Posted on 10/14/2005 10:12:46 PM PDT by SmithL
Kansas City, Mo. (AP) --
The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a federal judge's order that Missouri prison officials drive a pregnant inmate to a clinic on Saturday for an abortion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, acting alone, granted the temporary stay pending a further decision by himself or the full court.
Missouri state law forbids spending tax dollars to facilitate an abortion. However, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled Thursday that the prison system was blocking the woman from exercising her right to an abortion and ordered that the woman be taken to the clinic Saturday.
An appeals court on Friday refused to stay the ruling.
The woman, whose name was not disclosed in court papers, has said she will borrow money for the abortion from friends and family but cannot afford to pay for transportation.
Under a policy adopted in July, Missouri's prison system does not provide transportation or security for inmates seeking abortions. The policy is based on a state law that prohibits the spending of public funds "for the purpose of performing or assisting an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Kind of goes to show why some of us would like a bit more assurance in regards to Ms. Miers. I mean if the Gipper could have one come out this badly . . .
I believe your interpretation is correct as with Ex 21:12. "Kill" in the first instance of Ex 20:13 meaning an action, rather than as a punishment for the act itself, i. e., "put to death." Does that make sense to you.
The key point is that execution is ONLY allowed for those who are guilty. The bible condemns strongly the shedding of innocent blood Which makes abortion even more of an abomination as it sheds much innocent blood.
Because judges have gutted the husband's rights out of the marriage contract by elevating a personal right of privacy over the rights and duties of a freely entered into contract.
The laws are now a bizarre patchwork. An unmarried woman cannot put a baby up for adoption without the biological father's consent, yet a married woman can abort her husband's child without his consent.
Basically enforcing an non-existant contract in the first instance and voiding a signed one in the second.
Yeah, this is a typical abortion scenario.
Seven to four has a nice ring to it.
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.