Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healt

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
DaveColorado Donating Member (498 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:34 PM
Original message
ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healt
http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRigh...

ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healthcare Services for MO Prison Inmate

October 17, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: media@aclu.org

WASHINGTON The American Civil Liberties Union today applauded a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court allowing access to reproductive healthcare for a prison inmate in Missouri. The inmate is seeking access to abortion services.

We are extremely pleased with the Courts decision to let the district courts ruling stand and allow this woman to access constitutionally protected reproductive health services, said Talcott Camp, Deputy Director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. Women do not give up the right to terminate a pregnancy when they enter prison any more than they give up the right to carry a pregnancy to term, and we are glad the Court agreed.

On October 13, 2005, a federal district court in Missouri ordered the state to transfer the inmate, referred to in Court papers as Jane Doe, to a healthcare facility for an abortion. Rather than comply with that ruling, the Missouri Attorney Generals office asked the district court, and then the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, for an order suspending that ruling.

Both the district court and a unanimous panel of the Eighth Circuit denied the states request for an order suspending the ruling. The state then filed papers with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who is assigned to hear such motions from the Eighth Circuit. He granted a temporary suspension of the ruling late on October 14, 2005, and then referred the matter to the full Court. Today, the full Court voted to deny the states request not to comply with the district courts original ruling.

-more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Big up to the ACLU.
Speaking for our basic rights.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DaveColorado Donating Member (498 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Word
I need to update my membership.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Metta Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Word.
Edited on Wed Oct-19-05 06:41 PM by Metta
I'm grateful, for one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 06:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. The court voted...
The whole court? A majority? Is it simply a case of not getting the 4 votes necessary to hear a case?

And most importantly - did Roberts go on record one way or another on this opportunity to chip away at reproductive rights?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. The order simply states that it is denied.
No vote is shown.
I'm not sure what the procedure is, but surely somebody here knows.

(I did, by the way, read the order on the SCOTUS site)

Link:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/05ordersofthecourt...

click on 10/17 miscellaneous order to download the pdf of the order, which reads

(ORDER LIST: 546 U.S.)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2005
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
05A333 CRAWFORD, LARRY, ET AL. V. ROE, JANE
The application for stay presented to Justice Thomas and by
him referred to the Court is denied. The temporary stay entered
October 14, 2005, is vacated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 07:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. I think it was automatically denied.
I went to Findlaw, and this is what it says on writs:

"If one or more Justices have an interest in your case, it will be put on the "discuss list," which means it will be discussed at conference and then voted upon. About 15-30 per cent of petitions make it to the discuss list; the others are automatically denied. Following the Court conference for which your case is set, you'll soon learn whether you are one of the lucky few or will have to await another opportunity for that feather quill."

http://profs.lp.findlaw.com/appellate/cert1.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. So can we infer that Roberts wasn't interested in hearing this case
and preferred to let the "settled laws" re Roe v. Wade stand?

Or am I reading too much into the tea leaves.

Thanks to both of you for the info btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
radio4progressives Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Incredibly, to my complete shock I heard a quote reportedly from Roberts
ordering the state to safely transport the inmate to the hospital in order for the procedure that she has requested to be conducted immediately. And that the decision was articulated by Roberts. (paraphrasing and abbreviating the decision)

Yep. I couldn't believe my ears. And I only heard it ONCE yesterday (or was it the day before?) in the entire day of "news" (I think it was CNN) it was blurted so quickly i could hardly believe my ears so i tuned in all day and heard nothing else on the story. I went to the internet, including DU for latest breaking news and found nothing. Not a word about it could I find.

Now I find this.

Unless i MisHEARD the report on TV, I don't understand why such an important decision could be kept so quiet all things considered.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Actually, it was not a decision.
It was in fact a non-decision, because the Court refused to hear the case and vacated the stay, letting the earlier ruling stand.
I'm grateful that the state was ordered to take the inmate to the clinic right away.
I'm not very worried about Roberts. I am very concerned about the Miers nomination. I think she is a complete and total idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. I completely agree re: Miers
and am beginning to be hopeful about Roberts, so I guess I agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kber Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. I think this might be big.
A few points - this wasn't just about choice, it was about ordering a state gov't to facilitate a woman's choice, i.e. to transport her to the facility

Second, as far as I've heard, "Jane Doe" was not a rape victim and her health or life was not endangered by her pregnancy, so there were no "extreme circumstances" involved.

Nope - this just one woman who was exercising her constitutional rights and the state has been ordered to help her do so by the highest court in the land.

All of this under the new SC Chief Justice. It's not important because it's groundbreaking, it's important because it ISN'T, if you catch my drift.

huh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PinkTiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. Yes, I agree.
We are in complete accord!!! Ah, that the world were so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC