I’d guess the answer may vary for federal prisons vs state prisons - and for state prisons I’m sure it varies state to state.
Recently saw on a T.V. show (I know, I know T.V. ain’t real), a woman in prison wanted to end a pregnancy. Her first plan was to pay another inmate to severely beat her- hoping to induce a miscarriage.
The beating did not lead to a miscarriage but it did lead to a brief stay in the infirmary. When friends from outside the prison came to visit, she confesses what she was trying to achieve. On their next visit, the friends bring an abortifacient pill. It is not clear whether or not the friends had to sneak in the pill or if it was declared and allowed.
So, since we agree that T.V. ain’t real, what’s it like in real life?
If you’re in prison in the United States, you’re pregnant, and you want an abortion what are your options?
I don’t remember who, but I know we have a poster here who is (or was) a prison doctor. Can a woman just ask to visit the infirmary and inform the doctor that she wants an abortion?
Thanks, John Mace.
I assume that SCOTUS decision applies to both federal and state prisons?
In a state where abortion providers are few and far between, surely the government is providing government funding for abortion simply in the exorbitant travel costs for sending an inmate so far from the prison for a procedure that could be done with a pill in the infirmary? Gas + driver + guard has got to add up to an expensive taxpayer funded day trip!
Actually, since that SCOTUS decision was simply to let the lower court decision stand, would it only apply to Arizona where the original case happened?
Also, according to the article, it seems the lower court’s decision was influenced by the fact that the woman in this case was able to, and volunteered to, pay the transportation costs. If that were s factor in the decision, seems it may not apply for someone who can’t cover transportation costs (which I assume means gas + driver + guard).
The article says that SCOTUS “let stand” the lower court decision, without commenting. That sounds like a denial of cert., not an appeal. If so, it isn’t a ruling on the merits and doesn’t have precedential value for other cases.
The respondent was none other than Sheriff Joe Arpaio, I see.