Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
First Abortion Case Under Roberts
Topic Started: Oct 18 2005, 04:56 AM (98 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
The Court without published opinion refused to bar court-ordered transport of an inmate to an abortion clinic.

Missouri recently passed law taxes couldn't be used to support abortion. State wants to discourage abortion, but failed to show irreparable harm. Missouri has a prison policy of transporting inmates in cases of medical necessity.

"Roe", now 16-17 weeks preganant, has been in court for 7 weeks.


I can agree the state should not fund abortion, but in cases of medical necessity the woman's health if not life must also be valued.


Wonder if this neutrality is a precedent for the Roberts Court.


(sources)
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
I'm confused...Were you not arguing before in another thread that ROE had nothing to do with abortion?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
weird they would use the name ROE again in regards to this supreme court deal...and it has to do with ABORTION

Quote:
 
BY GINA HOLLAND
ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON -- Missouri officials must let a pregnant inmate have an abortion, the Supreme Court said Monday, rejecting an appeal by anti-abortion Gov. Matt Blunt.


Missouri, which has some of the strictest abortion laws in the country, argued taxpayers should not have to pick up the tab for transporting the woman to an abortion clinic.


The unanimous order declining to intervene comes as the Senate prepares for the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, during which lawmakers are sure to press her on abortion.


She was picked to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a key swing voter in abortion cases who is retiring.


The inmate, known only as Jane Roe, is serving a 4-year sentence and is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.


She is at least four months pregnant. She found out she was pregnant after being arrested on a parole violation and sued the state after her attempts to get an abortion were rebuffed.


The Supreme Court has never addressed the rights of pregnant inmates to get abortions, but U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple in Missouri said that the high court has made clear that women have a constitutional right to abortion.


Whipple ordered the state to transport the woman on the 80-mile trip from her cell in Vandalia to a St. Louis clinic.


The Supreme Court declined to overrule Whipple, following an unusual last-minute appeal from Missouri and the temporary intervention of Justice Clarence Thomas, who opposes abortion rights.


A stay from Thomas kept the inmate from having the abortion on Saturday. However, on Monday, he joined the other eight justices in rejecting the state's emergency appeal.


Thrown out: Cigarette makers scored a major victory Monday when the Supreme Court refused to allow the Bush administration to pursue a $280-billion penalty against tobacco companies on claims they misled the public about the dangers of smoking.


The decision was not unexpected because the government's case is pending and the federal judge who presided over the nine-month trial has not yet decided whether tobacco companies are guilty of wrongdoing.


The Supreme Court declined, without comment, to intervene now, and the case could return to justices next year.


The fight at the high court was over the amount of money the companies would have to pay if the judge rules that they violated a federal antiracketeering law known as RICO.


Lobbying: Mounting a defense of Supreme Court nominee Miers, President George W. Bush brought six former Texas judges to the White House on Monday to help persuade skeptical senators to support her.


The administration also made available almost 9,000 pages of documents from Miers' service on the Dallas City Council and the Texas Lottery Commission.


Bush and his advisers are focusing on Miers' intellect and capabilities after last week talking about her religious beliefs.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Yes, you're confused. "Roe" is a name the state or press gave this woman to protect her identity. Thanks for repeating the salient points of the case with the cut'n'paste.



What do you think about this Court case?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
So, do they use the name "ROE" for every privacy case or just abortion privacy cases?
Like when someone is killed, they use Jane Doe, if no name yet?
So are there a lot of Roe's or is this just the second one ever?

What do I think of the court case?
I think it is typical that we are not obeying a states decision and going back to the supremes, when we don't like decisions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
as long as women have a constitutional (fed) right to abortion on demand, then they can get them in any state......
however, I don't think that taxpayers should have to pay for them UNLESS they are really medically justifiable.
If the lady in question wants one, she should have to pay the whole cost of it, including transportation to and from the prison.
The prison, of course, must allow her to travel to and from the clinic. If they want her escorted by guards, the prison must pay for that part of it.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
As a taxpayer I would MUCH rather pay for an inmates abortion then what it will cost to raise her kid. The last I checked it costs about $35,000 a year to house an inmate and the cells cost $60,000 EACH to build. The sad truth is that kids with crooks for parents ususally end up following in their footsteps.

Ken
Sequim
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly "I think it is typical that we are not obeying a states decision and going back to the supremes, when we don't like decisions."

Would you say so had they found differently?


Jane "as long as women have a constitutional (fed) right to abortion on demand"

What country is this? Not the US.

Dysphemism is great for reframing but in this case we have medical necessity, be it life or health, as determined by a physician, in the first trimester. That's fairly restricted, and not abortion on demand.

I do agree on the cost, she not Missourians should pay for it.


Though Ken raises an interesting argument against the cost of what could be seen as obstinance.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
cmoehle
Oct 18 2005, 10:53 AM
Jelly "I think it is typical that we are not obeying a states decision and going back to the supremes, when we don't like decisions."

Would you say so had they found differently?



yes...and I have!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Factual correction: Earlier said "be it life or health". Wrong. Missouri law would pay for it if it involved the woman's life, just not for reasons of health.

Once again the issue is health, the state's refusal to recognize any health exception.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
I wonder which health exceptions would be acceptable?
What would you find acceptable chris? Health-wise?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
roscoe
Member
Maybe Sheriff joe would rather build a nursery. I'm sure the ACLU will help him design it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Bone Malignancies, Brain Tumor, Breast Cancer , Cervical Cancer, Hepatocellular Carcinoma, Hodgkin's Disease, Leukemia, Lung Cancer, Malignant Melanoma, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Ovarian Tumors, Thyroid Cancer are Specific cancers in pregnancy that should be considered.


Preeclampsia.


Gestational diabetes?


I can' really say as I am not a physician.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply