Posted on 10/24/2005 10:19:48 PM PDT by Coleus
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.
In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.
How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases.
Officials said Missouri has a prison policy that female prisoners will be sent out of their institutions for abortions only if the procedure is medically necessary.
They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.
Even if there is some infringement of the prisoner's constitutional rights to choose an abortion, "a prison regulation may validly impinge on such rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," state officials argued.
According to the court record in the case, the woman, identified only by the pseudonym "Jane Roe," is approximately 16 or 17 weeks pregnant. Her attorneys said that for seven weeks prison officials have prohibited her from obtaining an abortion.
Talcott Camp, an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the inmate, said in a statement that women do not give up the right to terminate a pregnancy when they enter prison.
"The state's actions in this case were contrary to Missouri's own long-standing policy when it comes to inmates' access to reproductive healthcare, in addition to policies in the federal prison system and all the state prison systems we know of," Camp said.
Gov. Matt Blunt expressed disappointment and said the high court's order "is highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."
or maybe it's poor leadership skills.
The best interpretation for the anti-abortion crusaders (personally, I'm best described as neutral--shocking, I know) is that Roberts (and perhaps others who would like to overturn Roe v. Wade) have wisely decided not to raise the fear level of the pro-abortionists while a Supreme Court nomination yet hangs in the balance.
All the court did is essentially let the lower court ruling stand. Even if the case was taken up, it would have resulted in the same outcome 5-4 (assuming Roberts would side with the state position).
you may have a good point.
The chief justice isn't God. He can only do so much.
Uh Oh. Dont say that on here.
seems the ACLU argued on the right to choose and not based on Missouri law limiting abortions to only those women who were ill.
States rights trumped again.
They argued a possible security and transportation issues for their reason ???
It's a state's right's issue. Roberts voted correctly.
This case was about taxpayer money being used to pay the transportation/security cost to take this inmate to a clinic to get an abortion.
Missouri law states no taxpayer money can be used for someone to get an abortion ( this includes transportation and security costs ).
The "procedure" ( killing of the baby ) will be paid for by this inmate ( with a loan from friends and relatives ) but she said she couldn`t pay the transportaion cost. So this lawasuit was filed thanks to the ACLU.
If the courts are going to force the state to give her a ride and security, I say bill her and let her work the transportation cost off in prison.
I'm not in the least surprised. When asked by the liberal Senators if his religion, (Catholic Christian) would interfere with his judicial decisions, Roberts soothed their souls when he responded that he wouldn't be taking his faith to work with him.
Unfortuantely, we're all being 'billed' for abortion, and the price is getting higher every day.
Since there was no opinion, we don't know anything at all. Other than the high court did not find a worthwhile constitutional issue with the prior decision. I don't know the specifics of the case, but I don't see that this case shows much of anything at all.
See... there's the problem... Supreme Court cases are about the Constitution, and darn little else.
Exactly. Especially to say that this is Roberts' first baby kill is simply wrong.
No reason to believe that the lower court ruling would have been overturned at least 5-4 even if the case were heard by the SCOTUS.
The state of Missouri did prevent this inmate for having an abortion. It's was a Federal judge that overturned the state's decision.
While the Miers mess plays out, it's important for us to remember we don't really know how even Roberts is going to turn out on the court. The Bushbots are out in force patting their God on the back for the Roberts nomination, but I still remember that C-SPAN moment in the confirmation hearing when Roberts distanced himself from the "originalist" label often used to describe Scalia and Thomas.
Thanks to Bush's stealth picks, we have simultaneous guessing/waiting games going on right now - one with Miers and one with Roberts.
It's sad to think a Surpreme Court chief justice would play politics like that. You'd hope the awe of the office would last at least one month, before complete cynicism set in.
Have you considered that Roberts might be pro-Roe? That would consistent with the general pattern of Republican stealth nominees.
You seem to be suggesting that one of the pro-abortion justices would have decided that "the right to an abortion" contains an exception having to do with the health of an imprisoned mother. Why do you think that they would do that?
I can easily believe that a justice who supports abortion would find that forcing an imprisoned mother to give birth would constitute "cruel and unusual punishment".
There is no way that Roberts will play a role in reversing Roe v. Wade until the pro-life justices outnumber the pro-death justices.
Guys, we have absolutely now idea what Roberts did on this issue. It would be ridiculous to guess. When parental notification and partial birth abortion come before the court, then we will know something. Until then, lets take a deep breath and work to get Miers withdrawn.
It is a states' rights issue. Missouri law prohibits using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. In this case the cost of transportation will be paid for with state funds.
A person in prison obviously doesn't have the same rights as a law-abiding citizen. The whole idea of locking them up is that society doesn't trust them to make decisions that will harm other people. Certainly, abortion is a harmful decision.
Allowing this woman to get an abortion because it's "her right" is inconsistent with the whole idea of imprisonment. And doesn't this open the door for all convicted felons to vote from behind bars? I mean it's their constitutional right, isn't it?
The issue in this case was not abortion.
You gotta be kidding me!!! That's your interpretation of this ruling? Roberts voted in favor of JUDICIAL ACTIVISM by upholding a lower federal courts ruling to overturn the state of Missouri's constitutional law regarding state funding for abortion. How in the heck is Roberts decision a ruling in favor of the state's rights?
You're right, it is a state's rights issue, and Roberts blew it in the first test of his constitutional adherence. The state of Missouri had passed a law which mandated that state funds were not to be used for purposes of committing abortions. Naturally the ACLU sued, the case went to a federal appellate judge (who refused to allow the case to be heard before the entire Appeals court) and declared that the state of Missouri was obligated to pay for the woman's abortion and commence with the abortion without delay. Judge Clarence Thomas allowed for a temporary stay of the order, but then lifted the temporary stay. The decision was appealed to the the Supreme Court, and in the first test of Roberts "constitutional restraint" and not legislating from the bench..... he legislated from the bench, instead of ruling that Missouri had the right to pass and enforce its own laws.
I have believed from day 1 that Roberts is a stealth candidate and will break left more often than not in the next 30-40 years. Roe vs Wade (along with ruling in favor of gay marriage) will flourish under John Robert's court.
You're right, we can't do anything about Roberts now. But we can do plenty about Miers.
At least with Roberts, strict constructionists can pin their hopes on his famous french fry case. With Miers, we don't even have a french fry to look to with optimism.
Bush is so afraid of a paper trail, it appears people like Judge Luttig, Ted Olson and Janice Rogers Brown are overqualified and too proud of their conservative beliefs for Bush to ever seriously consider them for the nation's highest court. So, instead, he nominated the Dallas chapter president of the G.W.B. fan club. She must be rejected. We must at least make Bush reconsider.
You got that right! We gotta fight Bush's decision to nominate and bring to the Supreme Court his stealth candidate #2.
and what happened to the right to life in the 5th and 14th amendments and equal protection under the law in the 14th amendment. Roberts is a big disappointment.
Did Supreme Court Justice, John Roberts, kill his first baby???
---
Sadly, I think so. Maybe he did not directly - but he allowed it to happen.
Beats me... but the fifth amendment also requires equal protection under the law. As long as the law in a state allows abortion, it must not deny that precedure to someone without due process.
States rights... right back atcha...
Look... I despise abortion as much as you or the next person here... but it's a pretty big stretch to think that this case defines Chief Justice Roberts on the whole of the issue of abortion. It just doesn't. The abortion issue is at best peripheral to the case. I'd advise waiting for a better and more clear case before you hyperventilate.
Guys, we have absolutely now idea what Roberts did on this issue. It would be ridiculous to guess. When parental notification and partial birth abortion come before the court, then we will know something. Until then, lets take a deep breath and work to get Miers withdrawn.
Partial birth abortion case is just after Thanksgiving. Getting Miers withdrawn means OConnor will be deciding vote. We know Miers is against abortion, we know OConner supports it. Gee thanks guys. Thanks for all your hard work.
This thread has me nervous.
But I would like to hear Chief Justice Roberts' side of it.
To all of the fear mongerers re: Roberts. Thomas had a stay. The Supremes did a head count (Roberts' responsibility as CJ). Since there wasn't at least 4 justices willing to hear the case, the stay was lifted and the Supremes decided not to hear the case. This does NOT mean that Roberts is pro-abort. It means that there wasn't 4 votes to hear it.
Getting Miers withdrawn and replaced by an originalist with a proven track record will give us at least three originalists on the court that can be counted on. Having Miers appointed leaves with only two we can be sure to depend on and along with a maybe.
It's thanks to people like you that Republicans can continue to get away with appoint stealth candidates that almost always end up being liberal. Grow a brain.
This red flag is even more of a reason that the that Miers nomination must be withdrawn and a nominee with a proven conservative record replace it.
If Miers ends up on the court, there is a real possibility that Supreme Court move to the left thanks to Bush.
They won't have a choice. There is a presidence now, that a conservative is not allowed on the court. Stealth nominee is all that republicans can get now.
Fine. Then if Roberts and others had voted to hear the case, I would expect a 5-4 decision ruling that states do not have the power to deny abortions to inmates.
This would make it mandatory for all federal judges to rule that way until such time as Roe v. Wade is overturned. Roberts may have saved lives by preventing a precedent that might bind lower courts nationwide such that they would be unable to support some other state's pro-life policies.
As it stands now, there are many jurisdictions where a law barring abortions for inmates might be upheld.
You may be on to something here.
The state of Missouri has passed a law which denies a recognized "right" to a prisoner by refusing to pay for its exercise.
It's been pointed out that prisoners cannot vote. That is because loss of the right to vote is spelled out in the criminal laws of the state as part of the punishment for a crime. It is not just a law which prohibits the spending of state funds to permit voting by inmates.
The legislators in Missouri just need to change their laws, making a denial of abortions part of the punishment, and it might survive a US Supreme Court test. Due to the prohibition against ex-post-facto laws, it would not apply to an inmate for convictions which preceded passage of the law, so this baby is still going to be a casualty of the abortion war.
We will never know. This baby could have changed the world for the better. Poor little kid. But we know where he/she is right now - a MUCH BETTER PLACE.
It's very disappointing, but we don't know where Roberts stood on it.
If he knew that the court would have voted 5-4 in favor of abortion, then he was right to refuse to intervene, because the baby would die in any case but this way there is no actual decision that will need to be reversed in the future, and no actual precedent if the same situation arises again.
You said: See... there's the problem... Supreme Court cases are about the Constitution, and darn little else.
***
Whoa!! The Supreme Court decides more than constitutional questions, including a number of questions of federal law and procedure, which have no necessary connection with the constitution. That is why someone with business experience, perhaps Miers, perhaps not, belongs on the Court.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.