WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court turned down an appeal Monday from a county sheriff who objects to transporting jail inmates for elective abortions.
An Arizona sheriff wanted the justices to allow him to enforce a jail policy that bars transporting inmates for abortions without a court order.
Arizona courts said the policy violated the inmates' constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Missouri recently issued a similar ruling in a case there.
The justices did not comment on their decision to leave the Arizona ruling in place.
The Arizona Court of Appeals called the Maricopa County policy an "exaggerated response" to the requirements of running a jail. It noted that the state and Pima County voluntarily transport inmates for abortion services.
The American Civil Liberties Union had sued to challenge Sheriff Joe Arpaio's policy on behalf of an unidentified woman who discovered she was pregnant shortly before being taken into custody after being sentenced. She sought an abortion but sheriff's officials refused to transport her until she obtained a court order.
State law prohibits spending public money for an abortion unless needed to save a woman's life. The appeals court said no county spending for the actual abortion was at issue in the case.
The county routinely and safely transports many inmates to and from a variety of locations for medical services and other purposes, the court said. Arpaio gave no indication that transporting women for abortions posed security problems, the court said.
Copyright 2008 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
RSS
Since the issue was wether or not the County was actually spending the money on the abortion, It seems ot me that you could make a case that they did not directly contribute to the abortion, but that they indirectly supported it. Afterall, it took man hours and transportation costs. There fore, the county has become an accessory to abortion-
Its just like saying "We do not support murder" but then giving a gun to a person you KNOW is planning to commit murder. In their case, they don't support abortion with county money, but they sure will do everything they can to help yo uget one, short of actually paying the bill.
Their hypocrasy is amazing- I highly encourage all Christians to stop thinking and understanding our Biblical theology. The more we actually follow God, the more we might realize the government is actually wrong.
This whole idea is a contradictory in our judicial system. If a female inmate goes to prison for commiting murder and she is pregnant, why is that she has to be punished for her crime according to the state but yet the state says it is OK to kill her kid? Does not make since. If she aborts her child, she should be charged with 2 murders and the state should be charged with accessory for allowing her to abort.
I was taught as a young boy that if you do wrong it's o.k., there are a lot of people out there who have done a lot worse than you so even if you get in trouble you won't get punished too bad anyway. At least that's the perspective I gained from the way I saw criminals treated and I do mean "treated" I can't believe they get free health care, education, t.v., exercise room, free meals, counselors, and so on and so on........kind of like all our detainees. Does it make sense to educate a criminal? especially a repeat criminal? Do we really need more people in the medical field or more lawyers....
I was taught as a young boy that if you went to jail or prison you had NO rights or FREEDOMS you were at the mercy of the state! So why then should the state condon a murder of a child and we the tax payers pay for it let them carry the child and then take it at birth and give it to one of the many who want a child!