State-funded abortions

[Emsworth]

CNN: "Supreme Court blocks inmate's abortion"

"The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a federal judge's ruling that ordered Missouri prison officials to drive the woman 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."

I find it astounding that the Supreme Court has decided that there is a right to an abortion, but even more astounding that a judge has decided that states should be required to fund abortions.

[Jake]

Stick an inmate in the car and have him drive over the side of a bridge.

[phk]

She can force a miscarriage.

[opebo]

I find it astounding that the Supreme Court has decided that there is a right to an abortion, but even more astounding that a judge has decided that states should be required to fund abortions.

This is completely analagous to requiring the State to provide medical care for prisoners under its care.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

This is completely analagous to requiring the State to provide medical care for prisoners under its care.

Ya, that pregnancy disease will get ya everytime.

[MODU]

If the inmate was going to pay for the abortion and reimburse the state for the transportation cost, then I don't see a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if the state was going to be forced to pick up the bill, then the Thomas did the right thing.

[opebo]

This is completely analagous to requiring the State to provide medical care for prisoners under its care.

Ya, that pregnancy disease will get ya everytime.

Correct.  It is a hazardous and - at least in this person's case - undesirable condition.

If the inmate was going to pay for the abortion and reimburse the state for the transportation cost, then I don't see a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if the state was going to be forced to pick up the bill, then the Thomas did the right thing.

No, Thomas is a theocrat, and the ban on state funding of abortion is, in this case, unconstitutional because it leads to cruel and unusual punishment - deprivation of medical care while incarcerated.

[Blue Rectangle]

If the inmate was going to pay for the abortion and reimburse the state for the transportation cost, then I don't see a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if the state was going to be forced to pick up the bill, then the Thomas did the right thing.

No, Thomas is a theocrat, and the ban on state funding of abortion is, in this case, unconstitutional because it leads to cruel and unusual punishment - deprivation of medical care while incarcerated.

There is no right to unnecessary medical procedures while incarcerated.  This was an elective surgery.  The state has no requirement to provide access to elective abortion any more than inmates have a right to access liposuction or tubal ligation.

Also, your charge that Thomas is a "theocrat" is unfounded.  Can you provide evidence?  A theocrat is one who rules by religion.  Thomas is almost always on the side of reduced power by the judiciary--meaning that he does not seek to "rule" at all.  Therefore, he cannot be a theocrat.

[opebo]

If the inmate was going to pay for the abortion and reimburse the state for the transportation cost, then I don't see a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if the state was going to be forced to pick up the bill, then the Thomas did the right thing.

No, Thomas is a theocrat, and the ban on state funding of abortion is, in this case, unconstitutional because it leads to cruel and unusual punishment - deprivation of medical care while incarcerated.

There is no right to unnecessary medical procedures while incarcerated.  This was an elective surgery.  The state has no requirement to provide access to elective abortion any more than inmates have a right to access liposuction or tubal ligation.

Not so.  The pregnancy will result in great medical risks, as well as, at best, the horrible burden of parenthood. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he wants to reduce judicial power to a level far below what would provide an effective 'balance', and allow thereby enormous powers to the legislature, and executive, which are dominated by theocrats.  Hence, he is in effect a theocrat.

[Blue Rectangle]

If the inmate was going to pay for the abortion and reimburse the state for the transportation cost, then I don't see a problem with it.  HOWEVER, if the state was going to be forced to pick up the bill, then the Thomas did the right thing.

No, Thomas is a theocrat, and the ban on state funding of abortion is, in this case, unconstitutional because it leads to cruel and unusual punishment - deprivation of medical care while incarcerated.

There is no right to unnecessary medical procedures while incarcerated.  This was an elective surgery.  The state has no requirement to provide access to elective abortion any more than inmates have a right to access liposuction or tubal ligation.

Not so.  The pregnancy will result in great medical risks, as well as, at best, the horrible burden of parenthood.

Obesity results in great medical risks; should inmates have access to liposuction?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, he wants to reduce judicial power to a level far below what would provide an effective 'balance', and allow thereby enormous powers to the legislature, and executive, which are dominated by theocrats.  Hence, he is in effect a theocrat.

So Thomas thinks that the people and their elected representatives should have control over political decisions.  This is the opposite of a theocracy, in which the power resides in the hands of unelected judges, priests and/or monarchs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

My opinion of Thomas has just gone up

[Democratic Hawk]

My opinion of Thomas has just gone up

Albeit slightly in my case

Dave

[Emsworth]

Update: Court clears abortion trip for inmate

"The Supreme Court, in an abortion case of relatively narrow scope, cleared the way Monday for a Missouri prison inmate to terminate her pregnancy.

The high court made no sweeping rendering on the constitutionality of the Roe v. Wade ruling ensuring a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Rather, it let stand a lower court ruling that Missouri Department of Corrections must provide transportation for the woman to have the procedure done. It was unclear how soon that would happen.

Late Friday, Justice Clarence Thomas had granted a temporary stay to the state, which prevented the woman from having an abortion on Saturday. But Monday's high court action was unanimous."

[MODU]

As long as the cost of the procedure is coming out of the inmates pocket . . . . . . . .

[Emsworth]

As long as the cost of the procedure is coming out of the inmates pocket . . . . . . . .

The inmate should be required to pay for the transportation as well.

[The Dowager Mod]

I'm surprised Thomas made a decision all by himself.<---- Sarcasm

[Emsworth]

I'm surprised Thomas made a decision all by himself.

Individual justices are allowed to grant temporary injunctions in emergency cases. I believe that each Justice is assigned to one or more of the various federal circuits.

[Blue Rectangle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the details of this decision won't be made public, right?  For example, there will be no indication of what Roberts said or did.

[Hitchabrut]

Stupidity.

[PBrunsel]

Once Phillip said that a post I made that read "I thought in America the majority ruled" was the stupidest post ever made. After reading this I now know he was right.

[MODU]

As long as the cost of the procedure is coming out of the inmates pocket . . . . . . . .

The inmate should be required to pay for the transportation as well.

Yeah, I said that earlier too. 

[Cashcow]

Once Phillip said that a post I made that read "I tought in America the majority ruled" was the stupidest post ever made. After reading this I now know he was right.

Philip correctly realizes that majority rule is definitely not always a good thing, nor is democracy.

[A18]

Once Phillip said that a post I made that read "I tought in America the majority ruled" was the stupidest post ever made. After reading this I now know he was right.

Philip correctly realizes that majority rule is definitely not always a good thing, nor is democracy.

Actually, it had nothing to do with government. We were arguing about whether or not NixonNow should stay banned on this privately owned forum, and PBrunsel said he should because:

I thought in A,merica the majority rules.

Congratulations on the dumbest thing ever posted.

[Cashcow]

Once Phillip said that a post I made that read "I tought in America the majority ruled" was the stupidest post ever made. After reading this I now know he was right.

Philip correctly realizes that majority rule is definitely not always a good thing, nor is democracy.

Actually, it had nothing to do with government. We were arguing about whether or not NixonNow should stay banned on this privately owned forum, and PBrunsel said he should because:

I thought in A,merica the majority rules.

Congratulations on the dumbest thing ever posted.

Yes, but he is wrong in both cases, so it can really apply to anything.