Rape Victim Denied Emergency Contraception On The Grounds Of Religious Beliefs - Polidicks

Source: [url]http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/06/25/47785.htm[/url] Full Article: [quote] (CN) - A Tampa rape victim can sue the Hillsborough County Sheriff for allowing a jail guard to refuse to give her a prescribed emergency contraception pill because it was against the guard's religious beliefs, a federal judge ruled. R.W., whose full name is not disclosed in court records, says she was raped on Jan. 27, 2007. After an examination at Tampa's Rape Crisis Center, a doctor gave R.W. gave two anti-contraception pills, according to the complaint. R.W. says she took one pill immediately and held the other to ingest 12 hours later, as directed. While taking R.W.'s report of the crime, however, a Tampa police officer learned that there was an arrest warrant for R.W. for failure to pay restitution and failure to appear. At the Hillsborough County Jail, staff confiscated her second pill. R.W. says she requested her second pill the next morning, but jail employee Michele Spinelli refused. "Spinelli told the Plaintiff that she would not give R.W. the pill because it was against Spinelli's religious beliefs," the first amended complaint states. Although R.W. did not get pregnant, she sued Spinelli and Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee for gender discrimination and violations of the right to privacy and the right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. The sheriff moved to dismiss the counts against him, alleging R.W.'s claims are "implausible and merely incant the legal conclusion that Spinelli is a final policy maker," according to the ruling. "However, in this amended complaint," U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich wrote, "Plaintiff has plead additional facts sufficient to render her claims plausible." Kovachevich, who dismissed the claims against the sheriff in the second amended complaint, wrote, "The single action of a final policy-maker can represent official government policy, even when the action is not meant to control later decisions." She continues: "In the third amended complaint, plaintiff alleged the following additional facts to support her claim that Spinelli was a final policy-maker: (1) Gee allowed Spinelli to work at the jail as the only person on duty with the power to dispense anti-conceptive medication. (2) Gee did not provide Spinelli with any guidance, supervision, or direction on whether she could refuse to dispense anti-conceptive medication based on her religious beliefs, and (3) Gee did not promulgate any policy on refusals to dispense anti-conceptive medication based on religious beliefs. None of these facts are mere labels or legal conclusions. "Taken as true, these three facts provide plausible grounds for relief. The holding of Mandel, the broad definition of policy, and the fact that all governmental actions are the result of some official policy, grant plausibility to the Plaintiffs claim. Even though Spinelli was apparently some type of medical employee and seems to have no statutorily-granted, traditional policy-making role, Mandel suggests that she may still be a final policy-maker. Even though her act did not govern subsequent decisions of jail employees, it plausibly falls under the definition of 'policy.' Gee, as the representative of the municipality, promulgated no policy on anticonceptive medication and provided no guidance or supervision to Spinelli on the matter. Given that some entity must set policy for the government in each situation, plaintiff has rendered plausible the claim that Spinelli was designated the final policy-maker with respect to her decision to withhold anti-conceptive medication for religious reasons."That is not to say, of course, that the Plaintiff will ultimately prevail on her claims. To the contrary, plaintiff faces several key evidentiary hurdles before liability will be proved... But at this early juncture, the Court must take the well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true. It has done just that here - nothing more. Accordingly, it is," the ruling states. [/quote] Important Points: - It wasn't a doctor, it was a guard in jail. - The rape victim was arrested for an unrelated, non-violent crime (specifically not showing up to court) - Yes, the victim can sue, and in fact is.

Saw it on Reddit's front page. That woman who denied her the meds should be fired.

What's so bad about holding a pill so you can give it to someone else like I don't see how religious belief is grounds for denying someone else something

I respect that she was standing up for her beliefs, but that was plain awful of her, she should be fired and taken to court for denying someone critical medication and not doing her job right. Not implying that her beliefs were at all grounds for what she did.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36508813]What's so bad about holding a pill so you can give it to someone else like I don't see how religious belief is grounds for denying someone else something[/QUOTE] the guard saw the pill as murdering a baby :downs:

[QUOTE=Dogchow33;36508829]I respect that she was standing up for her beliefs[/QUOTE] I do not give a flying fuck about her religious beliefs, this was not her bloody decision to make. Her beliefs are stupid and dangerous, they deserve no respect.

I hats the arguement that "it is your mistake ; live with it." Why are rape victims considered to be unholy all of a sudden for having a say in what is right for themselves?

So glad I don't live in a third world country yet.

Regardless of your religious beliefs, if you're in charge of holding and providing inmates medication, you should do it. If the employee is uncomfortable with that she shouldn't have that job.

It's not too late to abort

I understand that everyone has the rights to believe what they want and all that jazz, but having those beliefs gives you no right to deny somebody something because it goes against [I]your[/I] beliefs. It's not your choice.

[QUOTE=Lemonator;36508978]It's not too late to abort[/QUOTE] Read the article. She didn't get pregnant.

The real moral of this story is the police are not your friend. This woman was the victim of a serious crime and went to them for help, and yet the police didn't waste any time in trying to find out if there was some way they could throw her in jail.

This is just stupid. From what I understand, emergency contraception isn't remotely related to abortion. It's there to prevent a pregnancy, not end one. It's just the same as using birth control or condoms.

Would've been really awkward if she had a kid.

[QUOTE=Lemonator;36508978]It's not too late to abort[/QUOTE] Not the point and doesn't make what the guard did less wrong. [editline]26th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bentham;36509108]This is just stupid. From what I understand, emergency contraception isn't remotely related to abortion. It's there to prevent a pregnancy, not end one. It's just the same as using birth control or condoms.[/QUOTE] There are hard liners out there who would ban those things as much as abortions.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36509204] There are hard liners out there who would ban those things as much as abortions.[/QUOTE] I'll never understand the reasoning for this. It would create so many more problems than it would solve. And maybe I'm just too tired, but I can't think of anything it would solve to begin with.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;36508813]What's so bad about holding a pill so you can give it to someone else like I don't see how religious belief is grounds for denying someone else something[/QUOTE] Because stupid.

[QUOTE=Bentham;36509324]I'll never understand the reasoning for this. It would create so many more problems than it would solve. And maybe I'm just too tired, but I can't think of anything it would solve to begin with.[/QUOTE] The reasoning is, it is morally correct to only use sex for its biological purpose - to propagate. Anything further than that is a sin. Contraceptives allow ease of having sex without reproducing.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;36509074]The real moral of this story is the police are not your friend. This woman was the victim of a serious crime and went to them for help, and yet the police didn't waste any time in trying to find out if there was some way they could throw her in jail.[/QUOTE] fuk the police xxDDD

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36509368]The reasoning is, it is morally correct to only use sex for its biological purpose - to propagate. Anything further than that is a sin. Contraceptives allow ease of having sex without reproducing.[/QUOTE] It's going to happen whether they like it or not, may as well try and stop it from creating unwanted pregnancies where everybody suffers as a result. Especially in situations where someone is raped.

If it was against the guards religious beliefs, call another guard. I know they do that with some Muslim grocer attendents who don't feel comfortable handling certain meats.

As a resident of Tampa, and hillsborough county. I can say, without a doubt, that our cities cops are fucking terrible.

Police should not be opinionated in such manners.

What's even more fucked up is the article about women inmates being raped by the guards What a fucked world keeps me up at night

I was reading the article, but when the article said "anti-contraception" I got confused. Did they mean "anti-conceptive" as they said later in the article? Or am I missing something here?

[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;36508797]Saw it on Reddit's front page. That woman who denied her the meds should be fired.[/QUOTE] Freedom of religion dude! Freedom of religion!:downs:

[QUOTE=znk666;36511500]Freedom of religion dude! Freedom of religion!:downs:[/QUOTE] please stop acting more irrational than the group that you are trying to scapegoat the fact that they're religious literally means nothing, it's the person itself

Oh religion.

[QUOTE=TonyP;36511738]Oh humanity.[/QUOTE] ftfy