The same people that are paying for the other children that the prisoner may have. She's incarcerated, chances are she was already using some social assistance. That was inferred in one of my earlier links. I seriously doubt that the state will go broke in the care for this child. And I'd rather tax dollars go to supporting a life than ending one.

Why should the public pay the cleanup cost of sexually immoral who wish to use public facilities in place of paying for hotel rooms for their sexual activities and using bars for their pickup actions?

Also consider the persons that have the job of maintenance in these facilities. They did not hire on to clean brothels. Bad enough what they face each day in their normal work load.

Had she not committed a crime the taxpayers would not have imprisoned her. However, since she is imprisoned that point is moot. That is the whole point of being an adult, understand that you must take responsibility for you actions. However, since the Supreme Court has ruled in Beal v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid does not require a participating state to fund every medical procedure, such as abortion. And in Maher v. Roe, the Court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause does not require states to pay for therapeutic abortions. It would seem that this action is Constitutional and therefore it must be the Law of the Land.

While I agree that the individual involved in this case had no choice when it came to having an abortion or giving up her child, she did have a choice not to commit a crime. It would seem that she made a choice not realizing that actions have consequences. Life can be a bitch.....but you know what, at some point people need to grow up and face the reality that the rest of us have to face. Where the choices we make determine the lives we live. Perhaps this will help influence other women who do not wish to lose their so-called right of choice to make better choices in the future and not commit any crimes.

dmk

And we all know how some women love them damn "choices".
Great post SGT.

Unless the criminal court ordered that denying access to an abortion was part of the sentence for a woman's crime, that right was not was not forfeited when she was convicted of a crime.

The correctional system does not have the power to impose further loss of rights on an inmate if the law and the justice system does not mandate that loss of rights. Their job is merely to implement the punishment mandated by the law and the courts.

If you reread this thread, I think you will find that the subject under discussion is not requiring "states to pay for therapeutic abortions." It is about allowing female inmates access to abortions provided that they can pay for the procedure themselves.

What you have written here is totally irrelevant to that question.

But when you are incarcerated, the actual procedure might actually be a minor part of the expense when you add the cost of transportation and security to the total. It seems once a woman is incarcerated, it is the "choice" of the government whether or not she has to pay all those additional costs. And again, some place a large amount of weight on "choice".

So the security and transportation costs to get an incarcerated woman, who is paying for the actual abortion, an abortion would outweight the cost of the state having to deal with the transportation and security costs when the woman has the actual baby, or the transportation costs to get the baby to a care center, and the cost to provide food and clothes to the baby?

I already gave my answer to that question in a previous post in this thread. I'm not concerned about the money.

Let's see. Money for one abortion, or for months of prenatal care, vitamins, etc., including doctor's bills, blood tests, screenings, etc. Not to mention delivery costs.unfortunately the state gets off cheaper with the abortion and we all know how some of you HATE the taxpayers paying bills.