“Justice prevailed today for Jane Doe,” jubilant ACLU attorney Brigitte Amiri proclaimed. The “justice” to which Amiri is referring? The appalling termination of an unborn baby whose mother, an anonymous 17-year-old illegal immigrant, won the court’s blessing to have an abortion last week. The Justice Department appealed the ruling, but on Tuesday the DC Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Jane Doe, who promptly aborted her child on Wednesday.

Ken Paxton, the attorney general for Texas — where the case originated — was succinct in his response: “Life and the Constitution are sacred. We lost some of both today.” Indeed we did. According to Reuters, “By quickly having the abortion, the girl prevented the administration from potentially continuing the legal fight at the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.” In other words, leftists are well aware that abortion-on-demand — particularly regarding illegal immigrants’ access to it — is on shaky ground.

Sadly, however, even if the Supreme Court were to eventually abolish this practice — the aforementioned ACLU attorney says “the administration’s efforts to interfere in women’s decisions won’t stop with Jane,” which means future lawsuits, which means a Supreme Court intervention appears inevitable — there’s no bringing back this child. Justice did not and will not prevail for him (or her).

DC Circuit Judge Patricia Millet dumbfounded the nation when she stated in defense of her pro-abortion ideology, “Remember, we are talking about a child here.” She was referring to the mother. Actress Alyssa Milano chimed in, “Preventing an immigrant woman from getting an abortion is a war on women, immigrants, and children [emphasis added].” In National Review, Alexandra DeSanctis writes, “What could possibly be more of a war on children than a policy stance that allows them to be killed on a whim to accommodate the desires of their parents?”

Columnist Steve Chapman is wrong when he opines, “This was a simple choice: Compel the girl to give birth or let her get an abortion. The fact that she is undocumented doesn’t change that reality.” In his latest piece, Chapman draws a remarkably contorted link between China’s one-child policy — in which forced abortion is applied — and the government’s pro-life stance in this case. He says the Trump administration “tries to force pregnant women to have babies. And its methods bear an uncanny resemblance to those employed by the Chinese government.” Who knew that a pro-life position was the same as a pro-death position? Moral relativism leads to baffling rationalization.

Jane Doe is an illegal immigrant whom the courts are wrongfully placating. As Tony Perkins asks, “Why would anyone go through the hassle of naturalization if the courts are going to give illegal immigrants the same rights as citizens anyway? All this court is doing is incentivizing lawbreaking.” That’s because it fulfills the agenda of the Left, which uses contentious issues like abortion and immigration to rise to power. Speaking of which, this Babylon Bee headline puts the entire situation in perspective: “ACLU Clarifies It’s Only In Support Of Immigrants After They Leave Womb.”