Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mo. Prison Overruled on Inmate Abortion (Clarence Thomas grants stay on earlier ruling)
AP ^ | 10/14/5 | DAVID TWIDDY

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Missouri
KEYWORDS: abortion; clarencethomas; inmateabortion; inmates; justicethomas; prolife; ruling; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last
To: rovenstinez

Well as long as the official (SCOTUS) view of the unborn child is "tissue" then it makes for an inexorable logic that this is a valid health care issue for the mother.


41 posted on 10/15/2005 5:51:59 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: gpapa

"Thou shalt not kill"

A better translation of the original Hebrew is "You will not murder." The word for "kill" is different. I believe the mistranslation goes back to KJV. The Torah ("Old Testament" to Christians) specifies a number of reasons where killing is allowed, including the death penalty for certain crimes. That said, it in no way endorses abortion or infanticide.


42 posted on 10/15/2005 7:22:26 AM PDT by adam_az (It's the border, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

Thomas's resume, when he was elevated to the Court, was not the best. But his writing is TOPS. He is one class act. You get the impression Roberts can handle himself in the league with Scalia and Thomas. I dunno about Bush's latest nominee, to say the least! Well, at least we can say that Roberts and Thomas are the two youngest on the Court. Even if we don't win everything, there are bound to be some great dissents--and dissents often later become the law or public policy...


43 posted on 10/15/2005 7:58:16 AM PDT by guitarist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

Eggsacktley ... dehumanize a class of living humans and you can get legal protection to do with them as you please. Twentieth century Germans and Japanese proved that, and now our American liberal democrats have affirmed it 'inexorably', don'tchaknow, murdering annually more than a million dehumanized alive human beings with lieberal court blessing.


44 posted on 10/15/2005 8:10:51 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: adam_az
Thou shalt not kill [Ex 20:13]

You have heard that it was said to the men of old, "You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment." But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment. [Mt 5:21-22]
45 posted on 10/15/2005 8:10:51 AM PDT by gpapa (Boost FR Traffic! Make FR your home page!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Thanks for the ping!


46 posted on 10/15/2005 8:19:28 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
I hear ya. I could never be a Judge much less a Supreme Court Justice. I have the patience of a kid in a candy store.

Then you would make a typical judge.

47 posted on 10/15/2005 8:20:34 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
However, U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled Thursday that the prison system was blocking the woman from exercising her right to an abortion...

Since when has the Supreme Court ever given a woman a "right to an abortion"? I though Roe v. Wade gave her a "right to privacy" which prevented the state from banning abortion, but how does this force them to facilitate the process?

48 posted on 10/15/2005 8:33:16 AM PDT by Young Scholar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Notice how ominous they try to make this sound: "Justice Clarence Thomas, acting alone" as if he's a "lone gunman" holding a woman hostage.

Give 'm hell, Mr. Justice!

49 posted on 10/15/2005 8:46:47 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

What would "pioneer" Miers do?


50 posted on 10/15/2005 8:49:35 AM PDT by newzjunkey (CA: Stop union theft for political agendas with YES on Prop 75! Prolife? YES on Prop 73!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Each Supreme Court member has certain specific states assigned to them (I guess with aggregate population about 30,000,000) precisely to handle initial Supreme Court stays and review while the full COurt decides whether to do anything about the issue.

I believe that is Justice Thomas had had Florida as part of his assigned states rather then evidently part of the Midwest, Terri Schiavo might still be alive, because the wrong guy had the state and was disinclined to do anything to help.

51 posted on 10/15/2005 9:00:42 AM PDT by wildandcrazyrussian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I did not see the earlier posting but had to click through to check the headline. Can the MSM not even get the simplest basic fact like it was the judge not the prison that was over ruled, really given a stay, in this case?


52 posted on 10/15/2005 9:01:55 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

What are the circumstances of her getting pregnant? Did it happen after her incarceration? Conjugal visit? Who is the father? Boyfriend, guard?


53 posted on 10/15/2005 9:02:20 AM PDT by rfreedom4u (Native Texan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

Why does that matter?


54 posted on 10/15/2005 9:26:54 AM PDT by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

She would have to pay for the guards accompanying her and the transportation. It's not as simple as cab fare.


55 posted on 10/15/2005 9:48:03 AM PDT by jerri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

I agree. If this unknown woman can "borrow" enough money from friends to have the abortion then she cannot expect taxpayers to pay her way to get the abortion. I live in Missouri and I don't want my taxes going to help her murder her unborn baby. God bless Clarence Thomas.


56 posted on 10/15/2005 9:54:14 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: rfreedom4u

Although it doesn't matter, she is 16 - 17 weeks pregnant and she was pregnant before she was jailed.


57 posted on 10/15/2005 9:55:57 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Young Scholar

For a "Young Scholar", you are very bright.


58 posted on 10/15/2005 9:58:37 AM PDT by conservative blonde (Conservative Blonde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge
Whipple (really dense guy) also threw out the conviction of internet sexual predator who thought he was arranging a meeting for sex with a child.

Gotta love this guy - no matter what the voters, who elect representatives, want, no matter what the elected representatives vote on and is signed into law by the elected representative of the entire state want (Governor), he, just a guy in a black robe, knows best.

59 posted on 10/15/2005 10:16:53 AM PDT by zerosix (Native Sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Grn_Lantern

You make a good point. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how the opinion in the ruling was written. It is entirely possible for a lower court judge to say in so many words that his hands are tied, and invoke a reluctance and cite ambiguities in prior precedents that essentially forces the case to a SCOTUS appeal. It could be that this judge did this, and that we just don't know about it.

The other thing that needs to be remembered about Reagan appointees is that he didn't have much of a pool to choose from (same is true of many of his administration appointments.)

On the other hand, W has a relative wealth of talent to choose from that cut its teeth on the battles of the Reagan years and the conservative revival. Much of the unhappiness with W's choice of Miers (and even some of the uneasiness about Roberts that many have) is built around the fact that it is now or never with regard to taking head-on the fact that Dems always get a liberal justice, whereas the GOP has to fight tooth and nail to get someone who has a 50% chance at best of staying as conservative as they were when they were appointed.

It is inherently wrong, and it should be dealt with clearly, even if it means a fight.


60 posted on 10/15/2005 10:27:21 AM PDT by Agrarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-107 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson