Skip Nav
Nostalgia
Oops, We Did It Again . . . 31 Millennial Costumes That Are So Fetch
Women
17 Typewriter-Font Tattoos For the Girl Who Has a Way With Words
Summer
The 31 Books You MUST Put in Your Beach Bag This Summer!

Supreme Court Says Abortions in Jail, A-OK!

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court chose to allow prisoners to receive abortions. By rejecting an appeal, the Supreme Court let stand the Arizona court ruling that pregnant inmates have a constitutional right to be transported to abortion sites.


The ACLU sued an Arizona county sheriff for refusing to drive pregnant inmates to get abortions, unless the inmates obtained a court order. The ACLU argued that a woman in prison does not lose her right to an abortion any more than she gives up her right to have a child.

Behind the sheriff's policy was an Arizona law that prohibits spending public funds on non-life saving abortions. The Arizona court said that because zero tax money was spent on the actual abortion procedure, the transport did not violate the law.

Do you think the Supreme Court is leaning pro-choice, or is the Court just waiting to overturn Roe v. Wade with a broader case?

Source

Around The Web
Join The Conversation
Tinseltoe Tinseltoe 8 years
I don't care what anyone says, abortion is the most disgusting legal practice there is and I am against it full heartedly.
Jessie-M Jessie-M 8 years
Oops-reading through my comments, it looks like I mistyped and didnt put in 'transportation to'. I didnt mean to make it sound like I was arguing for the government paying FOR the procedures, I mean just the transportation to the procedures. Now, in terms of what should be paid for and what shouldnt..the only thing I am really strongly against is paying for transportation to *purely cosmetic* procedures.
Jessie-M Jessie-M 8 years
Also, it is a doctor's right to refuse a woman breast implants at his discretion, whenever he/she wants. Abortion, assuming a woman is within time constraints for terminating the pregnancy and the procedure will not risk her life, is a procedure that is guaranteed as a right under the law. So although my wording in my comment may have been 'asking' for that comparison, I really do not think it is fair to compare abortion (a woman's right) to cosmetic breast augmentation in that way.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
I do not think the government should decide whether a person has a medical procedure, elective or not. If it is elective, and the person can't pay for it, of course I don't think the government should pay for it, but I don't think the government has a right to actively prevent a person from getting a legal procedure. I do not think that it is the role of the government to say who can get what procedure done, elective or not. Just because you are a citizen and have a right to vote in your state, that doesn't mean that your judgement should dictate what happens to someone elses body. The medical field is complex, and just as some people couldn't understand how reconstructive surgery after a mastectomy could possibly be considered non-elective, they shouldn't hold the responsibility of determining what other procedures should be considered non-elective. That is for a DOCTOR to determine based on a SPECIFIC individuals needs. Irregularities happen in the medicine all the time. If the government prevents a person from having a LEGAL procedure, that is completely illegal and not based in law.
Jessie-M Jessie-M 8 years
As I said earlier, I am not in support of taxpayer money going towards purely cosmetic procedures, such as breast implants or botox. (Reconstructive surgery is ok with me, as it is for an entirely different purpose). So, unfortunately, inmates shouldn't be denied transportation to procedures like breast implants or botox either, even though I disagree with that, since nobody should be denied transportation to medical procedures.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
A woman has the right to decide to get Breast Implants if she wants. So then if she decides she wants them, then is blocking her from getting a breast implant by denying her transportation violating that right, making the procedure 'necessary' if the woman requests it?
Jessie-M Jessie-M 8 years
It has been well established in law that it is a woman's right to choose if she wants to carry a pregnancy to term. So if she decides she does not want to carry the pregnancy to term, blocking her from getting an abortion by denying her transportation is violating that right, making the procedure 'necessary' if the woman requests it.
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
How can abortion be considered "medically necessary" unless it is a life-threatening situation (which then changes it from being elective to medically necessary)?
mymellowman mymellowman 8 years
I wonder if Cine thinks tax payers should cover the costs for inmates to get elective surgery or if tax payers should cover the transportation costs for elective surgeries not provided in the prison? Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Jessie-M Jessie-M 8 years
I think the difficulty here lies within each person's judgement on what is elective vs what is necessary. If someone is against abortion completely, then they may see the procedure as an elective (and wrong) option, while someone who is pro-choice may see it as a necessary procedure if a woman deems it so. So yes, I agree with you cine that taxpayers should not be paying for transportation to elective procedures, or paying for the procedures themselves. Unfortunately for those who deem abortion as not medically necessary, and don't beleive prisoners should be granted transportation funds from the public's tax dollars, as of now the law protects a woman's right to this procedure and her right to transport if she is incarcerated when the procedure is needed. I feel that denying a woman transport when she wants the procedure, especially if she cannot afford the transport out of her own pocket, is cruel and unusual punishment. I don't think it is right to force a woman through an unwanted pregnancy.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
If the treatment is necessary and not elective then yes, although as with most everything I would prefer private sector.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
If the taxpayers paid for transportation, would you be ok with prisoners getting legal medical treatment?
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
And as I have stated before Jill, I do not think the tax payers should pay for the transportation. I think I have stated it numerous times, in those EXACT words. You can keep repeating yourself, as I can do the same. It will not change the fact that we do not agree on this topic. As for recontructive surgery, I can't state fact, something I would have to research further.
Jillness Jillness 8 years
"And I do not believe in paying for reconstructive surgery either." No one is asking for people to pay for medical procedures. They simply want the right to go to a facility to get the procedure done. Keeping prisoners from having medical treatment is to treat them as less than human. Our laws and Constitution do not support this. I understand if you would want to charge the prisoner the cost of transportation to the medical facility, but your statements keep suggesting that you are arguing against tax payers paying for the procedure itself, and that is not what this is about. No one is expecting that. And in the eyes of insurance, reconstruction is NOT elective.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
"The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction." Should read the war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under state jurisdiction.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
"The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction." Should read the war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under state jurisdiction.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
Mat, I really do not know how much more specific I can be with what I said. "cine_lover - From what I'm hearing you say, you don't think that you should be forced to pay for a procedure that you disagree with. However, the state is not paying for the abortion, thus, it is not you funding the procedure. However, tax payer money is going to transportation, so I suppose they could argue on that point." -NYF -I can honestly say, I would not be for ANY elective procedure. Not that I would not give money to a private charity that would provide services, but I do not believe in tax payer money funding such things. "However, under that premise, that you should not be forced to pay for something you disagree with... Then the millions of tax payers who disagree with the war in Iraq should not have to fund a war they oppose. I disagree with marijuana related crimes being a jailable offense. I should not have to pay for thousands of people being behind bars for such an offense. I disagree with the death penalty, and therefore should not have to pay for an inmate to be given lethal injection." -If Abortion was brought back to State level, then the tax payers could choose. Who is to say what is appropriate? If it is an optional, non-medically necessary "treatment" then tax payers should not be forced to pay. I should say forced to pay, unless the majority in the State, vote for it to be an option in prison. "And again, you notice, tax payer dollars are not paying for the abortion. They're paying for transportation to the clinic." -Jessie, I understand what the article is about, and have stated before, I don't agree with the paying for the transportation. So we are sort of at a stalemate at this point. "Nobody in this country is going to agree with every legal policy out there, and arguing that your tax dollars should not be used for something you disagree with is absurd because no matter what you do, you're never going to be able to control that factor, even if the states were in control of laws within their boarders, because people with different opinions live all over the place. They're not necessarily segregated by state." Of course you cannot please everyone. But you will be able to please more people by keeping the states in control. The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction. I copied and posted all my answers but the last, because I have already addressed all your comments and felt it was unnecessary to retype everything I have already written.
Matdredalia Matdredalia 8 years
cine_lover - From what I'm hearing you say, you don't think that you should be forced to pay for a procedure that you disagree with. However, the state is not paying for the abortion, thus, it is not you funding the procedure. However, tax payer money is going to transportation, so I suppose they could argue on that point. However, under that premise, that you should not be forced to pay for something you disagree with... Then the millions of tax payers who disagree with the war in Iraq should not have to fund a war they oppose. I disagree with marijuana related crimes being a jailable offense. I should not have to pay for thousands of people being behind bars for such an offense. I disagree with the death penalty, and therefore should not have to pay for an inmate to be given lethal injection. Nobody in this country is going to agree with every legal policy out there, and arguing that your tax dollars should not be used for something you disagree with is absurd because no matter what you do, you're never going to be able to control that factor, even if the states were in control of laws within their boarders, because people with different opinions live all over the place. They're not necessarily segregated by state. And again, you notice, tax payer dollars are not paying for the abortion. They're paying for transportation to the clinic.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
Cabaker, you are my exception to the rule ;)
hausfrau hausfrau 8 years
hope thats ok :)
hausfrau hausfrau 8 years
your tax money just paid for that comment
hausfrau hausfrau 8 years
Cine I agree with you 100%!
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
NYF, I can honestly say, I would not be for ANY elective procedure. Not that I would not give money to a private charity that would provide services, but I do not believe in tax payer money funding such things.
cine_lover cine_lover 8 years
Jillness the breast implant comment was in reference to the above statement. And I do not believe in paying for reconstructive surgery either. Elective is elective. Now if a private company, charity, wants to pay for the procedure then it is completely different. Also, no matter if you want to call it elective or not, that is exactly what it is. Jessie, I understand what the article is about, and have stated before, I don't agree with the paying for the transportation. So we are sort of at a stalemate at this point. NYF, she has some horror stories! She was badly beaten by some inmates a few years back. She is one tough lady that is for sure.
NYFashionista NYFashionista 8 years
AHH! not your but you're...geeze I can't believe I made that mistake, sorry.
Arizona Bans Race and Sex-Selective Abortion
Mesa, AZ, Restaurant Il Vinaio Serves Controversial Lion Meat Hamburger For World Cup
Bad Times Keep Us Put: Migration to South and West Slows
Gay Marriage Goes Down, But Not Without a Fight
Election Parties: Chicago Obamafest, McCain on Hotel Lawn?
States, Provinces to Cap and Trade Sans Federal Governments
Three States Consider Banning Affirmative Action

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Love
X