Incarcerated women still have rights! - Page 5

fxashun · 10-01-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

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.

Again, it's not about the money. We are already paying for the guilty party's incarceration. We were probably already paying some social assistance. So actually the monetary issue is moot.

gonefishin · 10-01-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxashun

Again, it's not about the money. We are already paying for the guilty party's incarceration. We were probably already paying some social assistance. So actually the monetary issue is moot.

then if it's not an issue of money, and abortion is legal, there's really no way they can tell her to not have one. as of right now she has the right under roe v. wade.

fxashun · 10-01-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

then if it's not an issue of money, and abortion is legal, there's really no way they can tell her to not have one. as of right now she has the right under roe v. wade.

I posted a pamphlet that states that's not necessarily the case in some jurisdictions. Incarceration places a strain on some "rights" and "choices". Since she made an f'd up "choice" to get incarcerated in the first place.

sgtdmski · 10-02-2007, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

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.

Yet if the decision that the state would not fund abortions for prisoners was in place before she committed the crime then one would say the case takes on a whole new meaning. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, once again it goes to being held accountable for ones actions. Governor Blunt was elected in 2004 and took office in January 2005. It was at this time the DOC in MO changed their stance on abortion for prisoners IAW Governor Blunt's philosophy.

As I pointed out the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal and State funds can be denied for an abortion. So if the woman wanted an abortion she would have to pay for it herself, including the cost of her transportation and guardianship while having the procedure.

What I wrote was totally relevant. The state did not deny access only require that she pay for it. Again totally consistent with the Constitution and the law.

dmk

sgtdmski · 10-02-2007, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gonefishin

then if it's not an issue of money, and abortion is legal, there's really no way they can tell her to not have one. as of right now she has the right under roe v. wade.

Again they did not tell her she could not have one, only that she had to pay for it. Get your facts straight and stop thge fracking lying.

dmk

OKgrannie · 10-02-2007, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Again they did not tell her she could not have one, only that she had to pay for it. Get your facts straight and stop thge fracking lying.

dmk

Please reread the article. Paying for the abortion itself would not usually be a problem as Planned Parenthood at least has a sliding scale for services.

"The case arose when a young woman beginning a four-year sentence in Missouri was told she could not have an abortion. This represented a change in policy for the prison; in the past, women who could come up with the money were taken to a clinic for abortion care. Then in 2005, with a new anti-choice governor in office, the prison administration and the Department of Corrections reversed course, adopting a policy that categorically denies women access to abortion...."

knot_e_lady · 10-02-2007, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OKgrannie

Please reread the article. Paying for the abortion itself would not usually be a problem as Planned Parenthood at least has a sliding scale for services.

"The case arose when a young woman beginning a four-year sentence in Missouri was told she could not have an abortion. This represented a change in policy for the prison; in the past, women who could come up with the money were taken to a clinic for abortion care. Then in 2005, with a new anti-choice governor in office, the prison administration and the Department of Corrections reversed course, adopting a policy that categorically denies women access to abortion...."

Seems the sarge is the one doing the 'fracking lying'.

CrazyFlamingos · 10-02-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Yet if the decision that the state would not fund abortions for prisoners was in place before she committed the crime then one would say the case takes on a whole new meaning. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, once again it goes to being held accountable for ones actions. Governor Blunt was elected in 2004 and took office in January 2005. It was at this time the DOC in MO changed their stance on abortion for prisoners IAW Governor Blunt's philosophy.

As I pointed out the Supreme Court has ruled that Federal and State funds can be denied for an abortion. So if the woman wanted an abortion she would have to pay for it herself, including the cost of her transportation and guardianship while having the procedure.

What I wrote was totally relevant. The state did not deny access only require that she pay for it. Again totally consistent with the Constitution and the law.

dmk

Below is the first paragraph of the first post of this thread. It does not say she was told she had to pay for it; it says she was told "she could not have an abortion."

What you have written is totally irrelevant to that issue.

If you want to go on distorting the issue then have at it. But I fail to see the usefulness of that.

Quote:

"The case arose when a young woman beginning a four-year sentence in Missouri was told she could not have an abortion. This represented a change in policy for the prison; in the past, women who could come up with the money were taken to a clinic for abortion care. Then in 2005, with a new anti-choice governor in office, the prison administration and the Department of Corrections reversed course, adopting a policy that categorically denies women access to abortion....

CrazyFlamingos · 10-02-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Again they did not tell her she could not have one, only that she had to pay for it. Get your facts straight and stop thge fracking lying.

dmk

You are the one lying.

If, somehow, you believe what you just wrote then it would behoove you to reread the thread before making accusations of others.