Joe Arpaio's latest ACLU violation

oh man. erathoniel....



So, if you're driving along minding your own business one day and you make a lane change while your attention is distracted (let's say you look in your rear-view and forget to shoulder check your blindspot) and you hit another car. Technically you've just committed a crime. Now you deserve to lose all your rights?

Obviously you've never been on the wrong side of the law, or else you'd be changing your tune mighty quick! In our society there are a million and one things you can do in going about your everyday life that are seemingly harmless and well intentioned but end up being a crime.

Say for example you go to do your taxes, let's say you find the whole business terribly confusing (as many people do) so you give them to a friend to do, they tell you they can get you more money back (which means they cheat on your taxes) you're a dumb bloke who signs on the dotted line, albeit ignorant you never even imagine that your friend just committed a crime that you're on the hook for. Does that mean you also deserve to lose your rights?

No, it does not. The foundation of a civilized society is rights, not just for the straight-shooters but for those who have committed infractions as well. To state that anyone who's committed a crime is suddenly in some kind of sub-class of humanity creates a world that eventually devolves into an empire which is class based, and once you throw that pop can out the window (littering) bam! in you go to the "criminal" class in which you can now be exploited.



I'm sure you are. You do know, though, that in order to abstain you actually have to have an opportunity presented to you, right? Obviously, you've also never had the experience of both partners using contraceptives only to have a pregnancy scare, especially when you're both dumb kids with no money and summer jobs part-way through college!

I'm sure he's scared all the ladyfolk away, real quick.

Contraceptives do not always work - on a large scale they work better than abstinence but thats a different dicussion.

Human rights are human rights, you get them for being human and they don't keep all their rights in fact they lose rather a lot of them.

The cost to the government of a quicky abortion is going to be a damn sight less then the medical bills for a full term pregancy, the care of the baby in a care home, the cost of adoptiing it (if they can) and the potential cost to society of a baby born against their mothers will in jail.  I'm sure that even you will agree it is hardly the best start to life.

Don't forget that this woman is incapable of getting a job to pay for her own medical treatment - do you think that she should be denied all medical treatment or just this one?

You went off on to some tangents here.  You would have made the point better if you had of stuck with the fact that the people of the county Arpaio works for does not owe anyone an abortion.

I guess the American Criminal Leninists Union is all about "Commit a felony, win an abortion".

A right does not impose on another person. Abortion is not a right for that reason. Unless you self abort.

Erath:

You've been on this site long enough to know that when you make articles and say widely open opinions, in this case how you believe people lose their rights for commiting a crime, that people will come down a tab bit hard on those comments. I suggest you be a bit more specific when making such broad statements.

Take this for example. Do you know how often people commit crimes in this country? The average person commits at least 1 crime a day (if we were to follow the law by the book). Jaywalking, driving over the speed limit (even 1 mile), not wearing their seatbelts while driving (even if you put it on a few seconds after you start driving). You get my point. Do you think all these people deserve to have their rights taken away?

Not all, it was an accident. That's why you don't get a jail sentence for getting in an accident unless it's bad. It's more intent, not comission. You don't ever deserve to lose all of your rights, you just lose some of your priveleges.

So, what do you mean by that?

So, you mean to say that there aren't a million or so individual treatments that could be used in combination other than just at moment or afterwars?

I've never heard of abortions being a "human right", only a human sacrifice. A sacrifice for convenience, pleasure, and cheap sex.

Yes, it may cost less, but it's inethical, and removes a potential worker from society.

Thank you for asking, just this one. Oh, and sex changes. And a couple other related things in the sexual enhancements/alterations category.

Yeah, but I have to go on my tangents. They're how I vent.

Yep, pretty much. But the ACLU is just plain crazy.

Actually, it does impose on the unborn child. Therefore it should not be a right because then unborn have no more sanctity than murderers if it is. More, actually, because the libs' are all about protecting murderers.

1. Jaywalking is a crime of comission, and is punishable.
2. Speeding is usually an accident, but can be punishable. It's called "Felony Speeding". Otherwise they're given a ticket to make them more careful in the future.
3. You don't have to wear seatbelts on private property, IIRC, and you should have plenty of time to do so before departing.

You know how when you tell me the blatantly obvious I will fix your spelling/grammar errors. You've been around here long enough to know that. You say that like I care how people react to my comments. I hadn't gotten a comment in weeks until I wrote this article. Also, I seriously don't care if my beliefs are unpopular. I chose that myself, knowing full well the potential results.

ACk!  I think my head just exploded.  Reproductive rights are not a privilege.  I am so glad that we have an organization like the ACLU to defend our constiutional rights. 

“Prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution.” – Judge A. Leon Higginbotham, Monmouth County Correctional Institute Inmates v. Lanzaro (1987) ²

 

 

Boudica:

That may be true, but no one has the right to elective medical care at the taxpayers' dime... not even inmates.

A whole lot of information and excuses but you never really did answer my question did you?

1 - It's still a crime. Punishment is a ticket. Try not paying it and see what happens.

2 - Again, still a crime. Not necessarily an accident, you can always drive under the speed
limit and never break it. Same as above, try not paying the ticket. Speed limits were set not so you can drive at that specific speed but so you don't exceed it.

3 - I was not being specific about where but all around. Have you ever gotten in your car after putting gas and not put your seatbelt on till your about to hit the road? It happens to people depending on their habits.

Of course, in the end you missed the point while trying to pass yourself as smarter than the rest. The point was crimes are committed every day by everyone, based on the laws that currently exist. But if we were to punish everyone for each little stupid thing like this no one would have rights and this would be a communist country.



Typical, when you can't win with smarts, throw mud. Forgive me for not being up to your perfect standards but my spellcheck only checks words spelled wrong not wrong words used and One does not always notice minor mistakes like that. But i forgot, you are Mr Perfect, the one who never breaks God's laws. What ever. In the end you never did get it.

  Actually, the prisoner had already paid for the procedure.  The sheriff would not transport her.  I don't think that a prisoner can walk out the door and catch a taxi to get the procedure done.  The violation was in his trying to impose his ideology on these women and deny them their constiutional rights. 

The sheriff has every right to refuse to allow an inmate to travel outside the jail. Again, the inmate has no inherent right to elective medical care, nor does the jail have to accomidate it. Inmates have the right to protest too, but the jail doesn't have to let travel to a peaceful assembly.

Fact it, not a single right was violated here. The American Criminal Leninist Union has always resented Sheriff Arpaio because he actually makes jail a bad place to be. They even whined and complained when Arpaio quit serving coffee to inmates.

No, he doesn't! They have to provide transportation for the inmate. This was ruled on in another court case three years ago.

The 2005 injunction came out of a case in which an inmate identified as "Jane Doe" was serving time for a DUI conviction and asked to be taken to an abortion clinic. She was forced to get a court order to do so, and the ACLU then filed suit to ensure that other women would not have to undergo similar delays.

At the time, Arpaio said he did not run a "taxi service" for women who wanted "elective surgery."

The court did not agree and issued the injunction, saying that forcing the inmates to get a court order was tantamount to making women jump through hoops to obtain a constitutional right. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in 2007. Arpaio then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and was denied a hearing.

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/2008/08/08/20080808abortion0808.html

And calling this "elective" is a way of trying to diminish it like it is something unnecessary, a frivolous cosmetic procedure, a nose job. It is a much more than that. The month long delay made this a more difficult procedure that required a two day hospital stay. This is not some tooth whitening procedure that can wait until the prisoner serves their sentence.

It seemed from your previous comment that your objection was whether tax payers were paying for the procedure. Now that you know that's not true you have to find another reason to back up Arpaio.

The ACLU has a problem with Arpaio because he routinely stomps on citizens rights.

No, calling it Elective is being honest. Words mean things and elective treatment is a medical term. She CHOSE to have that abortion, there was no more medical need for it than if she was choosing to have a face lift.

The ACLU doesn't give a rats rear end about anyone's rights. They are an Anti Constitutional Gang of liars who use our rights as a weapon against us. Arpaio simply doesn't see any reason for the taxpayers to pay for creature comforts and luxuries for people in jail.



I don't find another reason to back Arpaio, but yes I do stand corrected on the taxpayer paying for the abortion point.

So if the prisoner paid for participation in a protest march, Arpaio should be required to transport them to it?

The whole thing about letting people out of jail for elective anything is just plain idiocy. The fact that some judicial activist and incompetent judges would abuse their authority this way is disgusting.

Unless it's a life and death situation, abortion is an elective treatment. If it was a legitimate medical situation, I would agree that she should be transported.

Death Rights! Wealth Rights! Race Rights!

See? I can make anything a right by combining it with the word right. But it does not make it a reality. Reproductive Rights is a misnomer. It is like saying you have the right to swing your arms wherever you want. Of course we know you do not. Your right ends where my nose begins.

You have no more right to demand the service of another (that is called slavery after all and I think we did away with that), than you have the right to demand the death of another.

Slave ownwers had the right to whip their property too, but that didn't make it right.

I don't equate a medical procedure with a protest march.



Are you serious?!? If a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy, yes there is a medical need for it and certainly within a reasonable time frame. Abortion is LEGAL! It's not a freaking manicure. So I will assume that your stance is that every pregnant prisoner MUST carry their pregnancy to term. Who else are you going to force that decision on? Only prisoners? Does a local sheriff get to make that decision? What if the situation were reversed that the sheriff was forcing the pregnant prisoners to have abortions? Would that be okay?



Yes, they do. That is the whole reason they are in existence.


No it is a valid constitutional right under the 14th amendment and the Roe V. Wade decision.

So there's a constitutional right to kill your own child? How scary.

But not jail, you notice. You are still unrestricted, other than having to pay a fine.

Yes, and speed limits are for safety. I'm not advocating speeding, but it's only worth a fine unless you hurt someone.

I seatbelt before the engine gets turned on if I can.

So, again, how are your arguing for your point, and not just messing up my thread and wasting my time by going off topic?

When have I called myself perfect? Please find exact words, and quote in context. When you derail my thread, I give you a stinking grammar lesson and then you cry about it.

So, let me get this straight, we're supossed to release prisoners to hospitals for whatever they want?

Thank you, ParaTed, for putting it so nicely.

I believe you may be misreading the law. He has to be the one to provide transportation, he doesn't need to give a ride to prisoners.

Arpaio runs a no-kill animal shelter. It's called MASH, find it at his site.

I don't equate abortion with a medical procedure, I equate it with cold blooded murder. Abortion is murder.

There is no "need" for most abortions, simply a convenience. It's legal, sure, but is it a right? They should carry to term, by all means. I'd force that on everyone if I could.

You're forgetting, I'm against abortions. If it were reversed, of course it would not be okay, because abortion is murder.

Yes, they do give about select rights that make life easier for them.

I see no place in the 14th where it guarantees abortion. It guarantees a baby a right to life. If you wanna advocate murder, how would you feel if you were aborted?

Boudica:

Your argument is that, since she has a right to an abortion, and paid for it, then the sherrif is violating her rights by not providing transportation. She also has the right to protest, so if your argument were legitimate, then both rights should be respected equally.



Please explain to me the medically need when the mother and fetus are both healthy? Abortion is legal, but if the mother and fetus are both healthy there is no disease to be treated.



It is my stance that no elective medical procedures should be accomidated for people in jail. It is also my stance that people in jail should be given access to medical care for non-elective treatment. Pregnancy is not a disease, it is a natural result of sexual activity. To deny this is to deny reality.



Now you've lost it completely. How is denying a person's access to elective treatment anywhere close to forcing one on someone?

On the other hand, I would bet that there are elective treatments you have no problem seeing forced on people... but I digress.

That's the reason Roger Baldwin started it, but he wouldn't recognize the ACLU of today. As often happens, what started out as a good organization, ends up being co-opted by powermongers with their own agenda.

Baldwin's ACLU was against communism and all other forms of totalitarianism. The modern ACLU embraces all forms of totalitarianism but refuses to defend freedom for anyone else.

They defend any murderous dicatator (or their supporters) if universities invite them as guest speakers, but when the invitations of conservative speakers are blocked, the ACLU is silent.

The ACLU is against military recruiters on college and high school campi, but defend every anti American, anti Freedom nutjob group's "right" to recruit on campus.

So is AIDS and syphilis.

And they are diseases. Pregnancy is not. View them as consequences of casual sexual activity.

I think you are deliberately being obtuse. There is a medical need to have an abortion when the mother chooses to terminate the pregnancy.

I can't think of anything. Do you want to enlighten me?


But you are saying that this sheriff should have the right to make these choices based on his own views instead of following the law and the courts decisions. What if he thought prisoners should all have abortions?



No my point is that this was already decided in a court decision three years ago and the sheriff's job is to UPHOLD the law not defy the law. The court decision was specifically to address a prisoner being transported to have an abortion not to go to a protest.



A fetus is not a child.



I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. A court ruled that they have to provide transportation to women who are seeking an abortion. That's it end of story. Exactly what is the argument, that the sheriffs of our country should have more authority than the courts?



and this is relevent because?

No, it's not.