America’s refugee program is supposed to save lives — not endanger them. But that won’t be the case if ACLU and Planned Parenthood get their way. In a new court case, they’re teaming up to make the U.S. a dangerous place for unborn immigrants.

It’s a policy that started with Barack Obama, who apparently thinks the Statue of Liberty says, “Give me your tired, your poor, your yearning for abortion.” Like the rest of the radical Left, Cecile Richards misses the good old days of that administration, when taxpayer-funded abortions were as common as expired visas. That all changed under President Trump, who — like most Americans — doesn’t think “abortion” is part of the care our nation is called to provide. Liberals, of course, are hoping the courts will disagree now that a 17-year-old in a Texas resettlement center has permission from a judge to abort her unborn baby. Not so fast, said the Trump administration, whose officials stepped in to stop the procedure after they learned the girl was a minor in the care of an HHS-sponsored Catholic charity.

“There is no constitutional right for a pregnant minor to illegally cross the U.S. border and get an elective abortion while in federal custody,” an HHS official argued this week. “Federal law is very clear on giving the director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement the legal responsibility to decide what is in the best interests of a minor in the unaccompanied alien children program and, in this case, her unborn baby. We cannot cede our responsibility to care for minors and their babies by releasing them to ideological advocacy groups.” In the meantime, the spokesman said, “The Office of Refugee Resettlement is providing excellent care to this young woman and her unborn child and fulfilling our duty to the American people.”

Part of that duty is ensuring that our tax dollars don’t fund the taking of innocent human life. After all, this mother’s case is under the care of HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which means that every cent flows through the pro-life Hyde Amendment. When the head of ORR, Scott Lloyd, heard about the teenager’s request, he threw his support behind the Catholic charity that took her to a pregnancy care center. “Grantees should not be supporting abortion services pre- or post-release; only pregnancy services and life-affirming options counseling,” he reiterated. Anything less would not only violate taxpayers’ trust but the conscience of the faith-based group caring for her.

In an amicus brief in defense of the Trump administration, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton points out, “No federal court has ever declared that unlawfully-present aliens with no substantial ties to this country have a constitutional right to abortion on demand. If ‘Doe’ prevails in this case, the ruling will create a right to abortion for anyone on earth who enters the U.S. illegally. And with that right, countless others undoubtedly would follow. Texas must not become a sanctuary state for abortions.” Let’s not forget, this is a minor in the custody of the federal government. Beyond the problems of paying for her abortion, bureaucrats would be making decision for a teenager with significant ramifications — both emotionally and physically. The Trump administration is absolutely doing the right thing — for America and this girl — by protecting her from the predators at Planned Parenthood, who look at this young child not as a mother but as a business opportunity.

“Everyone deserves access to basic health care regardless of their age, income, or immigration status,” Cecile Richards told reporters. Since when did “basic health care” include taking the life of an innocent child? People from around the world still flock to America, some even breaking the law to do so, to escape oppression and mistreatment. Like millions of immigrants before them, they’re desperately seeking freedom and opportunity — two things abortion robs of every single victim. Fifty-nine million children into the gruesome legacy of Roe, President Trump should be applauded for giving these unborn refugees sanctuary in their mother’s womb.

Originally published here.

On Satan Cake, Cooler Hades Prevail

The devil is officially in the details of Jack Phillips’s case. When a customer emailed the baker about making a Lucifer cake, the man at the center of America’s biggest religious liberty case found out just how significant his trial may be. Phillips, who became a national name when he turned down a same-sex wedding order, is two months away from arguing his case before the highest court in the land — and when he does, he’ll have this latest incident to help make his point.

An email he got on Sept. 30 helps to put the entire controversy in perspective, many people believe, since it has much broader ramifications than the same-sex marriage debate. “I would like to get a quote on a birthday cake, for a special event,” a person emailed the bakery. “It is a cake that is religious in theme, and since religion is a protected class, I am hoping that you will gladly bake this cake. As you see, the birthday cake in question is to celebrate the birthday of Lucifer or as they [sic] are also known Satan, who was born as Satan when he was cast from heaven by God.” The customer goes on to ask for decorations that include an upside-down cross and the head of Lucifer. (Devil’s food cake, anyone?)

The request is so bizarre that it’s almost funny — but it does make a very important point about free speech and artistic expression. As Jack’s attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom’s (ADF) Jeremy Tedesco, explains, “If we’re going to live in a world where these kinds of laws can be used to force people like Jack Phillips to create cakes that violate his beliefs about marriage, we’re also going to have to live in a world where people can be forced to create cakes celebrating Satan.” Obviously, what’s at stake on Dec. 5 goes well beyond the marriage debate. This is about policing people’s beliefs. It’s about the fundamental right of every person to have and express an opinion.

If the government can decide what you can and can’t believe about sexuality, it’s only a matter of time before that same ideological intolerance spills into debates over guns, the environment, or even the economy. “It’s very easy to get caught up,” Tedesco warns, “… in the idea that the case is just about a Christian cake artist who doesn’t want to create cakes supporting same-sex marriages — but the issue is much broader than that. If the government has the power to force Jack to create cakes and engage in artistic expression that violates his beliefs, it has that power over all of us. That’s why you can be for same-sex marriage, but you can also be for, and should be for, Jack Phillips to prevail in this case.”

He’s right. This isn’t about accommodation, as liberals would have you believe. It’s about forced participation. Fortunately, Americans are starting to wake up to the danger here. In a Rasmussen poll, only 29 percent agree with the radical Left that Jack should be strong-armed to making a cake that violates his faith. Let’s hope the Supreme Court isn’t among them.

Originally published here.

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.