Pregnant Migrant Teens Denied Care in Texas Facility

Pregnant Migrant Teens Housed in Texas Facility Amid Health Care Concerns

Unaccompanied pregnant migrant girls, some as young as 13 and many pregnant as a result of rape, are reportedly being housed together in a single facility in San Benito, Texas, despite urgent objections from health and welfare officials. An investigation by NPR and Texas Public Radio has revealed that the facility, located in a region with limited specialized medical care and where abortion is illegal, is raising serious concerns about the well-being of these vulnerable minors.

Office of Refugee Resettlement’s Role and Criticisms

These minors fall under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ORR operates numerous shelters nationwide, many equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies and facilitate transitions into foster care. Crucially, many of these facilities are located in states where abortion is legal, offering these pregnant teens access to necessary healthcare services.

However, under the current administration, a shift has occurred. For the first time, pregnant minors are being concentrated in a single group shelter in San Benito, Texas. Seven officials from ORR reportedly expressed concerns to Texas Public Radio, stating the facility lacks adequate healthcare access for these girls. One official was quoted as saying, “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization. Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”

A spokesperson for HHS defended the agency’s decisions, stating, “O-R-R’s placement decisions are guided by child welfare best practices and are designed to ensure each child is housed in the safest, most developmentally appropriate setting, including for children who are pregnant or parenting.”

Heightened Risks for Young Pregnant Individuals

Pregnancy at a young age, particularly for individuals whose bodies are still developing, carries significantly higher risks. These can include pregnancy-induced hypertension, anemia, miscarriage, premature labor, and infections. The situation is exacerbated by Texas’s abortion ban, which has been known to cause delays or denials in care for emergency pregnancy complications, potentially making these conditions fatal. Maternal mortality rates are already twice as high for teen mothers compared to adult women, and restricted access to healthcare amplifies these dangers.

Women’s health advocates also expressed concerns to Texas Public Radio that some of the girls may be suffering from untreated sexually transmitted infections resulting from sexual assault and worry about the adequacy of their prenatal care and nutrition within the San Benito facility.

Historical Context and Allegations of Policy Shifts

Jonathan White, former deputy director for children’s programs at ORR under the first Trump administration, spoke with NPR about the current situation. White characterized the placement of pregnant minors in San Benito as being “100% and exclusively about abortion.” He explained that during his tenure, the first Trump administration attempted to deny abortion services to girls in the Unaccompanied Children Program. This effort led to a significant lawsuit, the Garza case, which the administration lost. The lawsuit affirmed the right of pregnant minors in ORR custody to access abortion services.

White alleges that the current administration is now achieving the same goal through a different strategy: concentrating these girls in a single facility in a state where abortion is illegal and geographically distant from where services are accessible. This, he contends, effectively denies them access to abortion without a direct legal prohibition.

Furthermore, White pointed to other significant policy changes within the Unaccompanied Children Program under the current administration, which he believes mirror attempts from the first Trump administration that were previously blocked. These include:

• ICE Involvement: The Unaccompanied Children Program is reportedly now led by ICE officials, with the director having near-daily communications with Stephen Miller, who is alleged to be issuing direct orders. This marks a departure from the program’s intended role as a child welfare initiative.
• Extended Detention: The program has allegedly shut down the discharge of children to their family members within the U.S. While the average length of stay historically ranged from 20 to 40 days, the current average is reportedly 200 days. This means pregnant girls entering the system are likely to remain in care until they give birth.

White described the historical efforts to prevent girls from accessing abortions as a “particularly dystopian time,” noting that such actions were unconstitutional under the Massey decision, which derived from Roe v. Wade. He asserted that the current strategy using the San Benito site is a deliberate attempt to circumvent legal challenges and deny abortions, aligning with a broader pattern of alleged human rights abuses against children within the UC program.

Program’s Intended Purpose vs. Current Reality

“The unaccompanied children program was created by Congress to be a child welfare program. Right. And to place children with their family members here in the U.S. to await their day in immigration court. This administration has turned it into a child detention system.”

Jonathan White, former Deputy Director for Children’s Programs, ORR

White emphasized that the program was established by Congress as a child welfare initiative, designed to reunite children with family members in the U.S. while their immigration cases proceed. He argues that the current administration has transformed it into a detention system. He also noted a shift in the population, with a larger proportion of children now apprehended within the U.S. interior, rather than at the border, a change from previous administrations.

White concluded by stating that the pattern of misuse of the program, potentially in violation of laws like the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, appears to be aimed at indefinitely detaining children and pressuring them to relinquish their legal rights for removal from the country. He suggested that the full extent of these actions, if revealed, would sound like a dystopian novel.

Looking Ahead

The revelations raise critical questions about the safety, health, and legal rights of vulnerable pregnant minors in U.S. government custody. As scrutiny intensifies, attention will likely focus on potential legal challenges, oversight hearings, and the HHS’s response to the concerns raised by its own officials and external advocates. The long-term implications for these young individuals and the future of the Unaccompanied Children Program remain a significant concern.

Source: Pregnant migrant teens sent to flagged facility in Texas (YouTube)