15 October 2005 - 10:54am
Prison guards and razor wire constitute undue burden ... but Thomas does not agree
Yesterday we saw in the news that a woman in prison would indeed be able to abort her pregnancy:
A federal judge ordered Missouri prison officials to drive a pregnant inmate to a clinic and let her get an abortion despite a state law that forbids the spending of tax dollars to facilitate an abortion.
U.S. District Judge Dean Whipple ruled Thursday that the prison system is blocking the woman from exercising her right to an abortion. On Friday, he refused to stay the ruling, and ordered that the woman be taken to the clinic on Saturday.
The woman, whose name was not disclosed in court papers, has said she will borrow money for the abortion from friends and family but cannot afford to pay for transportation.
Under a policy adopted in July, Missouri's prison system does not provide transportation or security for inmates seeking abortions. The policy is based on a state law that prohibits the spending of public funds "for the purpose of performing or assisting an abortion not necessary to save the life of the mother.
So she's at the clinic right now, yes? Not so fast, chica! Clarence Thomas, a self-proclaimed expert on female anatomy, has issued a stay:
The U.S. Supreme Court late Friday temporarily blocked a federal judge's ruling that ordered Missouri prison officials to drive the woman to a clinic on Saturday for an abortion.
Justice Clarence Thomas, acting alone, granted the temporary stay pending a further decision by himself or the full court.
So what's the hurry?
The woman's attorney, James Felakos of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the woman is running out of time because she is 16 weeks to 17 weeks pregnant, and Missouri bars abortions after 22 weeks.
How did she end up in this situation?
In court papers, the woman said she discovered she was pregnant shortly after being arrested in California in July on a Missouri parole violation. She said she tried to get an abortion in California but was transferred back to Missouri before it could be performed.
So the plan seems to be to prevent her from legally making her own medical decisions until it's illegal for her to try to control her own body.
How ironic. Somehow I don't see state-enforced prison inmate breeding on the dominionist agenda.
Similar entries
- Supreme Court refuses to let state seize woman's body, and that's what the right wing cannot stand
- Abortion is legal? Tell that to Gabriela Flores.
- 21st Century Abortion on Demand, a post-Roe preview
- In politics, "pro-life" equals pro-governmental control of women's bodies, so let's get real here
- On "pro-life" doubletalk
store
Buy stuff here.





















Comments
would have to be the one who takes appeals from the 8th District.
When I read that Judge Whipple had ordered the state to take her to the clinic, I was thrilled that at long last, a federal court had finally identified that rarest of legal birds, an "undue" burden. Alas, the snipe hunt continues . . .
Miserable wretch.
If anyone knows how I can contact this woman's attorney, please email me. I will pay the transportation costs. Screw Miss-ery.
The Supreme Court Lifted the Stay (http://cara.typepad.com/reproductive_rights_blog/2005/10/mis...)