Connect with us

News

The statue that moved — and the cousin I never knew

Published

on

The statue that moved — and the cousin I never knew

In July 1985, a number of Irish religious statues began to move. There were reports of apparitions at nearly 30 sites across the country — many of them Marian Year Grottos that had been built in small towns and villages throughout Ireland in 1954 to commemorate the centenary of the dogma proclaiming the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.

By far the most popular apparition was the life-size Virgin set into a grotto 10 metres above the road about a mile outside the village of Ballinspittle, County Cork. For six weeks or so that summer, crowds of 8,000-10,000 people gathered every night in the fields below the grotto to witness the statue bend, shake and rock from side to side; to see the face of Christ superimposed on the face of Mary, and sometimes the face of Padre Pio; to watch the Virgin move her hands in prayer; or to look out for the sacred heart hovering above her head. There were coach parties from Dublin and Galway and Limerick, minivans bringing the sick hoping for a miracle, crowds of the faithful alongside sightseers, reporters and television crews. Before the end of the summer, the village had new toilets beside the makeshift car parks, and two public phone boxes.

That July I was 22 years old. I had just finished university finals and was loafing about, wondering what to do next. Rather than going home to Croydon, I was spending the summer as I often did, with my aunt and uncle and cousins near Skibbereen, a small town in West Cork about 35 miles from Ballinspittle. One night, after watching yet another item about the statue on RTÉ news, we all piled into a couple of cars and drove across country to see for ourselves. My cousins joked that I was there as the control — if I (someone without any faith, practically a pagan) were to see the statue move, we would all know it was fake.

People gather below the statue of the Virgin Mary near the village of Ballinspittle, County Cork, in 1985 © Liam White/Alamy

It was nearing midnight when we arrived. We had to park a long way from the grotto and walk the last stretch, as the crowds were huge and the lanes were narrow. We passed chip and burger vans and hot drink stalls until we came to a large area filled with people craning their necks. A gathering of nuns stood near the front, leading the singing and the Hail Marys; there were the old-timers with their rosaries, a contingent disgorged from the pubs, and groups just like us, curious locals and their relatives home from England.

The chanting and the kneeling in the middle of a damp field at night seemed a bit ridiculous, especially given all the people munching chips. After a while, my cousin Caroline and I got the giggles until — at exactly the same moment — we saw the statue shake violently from the waist up, as though it was about to break in half. We both let out a Hammer-horror scream, to the great annoyance of the people around us, who were deep in a fervent rendition of “Hail Queen of Heaven”. After that, there was no chance of recovery. Everything set us off. We were doubled over, stuffing hankies into our mouths, snorting and crying with laughter.

Advertisement

What we saw that night seemed to us to have nothing to do with divine intervention. The movement of the statue appeared mechanical rather than lifelike, and we thought the most likely cause was an electrical surge, or short circuit, in the halo of bulbs around Mary’s head. But the real question is not what people saw but why, at that moment, did they want to see a miracle?

Over the years, the phenomenon of Irish Marian apparitions (from the Virgin’s appearance at Knock, in 1879, to a slew of more recent examples) has been explained as a response to social instability, an emotional release, or the result of a power struggle between the popular and the institutional church (though the nuns were certainly taking charge that night in Ballinspittle).

A statue of the Virgin Mary, her hands clasped in prayer, is set in a mossy wall
For six weeks that summer, crowds of 8,000-10,000 people gathered below the grotto hoping to see the statue shake and rock or the face of Christ superimposed on Mary © Alamy

But in the mid-1980s a number of events pointed to a particular crisis over the family, and women’s sexual lives in particular. In September 1983, the 8th Amendment to the Constitution, acknowledging the right to life of the unborn, was approved by a two-thirds majority in a referendum. Abortion was already illegal in Ireland but the campaign for a constitutional ban was a pre-emptive move by the religious right, concerned that Ireland might go the way of the UK (in 1967), the US (1973) and France (1975) in allowing abortion in certain circumstances.

In January the following year, 15-year-old Ann Lovett died, along with her baby, after giving birth alone at the Marian Grotto in Granard, County Longford. And later that year Joanne Hayes was wrongfully accused of having given birth to, and then murdered a newborn found washed up on the coast near Caherciveen with 28 stab wounds and a broken neck. The “Kerry babies” tribunal stretched through the early months of 1985. It was set up as an inquiry into the police, focusing on how Hayes and her entire family could have been brought to confess to a crime they could not possibly have committed (the baby’s blood type was A, but both Hayes and her lover were O). It quickly degenerated into a public forum shaming Hayes for her lifestyle and sexual history.  

If a Marian statue was ever going to move, this was surely the moment. In this scenario, the apparitions were a kind of last hurrah of the church, in retreat in the face of secular modernising forces, questioning the laws and customs governing illegitimacy, marriage, birth control and divorce. But I’m not convinced by this neat story of liberal Ireland sweeping away the religious deference of the past. The reality is much messier than that, particularly when it comes to women’s bodies, the histories they tell and how they are policed.

On March 8, Ireland will hold a referendum on deleting Article 41.2 from the constitution — the one that states that “by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved”. The fact that this gender-based domesticity clause has outlasted the banning of homosexuality (decriminalised in 1993, following a ruling by the European Convention on Human Rights), divorce (legal since 1996), same-sex marriage (since 2015) and even abortion (since 2018) is one sign of what women have been up against.

Advertisement
A man in a street, one arm raised, holds a placard that reads ‘Choose Life! Vote No’
An anti-abortion protester holds up a banner in Dublin ahead of the referendum on May 25 2018 © AP
A young man in bow tie carries a placard that reads ‘Time moves on, why haven’t we?’
A man in period costume on the annual March For Choice in Dublin by the Abortion Rights Campaign, May 2018 © Deirdre Brennan/eyevine

Apologies over the treatment of women by church and state have issued thick and fast from the Irish government in recent years. In 2014, Taoiseach Enda Kenny apologised to former residents of the Magdalene Laundries, and argued that “in naming and addressing the wrong . . . we are trying to make sure we quarantine such abject behaviour in our past and eradicate it from Ireland’s present and Ireland’s future”.

But the past keeps returning. In 2021, Taoiseach Micheál Martin issued a similar apology for the “profound, generational wrong” done to former residents of Mother and Baby homes, the religious-run, state-funded institutions where unmarried pregnant women and girls went to have their babies in secret. He acknowledged that, for much of the 20th century, “women as a group and regardless of age or class were systematically discriminated against in relation to employment, family law, and social welfare, solely because of their gender”.

Yet despite the promises of legal and financial redress, women and children are still having to petition the courts on a range of issues, including forced separation of mothers and children and illegal adoption from church-state institutions.


I’d like to be able to claim that, back in 1985, my cousin and I were laughing at the absurd contradiction of a group of people praying to the sinless (indeed immaculate) unmarried Mother of God while punishing the girls and women who were unfortunate enough to get pregnant without being married in Ireland — sending them to Mother and Baby homes, or to England, or leaving them to give birth alone. We knew something about this — or at least Caroline did. In 1980, when she was 19, she had come to live with us in Croydon for six months, while she waited for her baby to be born.

All that spring and summer, Caroline slept in the spare bed in my bedroom, and as we talked night after night I tracked the arc of her belly rising under the covers. We watched a lot of films on television, including Rosemary’s Baby, which was definitely a mistake. We lay about for hours on the lawn, sunbathing. We cooked experimental puddings with semolina and spices, and ate at odd times of the day and night. I accompanied her to some of the hospital appointments. The receptionist called her “Mrs” but in such a tone that I thought it must be obvious to everyone it wasn’t true. I don’t remember any talk about whether she would keep the baby, or what her options were — though it must have been discussed. What I remember is waiting. A kind of fatalist, resigned waiting. 

Why did my cousin come to live with us? The answer seems simple — extramarital sex and pregnancy were still sources of shame in Ireland. Contraception was legalised in 1979, but for “bona fide” married couples only. By 1980, the numbers of women travelling from Ireland to England for an abortion were averaging about nine a day (and the numbers steadily increased over the next 20 years). But for many people faced with a crisis pregnancy, even in the 1980s, the alternative was a relative in England or one of Ireland’s Mother and Baby homes.

Advertisement

Between Irish independence in 1922 and 1998, when the last home, Bessborough Mother and Baby home in Cork, finally closed, these institutions would host (at the lowest estimate) 56,000 unmarried mothers, ranging from 12-year-old girls to women in their forties, and at least 57,000 babies and small children. Many of the babies were adopted — often after extreme pressure on mothers, and increasingly, in the 1950s and 1960s, to the US.

There were similar institutions in the US, Britain and many European countries, but nowhere else were they still in use as late as the 1990s. The proportion of Irish unmarried mothers who were admitted to these institutions was probably the highest in the world — and this is not the only Irish anomaly. Irish women also stayed longer in these homes than their European counterparts, with the longest stays in the 1940s and 1950s, when they averaged more than a year.

Children’s and babies’ clothes on a washing line against a grey sky
Infants’ clothes hung on a line in a vigil for the children buried in unmarked graves at the Tuam Mother and Baby home, August 2019 © Getty Images

Since the discovery of the bodies of nearly 800 infants buried in sewer chambers on the grounds of a former Mother and Baby home in Tuam, County Galway, the scandal over the institutions has featured persistently in Irish public debate. A government Commission of Investigation reported in 2020 on the dire conditions in the homes, the mistreatment and neglect of mothers and their children, the extraordinarily high death rates and careless disposal of bodies. Former residents have told of being punished for their sins by nuns who withheld pain relief, and of the long-term harms caused by coerced and illegal adoption. But the violence wasn’t secret down the years. The homes were a warning to girls of what would happen to them if they weren’t good, or at least careful. The writer Eiléan ní Chuilleanáin was at school and college in Cork in the early 1960s and she remembers the gallows humour of girls joking about boys they fancied: “I’d do Bessboro’ for him.” Everyone knew what it meant.

My bedroom in Croydon was a nicer place to hide a pregnancy than Bessborough, but the pregnancy was hidden all the same. Still, it wasn’t until 1989 or 1990, after I had given birth to my own first baby — who I also had on my own — that I discovered there was a further reason why my cousin had come to Croydon to have her son, rather than stay at home in Ireland.

I learnt from my aunt about another first cousin, Mary, whom I had never met. Mary was born in 1955 in Bessborough, the daughter of my uncle Jackie and his 19-year-old neighbour Lily. There was a crisis when the pregnancy was discovered and neither Lily’s family nor my own was prepared to support her; Lily went into Bessborough and my uncle disappeared to England. Mary was brought up first in the Mother and Baby home, and then later in an orphanage (or what was still known then as an Industrial School for girls) not far from the farm where I spent my summers with my cousins. She was the eldest of the group of us cousins by two years, but she was kept a secret from us. We thought there were 12 of us, but really we were 13.

The bit my aunt didn’t tell me until later was that in January 1980 Mary, who was then 24 and living in London, had discovered she was pregnant, and killed herself. A couple of months later, Caroline came to stay.

Advertisement
Two black and white photographs show, on the left, Peggy, Nolly and Philly, and on the right a family group standing in front of a house, grandmother Molly holding a baby
Left, Clair’s aunt Peggy; Clair’s grandmother Molly; and her mother Philly in the 1940s. Right, a 1966 picture taken in front of the farmhouse. From left to right are Philly, Molly holding Oona, Clair, Siobhan, Stephen and Bridget

It has taken me 30 years to come to terms with what I learnt in those conversations with my aunt and my mother in the early 1990s. I searched through public records and histories of the institutions, and I spoke to nuns who had known Mary, trying to piece things together. In the process I uncovered a whole series of extramarital pregnancies, hidden babies and dead babies, stretching back in each generation of my family from the 1980s through the 1950s to the 1920s and the 1890s. A timeline of women, heavy with child, finding solutions in the cracks and fissures of respectability.

But the story of generations succeeding one another in a neat and orderly line is not the whole story. I am sure that my aunt told my cousins and me about the circumstances of Mary’s birth, and death, because she wanted to bring the cycle of violence to an end. She wanted to believe in a different — kinder — future, in which sin and punishment didn’t feature.

By the 1980s that seemed to be the future at least some of us were living in. But it is also the case that my aunt would not, or could not, have told us about Mary until her story was at an end — because one of the things she was telling us was that everyone had been complicit. Everyone kept the secret of Mary’s life in the orphanage from the 12 of us. My grandmother and my uncle and all the grown-ups on both sides of the family had consented to and even defended a system in which one child was not allowed to belong, because she was illegitimate, and the rest of us were made welcome.

It was, and is, a story of unaccountable injustice. An anachronistic tale more fitted to the 1890s or the 1920s than the ’70s and ’80s, when I was seeing Elvis Costello at the Roundhouse and doing Mansfield Park and the Reformation for A-level. And the fact that it was happening in similar ways and at the same time in countless other families does not make it easier to bear.

Our laughter at the foot of the statue in Ballinspittle was the laughter of young women who knew our lives wouldn’t be irrevocably ruined by our sexual choices. Our parents were no longer prepared to consent to structures of power that once seemed immutable. By the beginning of this century, it really did look as though the EU, same-sex marriage and (eventually) the reversal of the 1983 abortion referendum through Repeal the 8th would save us. But the past wasn’t really over — it still isn’t. The complicity, the secret-keeping and the denial of the reality of women’s sexual lives have knitted loops and kinks of damage into that story of progress. We were laughing with the confidence of a liberal future in front of us, and the cruelty to our unknown cousin Mary haunts me still.

Clair Wills’ ‘Missing Persons, Or My Grandmother’s Secrets’ is published by Allen Lane on January 25

Advertisement

Copyright © 2024, Clair Wills. All rights reserved

The main image for this piece, ‘Bridget’s Story’, is a 2019 glass artwork by Alison Lowry currently on display at the National Museum of Ireland in Dublin. It depicts Bridget Dolan, the mother of Anna Corrigan, a campaigner who found out after her mother’s death that she had given birth to two boys in the former Mother and Baby home in Tuam, County Galway. Photograph by Glenn Norwood

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FTWeekend on Instagram and X, and subscribe to our podcast Life and Art wherever you listen

Advertisement

News

Mojtaba Khamenei, son of former supreme leader, tipped to become Iran’s next head of state

Published

on

Mojtaba Khamenei, son of former supreme leader, tipped to become Iran’s next head of state

Mojtaba Khamenei, the second son of the assassinated Ali Khamenei, is being heavily tipped to succeed his father as supreme leader of Iran, which would pitch a hardliner into the task of steering the Islamic republic through the most turbulent period in its 48-year history and offer a powerful signal that, for now, it has no intention of changing course.

No official confirmation has been given and the announcement may be delayed until after the funeral of Ali Khamenei, which was on Wednesday postponed.

His son is believed to have been the choice of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Israeli defence minister, Gideon Saar, has warned he will be assassinated.

Ayatollah Seyed Khatani, a member of the Assembly of Experts, the body that chooses the new supreme leader, said the assembly was close to selecting a leader.

Rigid in his anti-western views, Mojtaba Khamenei is not the candidate Donald Trump would have wanted. Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, said on Tuesday that Iran was run by “religious fanatic lunatics” – and Khamenei’s appointment is hardly likely to dispel that opinion.

Advertisement
‘They were going to attack first’: Trump gives update on Iran – video

The choice of supreme leader is made by the 88-strong Assembly of Experts, who in this case are picking from a field of six possible candidates. His election would be a powerful if unsurprising symbol that the government is not looking to find an accommodation with America.

Trump has said the worst-case scenario would be if Khamenei’s successor was “as bad as the previous person”.

There has been speculation for more than a decade that he would be his father’s successor, which grew when Ebrahim Raisi, the elected president and favourite of Khamenei, was killed in a helicopter crash.

Mojtaba Khamenei was born in 1969 and studied theology after graduating from high school. At the age of 17, he went to serve in the Iran-Iraq war, but it was not until the late 1990s that he came to be recognised as a public figure in his own right.

Advertisement

After the landslide defeat of Khamenei’s preferred candidate, Ali Akbar Nategh Nuri, in the 1997 presidential election, where he won only 25% of the final vote, various conservative Iranian groups realised the need to make changes to their structures and Mojtaba Khamenei was central to that project.

He was also seen as instrumental by reformists in suppressing the protests in 2009 that came after allegations the presidential election had been rigged, with his name chanted in the streets as one of those responsible. Mostafa Tajzadeh, a senior member of Iran’s reformist parties who was imprisoned after the vote, alleged that his and his wife, Fakhr al-Sadat Mohtashamipour’s, legal case was under the direct supervision of Mojtaba Khamenei.

In 2022 he was given the title of ayatollah – essential to his promotion. By then he was a regular figure by his father’s side at political meetings, as well as playing an influential role in the Islamic Republic’s Broadcasting Corporation, the government’s official media outlet often criticised for churning out dull political propaganda that many Iranians reject in favour of overseas satellite channels. He has also played a central role in the administration of his father’s substantial financial empire.

His closest political allies are Ahmad Vahidi, the newly appointed IRGC commander; Hossein Taeb, a former head of the IRGC’s intelligence organisation; and Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current speaker of the parliament.

His rumoured appointment and its hereditary nature has long been resisted by reformists. The former prime minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, referring to the long history of rumours about Mojtaba Khamenei succeeding his father as leader, wrote in 2022: “News of this conspiracy have been heard for 13 years. If they are not truly pursuing it, why don’t they deny such an intention once and for all?”

Advertisement

The Assembly of Experts, in response, denounced “meaninglessness of doubts” and said the assembly would select only “the most qualified and the most suitable”.

Israel on Tuesday struck the building in the Iranian city of Qom, one of Shia Islam’s main seats of power, where the assembly was scheduled, but the building was empty, according to IRGC-affiliated media.

Continue Reading

News

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Published

on

Video: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

new video loaded: Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

transcript

transcript

Senators Question Kristi Noem on ICE Immigration Tactics

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

What we’ve seen is a disaster under your leadership, Ms. Noem. A disaster. What we’ve seen is innocent people getting detained that turn out are American citizens. I could talk about the culture that’s been created here. After the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, when I spoke to Alex’s parents, they told me that you calling him a domestic terrorist — this was directly from them — the day after he was killed, a nurse in our V.A., Alex — one of the most hurtful things they could ever imagine was said by you about their son. Do you have anything you want to say to Alex Pretti’s parents? Ma’am, I did not call him a domestic terrorist. I said It appeared to be an incident of — I think the parents saw it for what it was. In a hearing — recent hearing before the HSGAC committee, C.B.P. and ICE officials testified under oath that their agencies did not inform you that Pretti was a domestic terrorist — during that hearing, stated during that hearing, I was getting reports from the ground, from agents at the scene, and I would say that it was a chaotic scene. How did you think that calling them domestic terrorists at that scene was somehow going to calm the situation? The fact that you can’t admit to a mistake, which looks like under investigation, it’s going to prove that Ms. Good and Mr. Pretti probably should not have been shot in the face and in the back. Law enforcement needs to learn from that. You don’t protect them by not looking after the facts.

Advertisement
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem repeatedly refused to apologize for suggesting that Alex Pretti and Renee Good, two U.S. citizens shot and killed by agents, were domestic terrorists.

By Christina Kelso and Jackeline Luna

March 3, 2026

Continue Reading

News

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

Published

on

Pregnant migrant girls are being sent to a Texas shelter flagged as medically risky

The Trump administration is sending pregnant unaccompanied minors to a South Texas shelter (above) flagged as medically inadequate by officials from the Office of Refugee Resettlement. The facility is run by a for-profit contractor called Urban Strategies.

Patricia Lim/KUT News


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Patricia Lim/KUT News

The Trump administration is sending all pregnant unaccompanied minors apprehended by immigration enforcement to a single group shelter in South Texas. The decision was made over urgent objections from some of the administration’s own health and child welfare officials, who say both the facility and the region lack the specialized care the girls need.

That’s according to seven officials who work at the Office of Refugee Resettlement within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which takes custody of children who cross the border without a parent or legal guardian, or are separated from family by immigration authorities. The children remain in ORR’s care until they can be released to an adult or deported, or turn 18.

All of the officials asked not to be named for fear of retaliation.

Advertisement

Since late July, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been placed at the Texas facility, which is in the small border city of San Benito. Some were as young as 13, and at least half of those taken in so far became pregnant as a result of rape, the officials said. Their pregnancies are considered high risk by definition, particularly for the youngest girls.

“This group of kids is clearly recognized as our most vulnerable,” one of the officials said. Rank-and-file staff, the official said, are “losing sleep over it, wondering if kids are going to be placed in programs where they’re not going to have access to the care they need.”

The move marks a sharp departure from longstanding federal practice, which placed pregnant, unaccompanied migrant children in ORR shelters or foster homes around the country that are equipped to handle high-risk pregnancies.

The ORR officials said they were never told why the girls are being concentrated in a single location, let alone in this particular shelter in Texas. But they — along with more than a dozen former government officials, health care professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys — worry the Trump administration is knowingly putting the children at risk to advance an ideological goal: denying them access to abortion by placing them in a state where it’s virtually banned.

“This is 100% and exclusively about abortion,” said Jonathan White, a longtime federal health official who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program for part of President Trump’s first term. White, who recently retired from the government, said the administration tried and failed to restrict abortion access for unaccompanied minors in 2017. “Now they casually roll out what they brutally fought to accomplish last time and didn’t.”

Advertisement

Asked if the administration is sending pregnant children to San Benito to restrict their access to abortion, HHS said in a statement that the allegation was “completely inaccurate.”

In an earlier statement, the department said that “ORR’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.”

But several of the ORR officials took issue with the department’s statement. “ORR is supposed to be a child welfare organization,” one of them said. “Putting pregnant kids in San Benito is not a decision you make when you care about children’s safety.”

ORR’s acting director, Angie Salazar, instructed agency staff to send “any pregnant children” to San Benito beginning July 22, 2025, according to an internal email obtained as part of a six-month investigation by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom, public media collaboratives that worked together to produce this story.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.

A copy of the July 22, 2025, email notifying ORR supervisors of the directive to send pregnant unaccompanied minors to a single shelter in San Benito, Texas. The move comes over objections from the government’s own health and child welfare officials.
hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Several of the officials said a handful of pregnant girls have mistakenly been placed in other shelters because immigration authorities didn’t know they were pregnant when they were transferred to ORR custody.

Since the July order, none of the pregnant girls at the San Benito facility have experienced major medical problems, according to the ORR officials and Aimee Korolev, deputy director of ProBAR, an organization that provides legal services to children there. They said several of the girls have given birth and are detained with their infants.

But ORR officials interviewed for this story said they worry the shelter is only one high-risk pregnancy away from catastrophe.

“I feel like we’re just waiting for something terrible to happen,” one of the officials said.

‘Blown away by the level of risk’

Advertisement

There are dozens of ORR shelters or foster homes across the country that are designated to care for pregnant unaccompanied children, according to several of the ORR officials, with 12 in Texas alone. None of them could recall a time when all of the pregnant minors in the agency’s custody were concentrated in one shelter.

Detaining them in San Benito, Texas, doctors and public health experts said, is a dangerous gambit.

“It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are,” said Annie Leone, a nurse midwife who recently spent five years caring for pregnant and postpartum migrant women and girls at a large family shelter not far from San Benito. “So, to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”

The specialized obstetric care that exists in Texas is mostly available in its larger cities, hours from San Benito. And several factors, including the high number of uninsured patients, have eroded the availability of health care across the state.

Furthermore, Texas’ near-ban on abortion has been especially devastating to obstetric care. The law allows an exception in cases where the pregnant person’s life is in danger or one of her bodily functions is at risk, but doctors have been confused as to what that means.

Advertisement

Many doctors have left to practice elsewhere, and those who’ve stayed are often scared to perform procedures they worry could come with criminal charges. While Texas passed a law clarifying the exceptions last year, experts have said it may not be enough to assuage doctors’ fears.

Several maternal health experts listed the potential dangers for the girls at the San Benito shelter: If one of them develops an ectopic pregnancy (where the fertilized egg implants outside the uterus), if she miscarries or if her water breaks too early and she gets an infection, the emergency care she needs could be delayed or denied by doctors wary of the abortion ban.

Getting the care that is available could take too long to save her life or the baby’s, they added.

Adolescents are also more likely to give birth early, which can be life-threatening for both mother and baby. The youngest face complications during labor and delivery because their pelvises aren’t fully developed, said Dr. Anne-Marie Amies Oelschlager, an obstetrician in Washington state who specializes in adolescent pregnancy.

“These are young adolescents who are still going through puberty,” she said. “Their bodies are still changing.”

Advertisement

Pregnant girls who recently endured the often harrowing journey to the U.S. face even more risk, obstetrics experts said. Experts who work with migrant children say many are raped along the way and contract sexually transmitted infections that can be dangerous during pregnancy. Add to that little to no access to prenatal care or proper nourishment, and then the trauma of being detained.

“You couldn’t set up a worse scenario,” said Dr. Blair Cushing, who runs a women’s health clinic in McAllen, about 45 minutes from San Benito. “I’m kind of blown away by the level of risk that they’re concentrating in this facility.”

A history of problems

The San Benito shelter is owned and operated by Urban Strategies, a for-profit company that has contracted with the federal government to care for unaccompanied children for more than a decade, according to USAspending.gov.

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Meliza Fonseca lives across the street from the San Benito shelter. She said she occasionally sees kids in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

Patricia Lim/KUT

Advertisement

The main building, an old tan brick Baptist Church, occupies a city block in downtown San Benito, a quiet town of about 25,000. The church was converted to a migrant shelter in 2015 and was managed by two other contractors before Urban Strategies took it over in 2021.

On a fall day last year, there were no signs of activity at the facility, though children’s lawn toys and playground equipment were visible behind a wooden fence. A guard was stationed at one of the entrances.

“It’s pretty quiet, just like it is today,” said Meliza Fonseca, who lives nearby. “That’s the way it is every day.”

She said she occasionally sees kids playing in the yard on weekends, “but for the most part, you don’t see them.”

Reached by email, the founder and president of Urban Strategies, Lisa Cummins, wrote that the company is “deeply committed to the care and well-being of the children we serve,” and directed any questions about ORR-contracted shelters to the federal government.

Advertisement

When asked about the San Benito facility, HHS wrote that “Urban Strategies has a long-standing record of delivering high-quality care to pregnant unaccompanied minors, with a consistently low staff turnover.”

But the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said that as recently as 2024, staff members at the shelter failed to arrange timely medical appointments for pregnant girls or immediately share critical health information with the federal agency and discharged some of them without arrangements to continue their medical care.

ORR barred the shelter from receiving pregnant girls from September to December of 2024 while Urban Strategies implemented a remediation plan, but the plan did not add staff or enhance their qualifications, the officials said.

Some of the officials said ORR’s leadership was provided with a list of shelters that are better prepared to handle children with high-risk pregnancies. All of those shelters are outside Texas, in regions where the full range of necessary medical care is available. Yet the directive to place them at San Benito remains in place.

“It’s cruel, it’s just cruel,” one of the officials said. “They don’t care about any of these kids. They’re playing politics with children’s health.”

Advertisement

‘A dress rehearsal’

Jonathan White, who ran ORR’s unaccompanied children program from January of 2017 to March of 2018, said he wasn’t surprised to learn that the new administration is moving pregnant unaccompanied children to Texas.

“I’ve been expecting this since Trump returned to office,” White said in an interview.

He said he views the San Benito order as a continuation of an anti-abortion policy shift that began in 2017, which “ultimately proved to be a dress rehearsal for the current administration.”

Scott Lloyd, the agency’s director at the time, denied girls in ORR custody permission to end their pregnancies, court records show. Lloyd also required the girls to get counseling about the benefits of motherhood and the harms of abortion and personally pleaded with some of them to reconsider.

Advertisement

“I worked to treat all of the children in ORR care with dignity, including the unborn children,” Lloyd told the newsrooms in an email.

In the fall of 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a class action lawsuit against Lloyd and the Trump administration on behalf of pregnant girls in ORR custody. The ACLU argued that denying the girls abortions violated their constitutional rights, established by the Supreme Court in its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

Not long after the lawsuit was filed, White said, he received a late-night phone call from Lloyd, who had a request. He wanted White to transfer an unaccompanied pregnant girl who was seeking an abortion to a migrant shelter in Texas, where, under state law, it would have been too late for her to terminate her pregnancy. White said that he believed following the order would have been unlawful because it might have denied the girl access to legal relief under the lawsuit, so he refused. The girl was not transferred.

Lloyd, who has since left the government, acknowledged making the request but said he didn’t think it was illegal.

The lawsuit was settled in 2020; the first Trump administration agreed not to impede abortion access for migrant youth in federal custody going forward. Four years later, the Biden administration cemented the deal in official regulations: If a child who wanted to terminate her pregnancy was detained in a state where it was not legal, ORR had to move them to a state where it was.

Advertisement

That rule remains in place, and the agency appears to be following it: ORR has transferred two pregnant girls out of Texas since July, though the agency officials said one of the girls chose not to terminate her pregnancy.

But now that Trump is back in office, his administration is working to end the policy.

‘Elegant and simple’

Even before Trump won reelection, policymakers in his circle were planning a renewed attempt to restrict abortion rights for unaccompanied minors.

Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a politically conservative overhaul of the federal government, called for ORR to stop facilitating abortions for children in its care. The plan advised the government not to detain unaccompanied children in states where abortion is available.

Advertisement

Such a change is now possible, Project 2025 argued, because Roe v. Wade is no longer an obstacle. Since the Supreme Court overturned the landmark decision in 2022, there is no longer a federal right to abortion.

Upon returning to office, Trump signed an executive order “to end the forced use of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund or promote elective abortion.”

Then, in early July, the Department of Justice reconsidered a longstanding federal law, known as the Hyde Amendment, that governs the use of taxpayer money for abortion. The DOJ concluded that the government cannot pay to transport detainees from one state to another to facilitate abortion access, except in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

And now, ORR is working to rescind the Biden-era requirement that pregnant girls requesting an abortion be moved to states where it’s available. On Jan. 23, the agency submitted the proposed change for government approval, though it has not yet published the details.

Several of the ORR officials who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear whether children in the agency’s custody who have been raped or need emergency medical care will still be allowed to get abortions.

Advertisement

“HHS does not comment on pending or pre-decisional rulemaking,” the department wrote when asked for details of the regulatory change. “ORR will continue to comply with all applicable federal laws, including requirements for providing necessary medical care to children in ORR custody.”

The day the change was submitted, an unnamed Health and Human Services spokesperson told The Daily Signal, a conservative news site, “Our goal is to save lives both for these young children that are coming across the border, that are pregnant, and to save the lives of their unborn babies.”

Experts who spoke with the newsrooms said it’s unclear why the government would concentrate pregnant children in one Texas shelter, rather than disperse them at shelters throughout the state. But they said they’re convinced that the San Benito directive and the anti-abortion rule change are meant to work hand in hand: Once pregnant children are placed at the San Benito shelter, the new regulations could mean they cannot be moved out of Texas to get abortions — even if keeping them there puts them at risk.

“It’s so elegant and simple,” said White, the former head of the unaccompanied children program. “All they have to do is send them to Texas.”

Mark Betancourt is a freelance journalist and regular contributor to The California Newsroom.

Advertisement

Mose Buchele with The Texas Newsroom contributed reporting.

This story was produced by The California Newsroom and The Texas Newsroom. The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets that includes NPR, CalMatters, KQED (San Francisco), LAist and KCRW (Los Angeles), KPBS (San Diego) and other stations across the state. The Texas Newsroom is a public radio journalism collaboration that includes NPR, KERA (North Texas), Houston Public Media, KUT (Austin), Texas Public Radio (San Antonio) and other stations across the state.

Continue Reading

Trending