I don't think that prisoners should be kept from having legal medical procedures.

If it is allowed at all, which I strongly believe this is a state issue, not a federal issue, then I don't think it should be done at the tax payers expense.

amen M3!

Wouldn't forcing the inmates to have children they don't want end up costing the tax payers more than the drive to the clinic? I agree with Jillness, prisoner shouldn't be kept from having legal medical procedures. Tax payers already pay to deal with drug, alcohol and nicotine addiction and related diseases.

"The Arizona court said that because zero tax money was spent on the actual abortion procedure, the transport did not violate the law."
I'm sure this is just narrowly about the transportation issue and the court's waiting to go after Roe v Wade in a broader case. The sheriff's policy of making inmates get a court order to be transported probably cost taxpayers extra.

If the prisoner had the baby, they would still need to have prenatal care and then care for the baby once it's born. That would cost a lot more.

This should not be done with tax payers money. I am sure the people who are pro life would rather their tax dollars to go towards supporting a living life, then destroying one.

Yes women should not lose the right to choose in any circumstance -- that is a slippery slope. I don't think the jails should interfere by fussing about logistics.

Hear, hear, lizadilly.

Abortion is a legal medical procedure and the right to choose is constitutionally protected. Just because one individual disagrees with a treatment doesn't mean that he/she has a right to interfere with that treatment.

What if you had a scientologist pharmacist refusing to let someone fill a prescription for psychiatric meds? How would you feel then? It's the same situation.

"Just because one individual disagrees with a treatment doesn't mean that he/she has a right to interfere with that treatment."

Since it is legal, I do not have the right to stop someone from obtaining the Abortion, but I do have the right, or should have the right, to not financially contribute to the something that is optional.

I wholeheartedly agree that every prisoner should have access to legal medical procedures. Taxpayer money isn't going towards the actual procedure, just towards the transport of the prisoner to GET there. They had no right to refuse prisoners transport for a medical procedure that isnt offered in their correctional facility.

Now, if they were refusing transport for something ridiculous like breast implants, that I could understand.

Am I just dumb? How do they get pregnant in jail??

"Now, if they were refusing transport for something ridiculous like breast implants, that I could understand."

This is a matter of opinion. I think the abortion is ridiculous, among other things.

Cabaker, they were either pregnant before or maybe conjugal visits.

1. The state chooses to incarcerate people, and when the state does so, it is responsible for inmates’ medical care; and tax payers simply can’t pick and chose what is appropriate and what their money should go to.

2. If the state were to prohibit access to abortion for inmates, then the state would be forcing women to bring a pregnancy to term. This would arguably be a violation of the 8th amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (an issue that has come up in various states and on which there is a circuit split).

Zero tax money was spent on the actual procedure? Exactly how is that? I doubt their families are spending the money for them to have an abortion, so where's this money coming from?

I agree that my tax payers' dollars shouldn't go towards something that's optional, along with my own personal belief that abortion is twisted and grotesque.

hmm... interesting

"1. The state chooses to incarcerate people, and when the state does so, it is responsible for inmates’ medical care; and tax payers simply can’t pick and chose what is appropriate and what their money should go to."

If Abortion was brought back to State level, then the tax payers could choose. Who is to say what is appropriate? If it is an optional, non-medically necessary "treatment" then tax payers should not be forced to pay.

I should say forced to pay, unless the majority in the State, vote for it to be an option in prison.

I don't think the issue is whether the state should pay for abortions. They are not asking the state to fund abortions.

Rather, the issue with whether these inmates should be allowed to travel to a medical facility to get a legal procedure.

What's with Citizensugar and prisoners today...?

"Am I just dumb? How do they get pregnant in jail??"

Unfortunately, alot of female inmates are raped/sexually abused or willingly engage in sexual relations with staff and officials. I'm assuming aside from the small number that come into jail pregnant, that is one way women become pregnant in jail.

If a woman is raped in jail, does that change any of your minds at all (those who do not condone your tax money to pay for their abortions)?

"Zero tax money was spent on the actual procedure? Exactly how is that?"

Not all criminals are bankrupt. Also, the child presumably has a father.

I know what you mean Jillness, but I'm sure there are plenty of cases where the father doesn't want to pay, or have anything to do with the inmate.

Now that I think of it, I'm sure that the individuals in question most likely pay off their own medical bills by working in jail.

NYF, do you have any stats to back up the amount of women who get raped by staff and officials? I believe that if this is an on going problem, then the officials and staff then these people should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

And to answer your question, no. I still do not want my tax dollars going to funding abortions, even if it is just for transport.

In some states, abortions cannot be performed in prisons (this is the case at least in AZ and MI, to my knowledge). Therefore in order for an inmate to get the procedure, the inmate would have to be transported off-site.

Additionally, the 8th amendment was incorporated to the states in 1962 (Robinson v. CA). As such, no state in the Union may have a policy that violates the 8th amendment. Denying someone medical treatment (according to some appellate courts) would be an 8th amendment violation. Therefore, it could be argued that the issue of providing transport to abortion clinics for inmates would be required nationwide under the 8th.

I don't think it is fair to deny someone your tax dollars because you do not agree with whatever procedure they are getting done if it is legal. If it is allowed for someone to pick and choose where their tax dollars go to that extent, next thing you know racists may be able to choose that their tax dollars do not go to anyone that is a minority, or muslims may not receive the same level of treatment as others because of other people's prejudice towards their religion.

Tax dollars are for the good of all citizens, not just the ones whose viewpoints mesh with yours.

Denying someone medical treatment, that is necessary, is wrong. An Abortion is not necessary. If that can of worms got opened, we might actually see a whole lot of breast implants going through the jail system.

"Tax dollars are for the good of all citizens, not just the ones whose viewpoints mesh with yours."

Well by making someone pay for an abortion via their tax dollars, isn't that forcing another individuals viewpoints on the person who is against the abortion?

I think it is compeletely against the law to deny any citizen a legal medical procedure. Law makers are not doctors.

Some people consider vasectomies and implanted birth control methods to be as bad as abortions, will these be included next? I just do not see any legal basis to deny these people a legal medical procedure.

Agreed Cine- they should be prosecuted, but unfortunately, it's their word against a prisoner's word. I have not studied in depth on this subject, but there are many reports found online and a website called spr.org (stop prison rape) that have a lot of information on this topic. Organizations such a HRW and Amnesty also report on the matter. Unfortunately, I don't have too much time to research it in depth, but I did find an article (although old, still valid..and I highly doubt things have changed much)

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/womeninprison.html

My friend worked for a non-profit whose purpose was to help prisoners protect their basic rights. She had told me of the sexual abuse (both in men and women penitentiaries) and how difficult it was to actually help protect these people. It is most definitely an on-going problem (prisoner abuse on all levels) as you can see from the reports you can find on the internet alone.

Back to Jovian's question about how these people are paying for their abortions, it is surprisingly easy to get an abortion at little or no cost, especially if you are in a low income bracket. Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, provides some of its abortions and other services for free. (Of course, this all depends on a person's insurance, financial standing, etc.) And, Planned Parenthood gets about 1/3 of its funding (a little over 300 million dollars in 2006) from government grants. So, I think one can say that the government/tax payers pay for abortions for many patients.

NYF, Thanks! I will look into the link! A good friend of mines sister is a prison guard. She might have some additional information I will ask for.

"Some people consider vasectomies and implanted birth control methods to be as bad as abortions, will these be included next? I just do not see any legal basis to deny these people a legal medical procedure."

I don't feel I should pay for the transport of a vasectomy either or for peoples birth control. It is legal, I can't stop anyone from doing something that is legal, but I do NOT have to be the one to help financially support it, even if it is just gas money. If it is elective, then it is NOT necessary, and I should not be responsible.

"If that can of worms got opened, we might actually see a whole lot of breast implants going through the jail system."

Reconstructive surgery, including breast implants, is a big factor in many women chosing to get a life saving mastectomy when cancerous cells are detected. I don't think it is accurate to portray all medical procedures with a broad stroke.

There is no basis in law to prevent citizens from getting medical care.

The insurance industy has distorted the debate about what is "elective". I do not think that controlling your reproductive system is elective.

Cine- I would be really interested in what your friend's sister has to say! I think being a prison guard has to be one of the toughest jobs one could do.

Again-its not the tax dollars paying for the abortion, it is the tax dollars paying for transport. Paying for transport for this medical procedure, whether you agree with the procedure or not, is not directly funding the abortion and is not forcing anyone to pay for it.

Jillness-I did not mean to belittle reconstructive surgery. That I see as a totally necessary procedure. I meant *purely* cosmetic procedures and should have clarified that further:)

I think this issue really comes down to whether or not your pro-life or pro-choice. If it were some other routine medical procedure, I'm sure the responses would be different.

AHH! not your but you're...geeze I can't believe I made that mistake, sorry.

Jillness the breast implant comment was in reference to the above statement. And I do not believe in paying for reconstructive surgery either. Elective is elective. Now if a private company, charity, wants to pay for the procedure then it is completely different.

Also, no matter if you want to call it elective or not, that is exactly what it is.

Jessie, I understand what the article is about, and have stated before, I don't agree with the paying for the transportation. So we are sort of at a stalemate at this point.

NYF, she has some horror stories! She was badly beaten by some inmates a few years back. She is one tough lady that is for sure.

NYF, I can honestly say, I would not be for ANY elective procedure. Not that I would not give money to a private charity that would provide services, but I do not believe in tax payer money funding such things.

Cine I agree with you 100%!

your tax money just paid for that comment

hope thats ok

Cabaker, you are my exception to the rule

cine_lover - From what I'm hearing you say, you don't think that you should be forced to pay for a procedure that you disagree with. However, the state is not paying for the abortion, thus, it is not you funding the procedure. However, tax payer money is going to transportation, so I suppose they could argue on that point.

However, under that premise, that you should not be forced to pay for something you disagree with...

Then the millions of tax payers who disagree with the war in Iraq should not have to fund a war they oppose.

I disagree with marijuana related crimes being a jailable offense. I should not have to pay for thousands of people being behind bars for such an offense.

I disagree with the death penalty, and therefore should not have to pay for an inmate to be given lethal injection.

Nobody in this country is going to agree with every legal policy out there, and arguing that your tax dollars should not be used for something you disagree with is absurd because no matter what you do, you're never going to be able to control that factor, even if the states were in control of laws within their boarders, because people with different opinions live all over the place. They're not necessarily segregated by state.

And again, you notice, tax payer dollars are not paying for the abortion. They're paying for transportation to the clinic.

Mat, I really do not know how much more specific I can be with what I said.

"cine_lover - From what I'm hearing you say, you don't think that you should be forced to pay for a procedure that you disagree with. However, the state is not paying for the abortion, thus, it is not you funding the procedure. However, tax payer money is going to transportation, so I suppose they could argue on that point."

-NYF -I can honestly say, I would not be for ANY elective procedure. Not that I would not give money to a private charity that would provide services, but I do not believe in tax payer money funding such things.

"However, under that premise, that you should not be forced to pay for something you disagree with...
Then the millions of tax payers who disagree with the war in Iraq should not have to fund a war they oppose.
I disagree with marijuana related crimes being a jailable offense. I should not have to pay for thousands of people being behind bars for such an offense.
I disagree with the death penalty, and therefore should not have to pay for an inmate to be given lethal injection."

-If Abortion was brought back to State level, then the tax payers could choose. Who is to say what is appropriate? If it is an optional, non-medically necessary "treatment" then tax payers should not be forced to pay. I should say forced to pay, unless the majority in the State, vote for it to be an option in prison.

"And again, you notice, tax payer dollars are not paying for the abortion. They're paying for transportation to the clinic."

-Jessie, I understand what the article is about, and have stated before, I don't agree with the paying for the transportation. So we are sort of at a stalemate at this point.

"Nobody in this country is going to agree with every legal policy out there, and arguing that your tax dollars should not be used for something you disagree with is absurd because no matter what you do, you're never going to be able to control that factor, even if the states were in control of laws within their boarders, because people with different opinions live all over the place. They're not necessarily segregated by state."

Of course you cannot please everyone. But you will be able to please more people by keeping the states in control. The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

I copied and posted all my answers but the last, because I have already addressed all your comments and felt it was unnecessary to retype everything I have already written.

"The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction."

Should read the war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under state jurisdiction.

"The war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under federal jurisdiction."

Should read the war IS a federal issue, so it does not fall under state jurisdiction.

"And I do not believe in paying for reconstructive surgery either."

No one is asking for people to pay for medical procedures.

They simply want the right to go to a facility to get the procedure done. Keeping prisoners from having medical treatment is to treat them as less than human. Our laws and Constitution do not support this.

I understand if you would want to charge the prisoner the cost of transportation to the medical facility, but your statements keep suggesting that you are arguing against tax payers paying for the procedure itself, and that is not what this is about. No one is expecting that.

And in the eyes of insurance, reconstruction is NOT elective.