Office of Refugee Resettlement Moves Pregnant Girls to San Benito, Texas, Critics Say

(SAN BENITO, TEXAS) — Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) Acting Director Angie Salazar issued a directive on July 22, 2025, requiring all pregnant unaccompanied minors in federal custody to be placed at a single shelter in San Benito, Texas, regardless of where they were apprehended.

The order, issued through ORR, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families (ACF), centralizes a medically sensitive group in one location and sets off transfers that can reshape access to time-sensitive care, including reproductive healthcare, critics said.

Former ORR program head Jonathan White and other critics, including ORR sources, over a dozen former government officials, healthcare professionals, migrant advocates and civil rights attorneys, described the directive as a deliberate strategy to deny abortion access by concentrating pregnant girls in Texas, which enforces near-total abortion bans.

HHS/ACF officials have said placements follow child welfare best practices, but government health and child welfare officials objected to the approach, citing the San Benito facility’s and the South Texas region’s lack of specialized care.

The directive marked a shift in how ORR handles pregnant unaccompanied minors in custody, moving away from a practice of distributing them to facilities around the country, including places positioned for high-risk obstetric care.

That change matters operationally because ORR placement decisions determine where a child receives medical evaluation, how quickly appointments can be scheduled, and how medical records move with the child from one facility to another. Transfers can also interrupt provider relationships and affect continuity planning at discharge.

The move also revived debate over how federal custody obligations intersect with state abortion restrictions, particularly in Texas after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Critics said concentrating pregnant minors in Texas reshapes the practical reality of obtaining time-sensitive care in a state where providers face legal risk and where services may be less available, making urgent decisions harder to carry out.

Since late July 2025, more than a dozen pregnant minors have been transferred to the San Benito shelter, according to the same accounts. Some were as young as 13, and at least half were pregnant due to rape.

Those details heighten the medical and legal sensitivity around the placements. Very young pregnancies are often considered higher-risk and can require specialized coordination, including timely diagnostics and careful monitoring, clinicians and former officials said.

Accounts of the transfers also raised concerns about how quickly pregnant minors can get appointments in a region critics described as a reproductive health desert, and how easily they can obtain referrals when care requires traveling outside the immediate area.

The policy also departs from a regulatory backdrop that previously shaped obligations around transportation for healthcare needs, including abortions. Critics pointed to rescinded regulations at 45 CFR 410.1307 that required transfers or transportation for healthcare needs like abortions, arguing that the end of that framework made it easier to concentrate minors in a restrictive state.

Texas law forms much of the practical environment surrounding pregnancy-related care for minors housed in San Benito, with restrictions that critics said can influence provider decisions, timing, and availability.

Texas enforces a trigger ban criminalizing abortion that took effect August 25, 2022, after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The state also has a six-week gestational ban effective September 1, 2021, as well as other restrictions that can create delays, including a 24-hour waiting period, counseling and ultrasound requirements, and parental notification and consent rules for minors or judicial bypass.

Other limits described by critics and legal advocates include public funding bans, TRAP laws, physician-only restrictions and telemedicine bans, along with civil and criminal penalties that can shape provider behavior and referral patterns.

House Bill 7, signed September 17, 2025, by Gov. Greg Abbott, added another layer by banning manufacturing, distributing, mailing, transporting, prescribing, or providing abortion-inducing drugs in Texas. The law uses private qui tam lawsuits to enforce the restrictions and sets $100,000 minimum penalties per violation, with a six-year statute of limitations and exemptions for pregnant women, emergencies, and certain carriers with policies.

Critics said those legal risks can deter providers, complicate logistics for medication-related care, and add uncertainty even when clinicians consider a condition urgent, especially in cases that require rapid decision-making.

Medical professionals and former officials also raised concerns about emergencies and complications that can arise during pregnancy, particularly when a patient is young and far from specialized resources.

Experts warned of risks tied to delayed care for ectopic pregnancies, miscarriages, preterm rupture of membranes, or infections, describing a system where doctors may hesitate amid abortion restrictions and where local access is limited.

Nurse midwife Annie Leone, who cared for pregnant migrant girls near San Benito, said, “It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are. to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”

Critics and former officials also pointed to reported operational gaps in shelter health coordination, arguing that pregnant minors face higher stakes when appointments, records, or discharge planning fail.

As recently as 2024, shelter staff reportedly failed to arrange timely medical appointments or share health information, discharging girls without care continuity, according to accounts cited by critics and medical professionals.

Such failures can matter for any child in custody, but pregnancy adds time sensitivity that can compress decision windows, require follow-up, and increase the consequences of missed care, clinicians said.

The concentration of pregnant minors in one shelter also increases the consequences of local capacity limits, critics said, because the directive applies regardless of where a child is apprehended.

A pregnant unaccompanied minor detained far from Texas can face a transfer to San Benito as a first placement step, rather than remaining closer to an established network of specialty care, critics said, raising questions about continuity of medical records and scheduling during travel.

The policy’s opponents argued that geographic centralization in Texas cannot be separated from the state’s abortion restrictions, saying it effectively reduces options for minors who might seek an abortion, while also narrowing access to providers comfortable handling pregnancy complications.

Supporters within the government framed placements as child welfare decisions, HHS/ACF officials said, but objections from government health and child welfare officials focused on the region’s lack of specialized care and the potential for care delays.

The policy remained in effect as of February 2026 reports, with ORR under HHS Administration for Children and Families implementing the directive through placement decisions that determine where a child lives and receives care while in federal custody.

Outside pressure also continues to shape the debate. Anti-abortion groups have separately urged stricter limits on detaining pregnant or postpartum individuals, adding another political current to an issue already defined by litigation risk, medical urgency, and custody obligations.

For critics, the central question is whether ORR’s directive turns placement into a tool that constrains healthcare choices for pregnant minors in federal custody, particularly those who are very young or who became pregnant through rape, and whether concentrating them in San Benito exposes them to delayed or fragmented care in a restrictive legal climate. Leone’s warning captured that concern: “It’s not good to be a pregnant person in Texas, no matter who you are. to put pregnant migrant kids in Texas, and then in one of the worst health care regions of Texas, is not good at all.”