Posted on 10/24/2005 10:19:48 PM PDT by Coleus
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court under new Chief Justice John Roberts cleared the way on Monday for a pregnant Missouri prisoner to obtain an abortion, despite objections from state officials.
In a brief order without comment or recorded dissent, the high court rejected Missouri's request to put on hold a federal judge's order requiring that prison authorities transport the inmate to a St. Louis clinic for an abortion.
How Roberts would rule on abortion was a major issue in his confirmation hearings in the Senate. This was the first abortion-related case the court has acted upon since he became chief justice, but since there was no written ruling it does not necessarily signify how he would vote on the issue in future cases.
Officials said Missouri has a prison policy that female prisoners will be sent out of their institutions for abortions only if the procedure is medically necessary.
They cited Missouri's laws that they said discourage abortions and encourage childbirth. They said any time an inmate is transported outside of a prison it raises possible security issues.
Even if there is some infringement of the prisoner's constitutional rights to choose an abortion, "a prison regulation may validly impinge on such rights if the regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests," state officials argued.
According to the court record in the case, the woman, identified only by the pseudonym "Jane Roe," is approximately 16 or 17 weeks pregnant. Her attorneys said that for seven weeks prison officials have prohibited her from obtaining an abortion.
Talcott Camp, an attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the inmate, said in a statement that women do not give up the right to terminate a pregnancy when they enter prison.
"The state's actions in this case were contrary to Missouri's own long-standing policy when it comes to inmates' access to reproductive healthcare, in addition to policies in the federal prison system and all the state prison systems we know of," Camp said.
Gov. Matt Blunt expressed disappointment and said the high court's order "is highly offensive to traditional Missouri values and is contrary to state law, which prohibits taxpayer dollars from being spent to facilitate abortions."
To all of the fear mongerers re: Roberts. Thomas had a stay. The Supremes did a head count (Roberts' responsibility as CJ). Since there wasn't at least 4 justices willing to hear the case, the stay was lifted and the Supremes decided not to hear the case. This does NOT mean that Roberts is pro-abort. It means that there wasn't 4 votes to hear it.
Getting Miers withdrawn and replaced by an originalist with a proven track record will give us at least three originalists on the court that can be counted on. Having Miers appointed leaves with only two we can be sure to depend on and along with a maybe.
It's thanks to people like you that Republicans can continue to get away with appoint stealth candidates that almost always end up being liberal. Grow a brain.
This red flag is even more of a reason that the that Miers nomination must be withdrawn and a nominee with a proven conservative record replace it.
If Miers ends up on the court, there is a real possibility that Supreme Court move to the left thanks to Bush.
They won't have a choice. There is a presidence now, that a conservative is not allowed on the court. Stealth nominee is all that republicans can get now.
Fine. Then if Roberts and others had voted to hear the case, I would expect a 5-4 decision ruling that states do not have the power to deny abortions to inmates.
This would make it mandatory for all federal judges to rule that way until such time as Roe v. Wade is overturned. Roberts may have saved lives by preventing a precedent that might bind lower courts nationwide such that they would be unable to support some other state's pro-life policies.
As it stands now, there are many jurisdictions where a law barring abortions for inmates might be upheld.
You may be on to something here.
The state of Missouri has passed a law which denies a recognized "right" to a prisoner by refusing to pay for its exercise.
It's been pointed out that prisoners cannot vote. That is because loss of the right to vote is spelled out in the criminal laws of the state as part of the punishment for a crime. It is not just a law which prohibits the spending of state funds to permit voting by inmates.
The legislators in Missouri just need to change their laws, making a denial of abortions part of the punishment, and it might survive a US Supreme Court test. Due to the prohibition against ex-post-facto laws, it would not apply to an inmate for convictions which preceded passage of the law, so this baby is still going to be a casualty of the abortion war.
We will never know. This baby could have changed the world for the better. Poor little kid. But we know where he/she is right now - a MUCH BETTER PLACE.
It's very disappointing, but we don't know where Roberts stood on it.
If he knew that the court would have voted 5-4 in favor of abortion, then he was right to refuse to intervene, because the baby would die in any case but this way there is no actual decision that will need to be reversed in the future, and no actual precedent if the same situation arises again.
You said: See... there's the problem... Supreme Court cases are about the Constitution, and darn little else.
***
Whoa!! The Supreme Court decides more than constitutional questions, including a number of questions of federal law and procedure, which have no necessary connection with the constitution. That is why someone with business experience, perhaps Miers, perhaps not, belongs on the Court.
Look at peyton randolph's post. We learned in November, 2000, how the SCOTUS functions in these cases. We do not know how Justice Roberts voted, but we *do* know that 4 justices were needed to intervene further.
The problem is the lower courts' decision to overthrow State law -- an excellent indictment of the entire culture of support for abortion. This one aspect of law seems to trump all other rights in the minds of too many judges (and their voice, the media).
The right of assembly, free speech, and now the right of States to limit abortion (affirmed in Roe, btw), as well as the right not to be killed are infringed by the outcome of the decision that some humans are less than human.
"It means that there wasn't 4 votes to hear it. >>
Is that what Rehnquist did too? every time a case came to his court he would base whether or not to hear the case on how the anticipated vote would be?"
thank you.
Abortion is still an elective surgery.
Would this prisoner be denied her right to "privacy" if she had requested an elective sex change surgery or a nose job?
I think not.
Why should the state of Missouri that has a law that does not provide funding for an elective surgery i.e. abortion, be forced to comply and be complicit in something its legislators (representing the majority will of the people) be denied?
Is abortion really private? It seems to me that there are lots of people who are involved in this "private act" both passive and active participants.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
John Robert's first Supreme Court case indeed has allowed the deliberate killing of another innocent child.
Two wrongs will never make it right.
I could not disagree more. The Supreme Court cases are about their personal interpretation of the Constitution, which means that just about everything else is involved in the process.
Along with their knowledge of Constitutional law, their rulings are influenced by personal traits such as their religioius beliefs, their own morals and values, their egos, their political backgrounds and personal agendas, their courage and conviction (or lack of it), their life's experiences and even by the peer pressure of their fellow elitists. When it comes right down to it, many of them twist the Constitution like a pretzel until it fits snugly around their personal and political agendas.
There is no Supreme Court Justice, (or any other judge), who can set all these things aside while they climb inside Thomas Jefferson's brain and rule the way he would. And even if they could, there would be those who prefer to sit inside Hillary Clinton's brain and rule the way she would.
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.