Missouri Prison Abortion Issue

Two years in prison and a trip for an abortion on the public dime.

Without comment, the high court lifted a temporary stay blocking a federal judge's ruling that Missouri officials had to drive the woman to a clinic to have the procedure over the weekend.

Missouri's law forbids spending tax dollars to facilitate an abortion, but the federal judge took the position that the prison system in Missouri was blocking her from exercising that right.

Forget for a moment that no where in the Constitution does it define abortion as a right, this is one more case of Federal government trumping state law. Now government can take your house to improve the tax base through eminent domain and take your money to pay for a procedure you personally may find immoral. And so it goes.

For the record, my position on abortion is not morals-based, it's legal-based. Abortion is not addressed within the Constitution, no way, no how. It's an issue which should be settled through a democratic process.

And given that I at least agree that the position of many against abortion is a deeply held moral conviction, I find it inappropriate that the government should have the right to levy taxes on the people to pay for it in any way.

And if you want to come back and say, yeah, well, some think war is immoral, I'd agree. However, it is accounted for in the Constitution and an unfortunate necessity that a nation be able to man, equip and field an army.

Comments

[goodgirl.]

i agree that tax dollars shouldnt be spent, nor time. what if the officers in that prison feel that abortion is wrong? why should they be the ones to drive that woman there to help? i think its the womans freedom to do as she pleases but at this point in time she belongs to the goverment for the crimes she commited. if they dont allow her to go thats there call, but this case regardless will make a huge stink in all directions. it will match up to the case where the woman wanted to terminate and the to be father did not, and things got really crazy.
i think the woman lost all her rights when she was arrested. dont they loose there choice to vote as well?

[Aunt Em]

Dan, while I dont agree with abortion for my own issues, I would like to know how she got pregnant in the first place while in prison.

[Cindi in PA]

i think the woman lost all her rights when she was arrested. dont they loose there choice to vote as well?

Posted by: goodgirl. | Oct 17, 2005 11:29:05 AM

Only if the crime was a felony

[Cindi in PA]

Aunt, the story I read said she was arrested in Calif. for a crime in another state. She had planned an abortion before she was arrested, but didn't have time before she was picked up and extradited to the state where the warrant originated. BUT, who the hell knows, that was yesterdays news.

[Nexis]

The government can take just about anything they want from you, but, thank god they can't force you to have a child.

If this woman needed an operation, no one would be screaming about how much it cost to drive her to the hospital.

Nextis

[jp6248]

Can't force you to have a child?
Did anybody force her to get pregnant?
If you can't deal with the consequences of your actions you shouldn't get a choice.

[Nexis]

Hello Mrs. Quayle.

Nexis

[tonychilling]

1)If men had to give birth, abortion would be a Sacrament.

2) Bible says that men should not spill their "seed" on the ground.
Hey! all you "men" out there: Isn't it a good thing that the law does not force you to wear "seed sacks" to make sure no seed is spilled?

[jp6248]

i'd rather light my hair on fire and put it out with a hammer than get into a debate on this topic. Next!!

[jp6248]

Nexis---
I'm sorry but that doesn't insult me.

JP

[===============]

RE: "Abortion is not addressed within the Constitution."

I'm not going to put forth a pro or anti-abortion argument, but rather instruct you to actually read the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade [obviously you have not].

----------------
EXCERPT FROM STEWART CONCURING

"In a Constitution for a free people, there can be no doubt that the meaning of 'liberty' must be broad indeed."

The Constitution nowhere mentions a specific right of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life, but the "liberty" protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment covers more than those freedoms explicitly named in the Bill of Rights.

As Mr. Justice Harlan once wrote: "The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of isolated points... the freedom of speech, press, and religion...and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints...and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment."

Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As recently as last Term... we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. "Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the interests that will be affected throughout her life by the birth and raising of a child are of a far greater degree of significance and personal intimacy than the right to send a child to private school protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters.

Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is evident that the Texas abortion statute infringes that right directly. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more complete abridgment of a constitutional freedom than that worked by the inflexible criminal statute now in force in Texas. The question then becomes whether the state interests advanced to justify this abridgment can survive the "particularly careful scrutiny" that the Fourteenth Amendment here requires.

READ MORE
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/Stewart.asp
-------------------

[tony chilling]

Thank you ======, for the post, the Court provides a summary at the end, which is short and easily understood:
---------
1) For the first three months, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.
2) After 3months but before viability, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.
3) For the stage after viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.
------------
The decision of the Court holds the life and health of the mother most important.

It is a decision I can totally support.
This insures women do not become "cattle" of the State, but are treated as human beings.

[Eric]

I think we should ask Bill Bennett about his one.....Of course his comments (taken totally out of context) were abortion to lower crime rates. Not sure those extend to criminals having babies, but I'm sure the ACLU would NOT let the facts stand in the way of their case

:)

PS This case is legally based on the cost (who's nickel), can't the ACLU spring for the cost of transportation?? Seems cheaper that legal cost...

[Steve W]

The Consitution doesn't say Govt has the right to force a woman through childbirth, and the potential health and emotional/psychological risks associated - particularly while being incarcerated. The Constitution doesn't give the Govt the right to hold someone whilest watching them become hormone sick in prison - childbirth is no treat for some women (think Hyperemesis Gravidarum). The Consitution doesn't give the Govt the right to force someone into parenthood - into the legal and financial position that comes with being a parent.

The Constitution does grant us the right to privacy - the right to do to and with our body what we please.

So I have to disagree with Dan.

And as for the argument that taxpayers are footing this - that is a lame a$$ excuse if money is your only concern and not a disguise for imposing your views on someone else. Anyone who thinks the taxpayers wouldn't foot the bill for the birth, complications if any, and 18-65++ years of social security to the child - is an idiot - absolute.

If the Govt is going to put pregant womnen in prison - then the Govt *IS* going to take care of them such that their CHOICE to be a parent and go through childbirth - or in this case not - is respected. The Supreme Court just clued us into that fact.