ACLU Applauds Supreme Court Decision Allowing Access to Reproductive Healt

http://www.aclu.org/ReproductiveRights/ReproductiveRights.cfm?ID=19259&c=143

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 Court’s decision to let the district court’s 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 General’s 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 state’s 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 state’s request not to comply with the district court’s original ruling.

-more

Speaking for our basic rights.

I need to update my membership.

I'm grateful, for one.

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?

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.html

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

and am beginning to be hopeful about Roberts, so I guess I agree.

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.

We are in complete accord!!! Ah, that the world were so.