It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Justice Thomas Blocks Inmate's Abortion Request

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Justice Thomas is temporarily blocking a lower court order that would have required prison officials in Missouri to take an inmate to get an abortion. U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple had ruled on Friday that the state of Missouri would be violating the inmate's rights unless it drove her to get the abortion. Whipple had ordered the state to do so, even though the state had argued it would violate a Missouri state law that bans the spending of tax dollars to facilitate an abortion. The state of Missouri then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
 



www.stltoday.com
After a frenzied day of appeals, Missouri officials won a last-minute stay Friday night from the U.S. Supreme Court that blocked a federal judge's order that would have required corrections officials to take an inmate to a St. Louis abortion clinic today.

Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon's spokesman, Scott Holste, said he was informed of Justice Clarence Thomas' stay just before 10:45 p.m. Missouri time.

Nixon's office failed earlier on Friday to get U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple to reverse himself and failed to get a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn him.

Whipple had demanded that the woman be delivered at 9 a.m. today for the abortion at a Planned Parenthood clinic.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Let the Roe V Wade quagmire begin. Now the question is will Thomas defer this to the full Supreme Court for a ruling or make the decision all on his own?

The Roe v Wade decision clearly states that abortions are legal, yet we have a state law that says they will not pay for transportation and guarding of the prisoner. Who will rule in this case is what I am wondering?




[edit on 10/16/2005 by shots]




posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
Let's get something straight; an activist court shoved that abomination down our throats, just like they do with every social reengineering piece of crap idea they know they can't past congress or the American populace.

Now, who is paying for the abortion is another issue. I didn't see anything regarding that. When I was working in corrections, they citizens picked up all the medical tabs for inmates. That is not something most people want to pay for. See the difference between a right and a non-right? A right doesn't kill another person, and another person doesn't have to fork the bill for you to exercise the "right".

Good for Thomas! It seems decency ain't dead, yet.

And, before you got trying to say that the baby is unwanted and all that stuff, you ain't God. Don't tell me what the future is for the kid.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Now, who is paying for the abortion is another issue. I didn't see anything regarding that.


That was in the main body of the whole story it states


Roe plans to borrow money for it from friends and family, according to court filings.



Jane Roe is how they are identifying the individual, apparently she can not afford the transportation as I understand it. The paying of the guards is also a big issue here.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:09 AM
link   
I wonder if this woman got pregnant before she got into prison on while serving her term?!?!. For all we know she could of got raped by a prison guard. Would you still force here to have that baby in jail?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Raped? She could have gotten raped by the correctional officers, true, but is that what goes through your mind every time you see a pregnant woman? Do you assume she was raped?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Raped? She could have gotten raped by the correctional officers, true, but is that what goes through your mind every time you see a pregnant woman? Do you assume she was raped?


No it is not what goes through my mind every time is see a pregnant woman. THIS WOMAN IS IN JAIL!!!! She is in jail with other women? How can she become pregnant in jail with other women. How long has she been in jail? She could of had a relationship with the guards. But jail is not pretty. People get raped alot men and women.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   
I was a correctional officer, I have an idea about the lack of beauty . I also know the women will seduce the correctional officers at every opportunity to gain benefits. They will also take great pleasure in getting officers fired for succumbing to their advances.

My point is, exercise is a good thing, but jumping to conclusions might not be the best way to get it.

Edit to include: Don't get me wrong, I have no sympathy for those officers who have carnal kowledge with an inmate, I'm just saying that there are other ways beside rape.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by Thomas Crowne]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I can see where you both are coming from, but I was wondering what if any effect will this have on future rulings i.e., Roe V Wade?

Is this a precursor to ending abortion once and for all or is it a precursor to the to have the right of choose?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:22 PM
link   
To be honest, shots, I don't think this is anything to change Roe-v-Wade.

An example of this: In a bit, I'll be heading to work and will stop by the local gas station for a cup of coffee and a pack of smokes. I have the right to do this. The inmates in Alabama correctional facilities, on the other hand, are not allowed to smoke anymore. I still Can. Their inability as inmates does not effect me.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
To be honest, shots, I don't think this is anything to change Roe-v-Wade.


I disagree simply because you can not have the federal government saying it is OK if you want to have an abortion, yet the states says no you can not as demonstrated in this case since they refuse to allow it.

You can not have it both ways, it has to be one way or the other and they will have to change that permanently.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 12:43 PM
link   
I think if the individual became pregnant before she was incarcerated,she should have the baby. Inmates don't have the same rights we do and really only get basic medical care....sometimes. Abortion isn't necessary medical care,unless the woman is ill or has a large chance of dying if she continues the pregnancy or there is something wrong that would cause the baby to die outside the womb. She should have realized that as an inmate,the gov't and public aren't required to pay for elective medical services or the transportation and security needed to obtain them. However,if it is an issue of rape,that changes the matter completely. I too am curious as to how long she has been incarcerated and if she was pregnant before she was remanded to the institution.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by malloryknox187
Inmates don't have the same rights we do and really only get basic medical care


I do not believe that is the case. For example if the Prison hospital is unable to preform a procedure they send the individual to a facility that can perform it along with the guards to prevent them from escaping. Why should it be any different in this case?




She should have realized that as an inmate,the gov't and public aren't required to pay for elective medical services or the transportation and security needed to obtain them.


In this case the government is not going to pay for the abortion she is with a loan from family and friends as I understand it. The only thing really at issue here is the transportation as I see it, since for normal medical procedures they cannot do in house they send out along with guards.

Wither I or you think she should or should not have the baby is not the issue here. The issue is that Roe v Wade states you can have an abortion if you want one.

Now if you can show me a MO state law that says she can not have an abortion then you might have a point, but we both know they do not so again that is a none issue.








[edit on 10/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
Just so happens my husband is in prison,and yes inmates barely get routine medical care. But anyway,the issue is she is incarcerated and wants an elective procedure. If she wanted liposuction and her family was paying for it,would she be transported? Yes lipo and abortion are totally different,but they are both elective procedures. My point is,if the abortion is necessary for her health,then transport should be provided,if not then I don't think it should. When you break a law and are incarcerated,you lose some of your freedom,and don't have the liberty to go and do what you want. I thought the issue here was should an incarcerated person be given transport and security personnel to have an elective procedure. I think more facts about why she needs the abortion are needed. I'm not debating the state abortion laws or anything to do with abortion. I am simply raising the question,should the incarcerated be given the freedom to have elective medical procedures?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
For some reason all of this reminds me of the movie Fortress. In that future, it was illegal to have a second child but it was also illegal to have an abortion. So if a woman got pregnant, she would be thrown in jail and forced to have the baby, while not having the option to have an abortion. So the woman either had to run to Canada to have the baby or have an illegal abortion in Fascist Corporate-Owned America. God these old sci-fi movies sure managed to predict the future well..


It's not that the events of the movie and reality are alike, it's the contridiction in government policiy.

[edit on 10/16/2005 by Flinx]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by malloryknox187
But anyway,the issue is she is incarcerated and wants an elective procedure.


I understand what you are saying. Up until recently they allowed it to happen, now they do not.


Missouri formerly provided transportation - but not funding - for inmate abortions, but stopped several months ago. Since 1997, it has accommodated seven. (same link as source article near the bottom)


As you can see they already set a precedent in the past by allowing it now they have gone anti-abortion if you will. Something is rotten in Denmark as they say, seven counld have them the 8th can"t
What is wrong with that picture??

[edit on 10/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 08:47 PM
link   
First off she was not raped in prison. She discovered that she was pregnant shortly before she was arrested in california in july for a missouri parole violation and tried to have the procedure done in california. Before she could have the procedure performed she was transfered back to missouri.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:09 PM
link   
The state now owns her body and her uterus, she will be forced into a full term pregnancy so she can be reminded of her sins until the child is born.

Then the fruits of her sinful uterus and life will be given to a good Christian married couple approved by the state because she will be an unfit mother after the child is born.

Then she will be stone and burn as devil worshiper. Right?

Get real people this is another attempt to control women and their choices but this time with the brand of "The state doesn't pay for transportation"

OK, so now this women and her uterus belong to Missouri and justice Thomas will monitor her pregnacy.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
And the tax payers will foot an even larger bill for her prenatal care then they would have they just shutup and put out the estimated 350 dollars for the guards & transportation.



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Let's get something straight; an activist court shoved that abomination down our throats, just like they do with every social reengineering piece of crap idea they know they can't past congress or the American populace.


I'm guessing that this vitriol is referencing doing away with laws that made abortion illegal, specifically Roe v Wade?



posted on Oct, 16 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
how is it an attack on women?! prison is prison. i just spent a month complaining to the warden at the prison in which my husband is incarcerated because of a staph infection outbreak. it took them 2 weeks to properly treat a toe on which he had an infection. the guy in the bunk next to him had the infection halfway up his foot before they did anything. not long before that, another inmate had a heart attack in the yard and wasn't saved because the medical personnel took too long and the CO's didn't perform CPR. i don't think the issue has anything to do with trying to keep women down.....but in my opinion,if they are going to allow inmates to get elective procedures,then they should also give better care to the people who have necessary medical needs.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join