Illegal immigrant teen wants U.S. to kill her unborn baby and taxpayers to pay for it

Women's right to kill group

An immigrant teen, who was denied an abortion by a U.S. government official, has threatened to harm herself if we don't kill her baby, according to a government memo.

She believes that because the baby was conceived by rape, and that she doesn't want it, that killing him or her is acceptable and that the American taxpayers should pay for it.

The memo is addressed to Scott Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency that shelters thousands of illegal, unaccompanied minors. 

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted the memo as part of its ongoing lawsuit over the rights for illegal minors who are in custody to have their babies killed and do so at the taxpayers' expense.

The document describes the rape taking place in the teen's home country [which may or may not be true] and believed she became pregnant as a result. 

The memo was written by the Office of Refugee Resettlement's deputy director describing that she told the doctor that she wanted to kill the baby in her womb. (She called it an abortion, but it's the same thing.)

The teen "disclosed to the medical doctor that she preferred to harm herself rather than to continue with her pregnancy."

In later visits, the teen told of how her mother and a potential sponsor wanted her to not kill the baby. At one point, she reported facing "physical harm" if she killed him or her.

"She felt pressured by her mother and potential sponsor to continue the pregnancy, but she wants to terminate the pregnancy," the memo said. The term 'terminate the pregnancy' means to kill the baby, usually before it travels through the birth canal, but some liberals believe it doesn't matter how late in the pregnancy that it's killed. Just as long as Planned Parenthood gets paid.

The recommendation of the deputy director is redacted, but Lloyd circled the word "disapproved" at the bottom of the memo with his signature. But unfortunately for the baby, the teen eventually received the okay to have the baby killed after U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled in the favor of killing the baby. 

Judge Chutkan has already been born so was able to make that decision.

Lloyd said that an abortion would not "cure the reality" of the teen's rape. Both killing the unborn and rape are forms of abortion, the letter said, but not in those exact words.

"Implicit here are the dubious notions that it is possible to cure violence with further violence," Lloyd said, obviously aware that killing the unborn is a form of violence and clearly immoral.

The ACLU accused Lloyd of implementing a "cruel and heartless policy," which is exactly what the ACLU wants to do to the unborn. 

Is it more heartless to not allow the teen to kill the baby and thus allow it to be adopted if she doesn't want it? Or is it more heartless to kill the baby that has no rights as far as the ACLU is concerned?



Tweet