.

The ACLU may have won. But it didn't achieve justice.
Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. She served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge, and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct professor for the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the ACLU gamed the legal system to get an abortion for an illegal immigrant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wednesday morning, the official Twitter account of the American Civil Liberties Union gleefully announced: BREAKING: Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe. She was able to get an abortion early this morning. #JusticeforJane- ACLU (@ACLU) October 25, 2017 The ACLU has a perverted sense of justice.

# data[].attributes.headline
Undocumented Teen's Abortion is a Constitutional Hellhole for Trump 

# data[].attributes.subject
Undocumented Teen's Abortion is a Constitutional Hellhole for Trump 

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, the author wrote from a very liberal standpoint what had occurred within the issue and how this unprecedented abortion case has essentially led to many ideological issues to occur within the courtroom such as the topic of personhood of illegal immigrants, the issue of the constitution and women exercising their right's, and the issues of undocumented minors. The article also further goes to claim that the Trump Administration was waiting for a case like this to happen, even picking "...E. Scott Lloyd, a staunch abortion foe..." to be in charge of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. I myself, am in agreeance with the source that it is very much so an unprecedented case. Considering it is a constitutional right that the young woman be able to do what she wants with her body, I believe the government is overstepping its boundaries by preventing such.

Document is very informal sounding and biased towards one side of the spectrum  so this has led me to believe it is  less reliable as a source.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The bread and butter of the second most powerful court in Washington, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is administrative law. Since the nerve center of the federal government resides in the capital, a number of the major disputes of our time - on health care, the environment, the powers of the president and his agencies - end up there. Abortion rights aren't a part of that caseload.

But now that the Trump administration has entered the picture, the D.C. Circuit has been presented with the case of Jane Doe, an unidentified, undocumented teen who was pregnant at the time she was seized at the border by immigration authorities. Because she entered the United States without her parents, J.D., as the 17-year-old is known in court papers, is now in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services, which has exercised a sort of veto power over her decision to end her pregnancy, now at the 15-week mark.

This was by design. Of all the people Donald Trump could have chosen to lead the Office of Refugee Resettlement - the sub-agency charged with looking after unaccompanied minors - he picked E. Scott Lloyd, a staunch abortion foe who, according to The Wall Street Journal, has personally counseled undocumented teens to try to talk them out of abortions. The agency's restrictive ways, including the false choice of letting J.D. agree to her deportation or else carry her pregnancy to term, prompted a federal judge earlier this week to blow a fuse and immediately order her released so she could get the procedure.

"I have to tell you, I'm astounded that the government is going to make this 17-year-old girl who has received judicial authorization for a medical procedure to which she is constitutionally authorized choose between a pregnancy that she does not want to go forward with to term or returning to the country from which she left," fumed U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan in open court before her ruling on Wednesday. "Those are her options."

Predictably, the Trump administration, which has yet to skirt a culture war it doesn't like, took the fight to the D.C. Circuit. The controversy was so unusual and unprecedented that Chief Judge Merrick Garland, whom you may remember as the Supreme Court justice that never was, ordered the audio of the proceedings livestreamed on its website.

But Garland didn't preside over the case. Instead, the assignment fell randomly to U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, a hard-core conservative who is often floated as a potential Trump pick to succeed Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is said to be weighing retirement. On Friday, Kavanaugh opened the emergency hearing by warning that he'd like to avoid a "sweeping constitutional ruling" - a sign that he'd try his darndest to save face, and possibly his chances at a promotion to a higher court, by issuing as minimal a ruling as possible. The three-judge panel was a good draw for Trump, rounded out by U.S. Circuit Judges Karen Henderson and Patricia Millett, appointees of the first President Bush and President Obama, respectively.

The 90-minute hearing for Garza v. Hargan, as the case is known, was in every which way a judicial spectacle unlike any in recent D.C. Circuit history. The session, which is worth listening to in full, was a microcosm of all the constitutional clashes one might expect the Trump administration to jump into: immigration law and the personhood of undocumented immigrants; the plight of unaccompanied minors; the future of Roe v. Wade; federalism and states' rights; moral opposition, as a matter of federal policy, to a woman's exercise of her constitutional rights.

The crux of the government's argument, presented with a straight face by Catherine Dorsey, a career Department of Justice attorney, was that the administration shouldn't "facilitate" an undocumented minor's abortion - in part because the government has an interest in "promoting childbirth and protecting fetal life." At one point, Kavanaugh suggested that letting J.D. go through with the procedure would make the government "complicit" in something it finds morally objectionable.

To Brigitte Amiri, the ACLU attorney representing the teen, this foot-dragging is akin to "standing in the way" and imposing an "undue burden" on her right to end her pregnancy. "Every day matters for J.D. It's been three weeks. And it's been three weeks too long," Amiri told the judges.

The federal government, by law and policy, already facilitates abortions to women in its custody. It is only underage immigrant women during the current administration who cannot exercise their choice. Never mind that J.D. has already gone through all the steps a conservative state like Texas, where she's in a HHS shelter, has required of her: She's obtained court permission for the abortion, was assigned a legal guardian, and has attended one session of pre-abortion counseling. Her lawyers have already arranged for transportation and the costs of the procedure. It is a bureaucrat in Washington who is preventing the final step.

Later Friday, the D.C. Circuit, on a 2-to-1 vote, sided with the Trump administration. The sparse, two-page order doesn't say who wrote it, though it has Kavanaugh's fingerprints all over it. The court gave the government until the end of the month to secure a " sponsor " - a lengthy administrative process reserved for unaccompanied minors. In the court's view, this process, if undertaken "expeditiously," would not "unduly burden the minor's right under Supreme Court precedent to an abortion." And yet the government is already on record as wanting no part of facilitating this. There's no evidence its position will change.

Judge Millett, who did sign her name to a searing, ten-page dissent, exposed the government's stance for what it is. "That is an astonishing power grab, and it flies in the teeth of decades of Supreme Court precedent preserving and protecting the fundamental right of a woman to make an informed choice whether to continue a pregnancy at this early stage," Millett wrote.

She then seemed to train her sights on her two colleagues, as if they were the true obstacle on J.D.'s path. The search for a sponsor, which could add weeks of uncertainty and not turn up a single person, "stands as an immovable barrier to J.D.'s exercise of her constitutional right [in a way] that inflicts irreparable injury without any justification offered for why the government can force her to continue the pregnancy until near the cusp of viability."

And so concluded the D.C. Circuit's unlikely foray into the realm of reproductive rights. The ACLU has called the decision " dangerous," but otherwise hasn't said what its next play will be. We do have a sense of what the government wants: Push J.D. to the point of inevitability. In the main, the rights and lives of undocumented immigrants may not matter much to the Trump administration; it's only when a pregnant teen's future is at stake that " human dignity " must be protected at all costs.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undocumented Teen's Abortion Is a Constitutional Hellhole for Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The bread and butter of the second most powerful court in Washington, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, is administrative law. Since the nerve center of the federal government resides in the capital, a number of the major disputes of our time - on health care, the environment, the powers of the president and his agencies - end up there.

# data[].attributes.body
The NBC news report had initially surprised me as I watched it. I had not expected for there to be such a lack of bias within its report and how it masterfully did so. It helped provide me with a better understanding of both sides of the issue and it helped me solidify my opinion more on the topic while equally so telling me where the other side's argument is coming from.

# data[].attributes.headline
Undocumented teen has abortion, ending legal battle 

# data[].attributes.subject
Undocumented teen has abortion, ending legal battle 

# data[].attributes.body
Due to not having regular TV at home, I had to do a bit of searching and found this TV media source from NBC news. The video covered like the other sources what the case was and why it had occurred.  However, unlike the articles it provided a perspective from BOTH sides such as ( paraphrased from reporter Paula Reid's notes), "Jane Doe was put in a shelter...She had the money and stated she wanted an abortion ...Texas court gave her permission ...the Trump Administration said that it did not have a requirement to facilitate the abortion which led to multiple legal disputes." as well as, "The Trump Administration said that it doesn't have to facilitate it... They also said she had to return to her home country or to find a sponsor to take care of her. " This in turn made the document a very reliable source as it stated the facts and showed each side's argument.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undocumented teen has abortion, ending legal battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The undocumented immigrant teen at the center of an abortion battle terminated her pregnancy Wednesday morning, before the federal government could file an appeal. CBS News justice reporter Paula Reid joins CBSN to discuss the case.

# data[].attributes.body
The reason I chose the case and to follow all information about is is due to the fact I am interested in controversial issues. I knew for a fact that abortion was one of this highly controversial topics where the left and right sides of the political spectrum clash. I saw this as an opportunity for an in depth analysis of the issues occurring and what both sides had to say about the issue.  It is an opportunity to break out of the political bubble I am normally within.

# data[].attributes.headline
Undocumented 17 Year-Old Must Delay Abortion, Court Rules 

# data[].attributes.subject
Undocumented 17 Year-Old Must Delay Abortion, Court Rules 

# data[].attributes.body
In the following article, I was presented with the facts that led up to such a court case. A young 17 year old, referred to as Jane Doe within documents had come into the United States and had found out she was pregnant after her apprehension and medical exam. The young woman seeked an abortion and followed all necessary procedures but the Trump Administration had stepped in and prevented the abortion from occurring immediately. The article seemed reliable to me as it was presented by a very well known news base (The New York Times) and seemed to lack bias towards either side of the political spectrum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
She decided to end her pregnancy, but Texas law requires a minor to get parental consent or a judicial waiver to do so. She obtained a waiver, but the government prevented her from going to any abortion-related appointments, the American Civil Liberties Union said in court documents, and forced her to visit a religiously affiliated crisis pregnancy center where she was asked to view a sonogram.

President Trump has worked to restrict abortions since his first days in office by expanding the so-called global gag rule, which withholds American funding from international organizations that discuss or perform abortions; taking aim at Planned Parenthood funding; and appointing several leaders who are anti-abortion, including E. Scott Lloyd, the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the health department, and one of the defendants in the Jane Doe case.

The federal government said that it was not its role to facilitate abortion, and that the teenager still had the option of returning to her home country.

"Ms. Doe has options for leaving federal custody - either by requesting a voluntary departure to her home country (which the federal government is willing to expedite if requested) or by being placed in the custody of a sponsor," the defendants stated in a memorandum on Tuesday. "Given these options, the government is not causing Ms. Doe to carry a pregnancy to term against her will."

On Wednesday, a federal judge ordered the government to allow the teenager to get an abortion.

Tanya S. Chutkan, the United States District Court judge who initiated the temporary restraining order, said she was "astounded" by the government's position.

"She can leave the country or she cannot get her abortion, those are her options?"

The government next argued for the right to appoint the teenager with a sponsor, which would release her from government custody, and said in court documents that the process of securing a sponsor would not unduly burden the teenager's right to an abortion.

On Friday, the appeals court agreed.

The health department has until Oct. 31 to find a suitable sponsor; if it does, Jane Doe would be able to have an abortion. If she is not released to a sponsor by then, the government has the option of appealing once more.

The 11-day timeline to find a sponsor "seems far-fetched," said Brigitte Amiri, one of the A.C.L.U. lawyers representing the teenager.

Sponsors are typically family members, according to the health department's website, who help care for a child who has entered the United States illegally without their parents - often because the child is fleeing an abusive or violent situation.

The vetting process, which includes a background check, can take months, Ms. Amiri said, and earlier attempts to find a sponsor for Jane Doe were unsuccessful.

"They kicked the can down the road, and in this case they kicked the woman down the road," Dr. Stanwood said. "They are just delaying her care to no end but their own ideology."

A spokesman for the Administration of Children and Families, which is part of the health department, said in a statement that the care of minors like Jane Doe was important.

"For however much time we are given, the Office of Refugee Resettlement and H.H.S. will protect the well-being of this minor and all children and their babies in our facilities, and we will defend human dignity for all in our care," the statement said.

The teenager will be 16 weeks and five days pregnant at the end of October, according to the nonprofit legal organization Jane's Due Process, which has been working with the A.C.L.U. If the appeals process continues into November, the teenager will reach the 20-week mark, which would prevent her from having an elective abortion in Texas.

The sooner the teenager can have the abortion, "the safer it will be for her," said Dr. Hal C. Lawrence, the executive vice president of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who practiced obstetrics for nearly three decades.

As the uterus gets bigger, he added, the walls of the uterus get thinner, which increases the possibility of perforation and puts women at risk of additional blood loss during an abortion.

Health risks aside, delaying an abortion can cause emotional trauma.

"Women don't just wake up one morning and decide they're going to have an abortion," Dr. Lawrence said. "And so to make her continue to struggle and be denied access to something which is legal - all that does is increase the psychological stress for her, and that's not healthy."

The United States has one of the highest rates of maternal mortality in the developed world, and abortion has been shown to be safer for women than childbirth.

The A.C.L.U. is considering several options, including further appeals.

For the teenager, the process has been exhausting, Ms. Amiri said.

"She talks about feeling very tired."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Undocumented 17-Year-Old Must Delay Abortion, Court Rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
She decided to end her pregnancy, but Texas law requires a minor to get parental consent or a judicial waiver to do so. She obtained a waiver, but the government prevented her from going to any abortion-related appointments, the American Civil Liberties Union said in court documents, and forced her to visit a religiously affiliated crisis pregnancy center where she was asked to view a sonogram.

# data[].attributes.body
As I read this I knew based upon the Constitution legally she had the right to an abortion that the government could legally not fully stop her from having within the U.S. as a whole (this isn't referring to individual state laws). I also was in agreeance with the ACLU that she had completed all the necessary steps and that she was simply being held back.

# data[].attributes.headline
Court blocks undocumented teen's abortion-- for now 

# data[].attributes.subject
Court blocks undocumented teen's abortion-- for now 

# data[].attributes.body
In the print media source, it expanded upon the issues within the first document by mentioning how the young woman crossed from Mexico to Texas and when the case had occurred was told that a sponsor was needed to be found for her. It also expanded upon the case itself, noting that the ruling went unsigned and that two of the three judges were writing their opinions on the issue. Finally it mentioned members of significant groups such as the Administration for Children and Families and their support for this young woman. The article was a bit biased towards the left side of the spectrum (providing multiple quotes from those who supported Jane Doe) but held a firm grasp on details to the issue making it seem reliable.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court sought a compromise solution Friday in a dispute between a 17-year-old undocumented teenager who wants an abortion and a federal agency that doesn't want to help her get it.

A three-judge panel that includes two Republican appointees gave the Trump administration until Oct. 31 to find a sponsor for the girl, who crossed from Mexico to Texas last month and is 15 weeks pregnant. That would facilitate the abortion without involving the Department of Health and Human Services.

"The government argues that this process ... does not unduly burden the minor's right under Supreme Court precedent to an abortion," the court said. "We agree, so long as the process of securing a sponsor to whom the minor is released occurs expeditiously."

Government lawyers had argued in federal district and appeals courts that the girl could return to Mexico for an abortion. But the American Civil Liberties Union argued that would deny her the chance to remain in the United States, and that finding a sponsor could take too long.

The ruling was unsigned, but two of the three judges announced they would write separate opinions -- one concurring, one dissenting. The third is Judge Brett Kavanaugh, an appointee of President George W. Bush and a leading candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court.

Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of President Barack Obama, issued a harsh dissent. "Forcing her to continue an unwanted pregnancy," she said, sacrifices the teen's "constitutional liberty, autonomy and personal dignity for no justifiable governmental reason."

If a sponsor cannot be found in the next 11 days, the court said, the matter would return to a district court judge who had ordered the government to allow the abortion. Either side then could appeal any new ruling in the case.

"Justice is delayed yet again for this courageous and persistent young woman," said Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. "She continues to be held hostage and prevented from getting an abortion because the Trump administration disagrees with her personal decision."

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2yvLf1j

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Court blocks undocumented teen's abortion - for now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court sought a compromise solution Friday in a dispute between a 17-year-old undocumented teenager who wants an abortion and a federal agency that doesn't want to help her get it. A three-judge panel that includes two Republican appointees gave the Trump administration until Oct.

# data[].attributes.body
As I read the online newspaper article, i felt as though my opinion was more solidified on the issue as I was provided with an in depth set of facts. I however wish there was a bit more info from the other side of the argument to see what both sides are learning about the issue.