“America’s toughest sheriff” in showdown with ACLU over inmate abortions… again
I love this guy. Known as “America’s toughest sheriff,” Maricopa County (AZ) Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been featured on Fox News shows many times for his tough stance against illegal aliens.
But Arpaio’s also tough on abortion. He tangled and lost in court to the ACLU in 2005, when according to LifeNews.com:
Arpaio had prohibited the taking of prisoners for abortions… because taxpayer funds would be involved in the transportation and staff time needed.
Arpaio… said the abortions would violate state laws against public funding of abortions, but a state appeals court ruled unanimously against his policy….
The AZ and U.S. Supreme Courts refused to hear the case so the ruling stuck.
Until then Arpaio had mandated aborting mothers get court orders before he would have officers drive them to a mill. The ACLU sued and won based on the principle that this violated the right to “obtain timely, safe and legal abortions,” according to a press release.
That didn’t stop Arpaio. According to the same ACLU press release, dated July 2:
However, in the course of settlement negotiations, Arpaio decided inmates must prepay transportation and security costs associated with obtaining the procedure.
According to CBS 5 Arpaio is charging $500 for security and transportation:
The sheriff, who is pro-life, said his prepayment requirement has nothing to do with his personal feelings.
“To say I do this for political reason or person, that’s not true,” Arpaio said.
The sheriff said women who cannot pay the transportation charge up front will still be driven to the procedure….
However, the sheriff does not charge any other inmates for transportation.
Sheriff’s deputies drive inmates to other medical appointments, hospital visits with ailing family members and to funerals for free.
The sheriff said his office does charge inmates for any “elective surgery.”
He could not give CBS 5 any examples of any other elective procedures that have occurred during the past 2 years.
So the ACLU is suing again.
I cannot think of any other sort of elective surgery a prison inmate might want – a facelift? tummy tuck? I imagine the prison population typically doesn’t seek elective surgeries. Just because Arpaio couldn’t think of other examples only demonstrates the oddness of abortion.
All of this also demonstrates how abortion has carved out its own illogical niche in the courtroom.
I expect Arpaio will lose this case but I admire his tenacity.
[Photo attribution: youdontsay.org]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Gender re-assignment surgery would be ‘elective surgery.
But when the surgeon has completed his work, do you have to have a third section in the jail for ‘others’?
There is all kind of ‘augmentation’ surgery available for both women and men.
It is absurd to transport any inmate, male or female for ‘elective surgery’.
Incarceration is not supposed to be day care or summer camp. It is supposed to be unpleasant, to discourage folks from doing bad things that will result in them being locked up…..again.
This is a good example of how bad government run health care can become.
I wonder if the United States Military transports soldiers or dependents for ‘elective surgery’.
I wonder if the ‘gitmo guests’ have access to ‘elective surgery’.
Just turn em over to some them Cuban doctors who are ministering angels sent to comfort the dying and treat the malingering, until they matriculate to the dying.
Just look at Fidel Castro, he is still alive and dying.
yor bro ken
In the words of Han Solo in ‘Return of the Jedi’ I say to the Sheriff: “Good Luck…..You’re going to need it.”
Ken: is any sort of *ahem* enhancement plastic surgery considered elective, too? You make good points.
What the article fails to point out is that, baring an emergency, prisoners have to get court orders for any doctor, dentist or ophthalmologist appointments.
It’s called a “transportation order” and they’re a pretty routine filing in Arizona Superior Courts.
If you let abortions skip this procedure, under equal protection under the law, every medical appointment will be free of the requirement to secure a transport order.
Liz,
I am not sure what you are referring to by *ahem* .
If you look in the sports section of the newspaper you will some ‘elective enhancement surgery’ that is for men.
I once argued with an jounalista that using her logic for public funding of elective surgery for women (abortion), I could justify ‘elective surgery’ for myself.
I will spare you the details of my arguement, but suffice to say I was on as firm a foundation of consistency and logic as any argument for public funding of ‘elective surgery’ (abortion) for pregant women.
But obviously logic and consistency have no impact on the ‘dead babies R us’ folk when the ‘elective surgery’ is a choice for a dead child.
yor bro ken
Justyouwait, I see the alternative to abortion as adoption. Doesn’t need to be nearly as costly as an abortion. The more abortion is made legal, the more it will happen, the more money it will cost those of us who are paying for it.
Who cares? The birth costs very close to the abortion. And often, the adoptive parents do pay for the birth!
Just because a surgery is not acute does not make it elective. Elective refers to completely “elected” surgeries, not those surgeries needed to prevent death or disease. I doubt many women would elect to have a hysterectomy if it weren’t diseased or potentially life-threatening. People don’t elect for biopsies accept to rule out cancer and other diseases. Likewise, people wouldn’t have cataract surgery without having cataracts, and no one who is not in need of a new hip would volunteer to have theirs replaced. Oh yeah, and how many people have angioplasties for no reason? And while laser eye surgery isn’t required in the age of contact lenses and glasses, at least it exists to restore a person’s bodily function (eyesight) to it’s healthy function. What does abortion do?
Elective surgeries are those that serve nonlegitimate medical purpose- lipsuctions, sterilizations, rhinoplasty. Abortion serves no legitimate medical purpose in these cases, hence, it is elective.
P.S. I would support the policy to insist on transportation costs for laser eye surgery. I know many hard-working tax-payers that can’t afford that luxury. Why should they subsidize the prisoners’ surgery by footing the bill for transportation and security?
Arpaio is someone who makes me uncomfortable. I like that he is not going to come up with some bogus reason support the transportation to the abortion centers (which most people do), but his treatment of immigrants is not something that I can condone. He treats immigrants as though they are scum. According to what I’ve read, he is also responsible for the death of a baby.
He’s a conflicted character, though I do hope that he helps as many people as he can. But I myself- and this is just my own opinion, which I will admit is not well-versed on the subject- cannot and will not call him pro-life, not until he treats women, children, immigrants, or any other troubled underdog out there, with some basic decency.
Who cares? Well, if the government paysthe taxpayer cares.
Posted by: Justyouwait at July 15, 2009 10:05 PM
But then there’s the question of just what am I paying to do? Birth is fine by me (although, if they are in prison, they shouldn’t be afforded the same luxuries of birth many free women enjoy: anesthetics, etc…maybe a midwife would suffice, and also be a lot cheaper for the taxpayer), but paying for an abortion is something many many taxpayers object to for the simple reason we do not agree with what it does. I also would and do have a problem with taxpayer-funded gender changes.
“He treats immigrants as though they are scum”
No he doesn’t. These are ILLEGAL immigrants who broke the law.
They sneak into the country because they cannot get here legally, though they would if they could. They’re no different from pregnant women who have abortions: they wouldn’t do it if they weren’t forced to by circumstances.
If we can extend a loving hand to pregnant women, then we can extend a hand to immigrants and try to help them.
Arpaio is doing the right thing. Taxpayer money should NEVER be used to transport inmates for abortions or ANYTHING else! Good for the Sherrif!
Joe is a good guy.
We need more real men like him in law enforcement.
He was beat up by pro-abort Guv. Janet Napolitano for enforcing illegal immigration laws already on the books. Napolitano is the current whack job Homelead Security Secratary who wanted to give illegal aliens driver’s licenses so they could basically vote in the presidential elections.
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon tattletaled to the FBI about Joe because of this. It’s absolutely despicable.
Democrats are a disgrace.
They sneak into the country because they cannot get here legally, though they would if they could. They’re no different from pregnant women who have abortions: they wouldn’t do it if they weren’t forced to by circumstances.
If we can extend a loving hand to pregnant women, then we can extend a hand to immigrants and try to help them.
Posted by: Vannah at July 16, 2009 1:52 PM
It’s not the same thing, Vannah. Many illegals who cannot get here legally are not able to because they are already criminals.
This whole government healthcare debacle is due in large part to illegals who clog emergency rooms and cannot pay, thereby raising healthcare costs for all of us. Also, our prisons are full of illegals who come here to break the law. Taxpayers are paying for their stay. Same with illegals applying for welfare and using public schools. These are all HUGE costs for U.S. citizens, and placing a great strain on systems that were already pushed too far or outrightly broken to begin with.
Illegals cause a lot more problems than you’re realizing, Vannah, and my great-grandparents both immigrated to the United States from Mexico…I don’t have a problem with people who come here legally to make a better life for themselves and their families. But people breaking the law (repeatedly, especially those who are already breaking the law by being here in the first place, then going on to break the laws of the nation they are already in illegally…yikes) is not the answer, and people immigrate to America and become legal citizens the right way ALL OF THE TIME. I have to wonder what exactly is the problem with those people who are unable to do so?
Joe is a modern day hero. Would that we had thousands more like him.
xalisae,
Like you, I have absolutely NO issue with anyone here legally whatever their race, religion, or ethinicity. I have an issue with those here illegally, whatever their race, religion, or ethnicity.
Many of the illegals are running from economic hardship and gov’t corruption, a situation that will go unchanged until their gov’t is forced to better the circumstances of their people and end corruption. Its easier to send their people here.
There is also the criminal element, including two in our community who raped a woman then set her afire. She will be severely scarred, physically and emotionally for life.
If they can’t get here legally, too bad. Most other countries, including Mexico, do not tolerate illegal immigrants. In other countries you could be shot for illegaly crossing their borders.
Adding to Mary above, it was reported that California has some 19,000 felons in their prisons that are illegal aliens. One of the cost cutting measures under consideration is to deport them, which is a mixed bag because those who manage to sidestep incarceration in their homelands will be right back.
The economic toll of illegal aliens on our system is staggering. And too, if there are 19,000 that got caught, how many more are out there doing bad things that do not get caught?
Jerry,
I bet the American jails are much nicer than the Mexican ones.
Maybe the American authorities could tattoo the felons before deporting them. Say, with a prisoner number or the like. How about tracking devices? I wonder if that would be legal.
Posted by: Vannah at July 16, 2009 12:02 AM
“He [Joe Arpaio] treats [illegal] immigrants as though they are scum.”
—————————————————–
Arpaio treats ‘illegal immigrants’ like criminals. The county jail, for which he is responsible, is not a bed and breakfast for people who ‘choose’ to violate the law.
The ‘illegal immigrants’ are not in his jail for being here illegally. They are in his jail for committing crimes AFTER they had already violated federal immigration laws to get to Maricopa County.
No one that I know of has made an allegation, much less proven the charge, that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department is arbitrarily stopping people and demanding to see their ‘papers’.
When the officers stop people for violating local laws and they determine they are in the United States illegally then they detain them.
I bet they have detained some illegal aliens who are not latino/latina.
yor bro ken