Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape
January 30, 2007 12:29 PM Subscribe

Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape. A woman visiting the Tampa area for Gasparilla was thrown in jail after being accused of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest. The Tampa jail refused to provide the woman with a second dose of the morning after pill because of the religious beliefs of an employee.
posted by hex1848 (185 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Anyone licensed or paid by the government (pharmacists, police officers) have no right to go beyond the letter of the law or the responsibilities of their position and impose their personal moral and religious beliefs on those they serve.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 12:41 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Things like the last sentence bother me so much. If an employee has such strong religious beliefs that they would refuse to give a second dose of the morning-after pill, then if this woman gets pregnant from the rape, the employee can go right ahead and pay for all of the woman's baby needs. Or, if the victim gives the baby up for adoption, the employee can pay for all of the new family's adoption fees.

I understand beliefs and everything, but with rape victims especially, how could you even feel comfortable carrying a product of rape to term? Personally, I'd feel dirty. Oh, btw, the employee can pay for counseling too, when the child grows up and finds out he was a product of sexual battery.
posted by Verdandi at 12:42 PM on January 30, 2007

I hope the city of Tampa has its liability insurance paid up!
posted by mr_roboto at 12:43 PM on January 30, 2007

Serves her the hell right.

Criminals deserve whatever forced parenthood they got comin' to 'em.
posted by sourwookie at 12:46 PM on January 30, 2007

WHAT
THE
FUCK
FLORIDA?
posted by loquacious at 12:51 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Slight corrections: (1) woman, not women; fortunately this was a single incident and not a pattern; (2) my understanding from another FA is that she already had the second dose which had been provided by her doctor, and the jail employee refused to let her take it. So it's not like she was asking the jail to provide her with something she didn't have. Presumably they confiscated her second dose as part of the admissions procedure, and then refused to let her have it on schedule.
posted by localroger at 12:53 PM on January 30, 2007

JEEEEEEEEEEB BUSH!
posted by rubyeyo at 12:55 PM on January 30, 2007

Did you even read the article sourwookie? The charge in question was when she was a minor. Not only does she clame she paid her restitution, but she has had a clean record since she has been an adult.

Do you work for the Tampa PD or something?
posted by hex1848 at 12:55 PM on January 30, 2007

The Tampa jail refused to provide the woman with a second dose of the morning after pill because of the religious beliefs of an employee.

Florida has a shield law that allows people to opt out of personally having to provide contraceptives if it's against their beliefs. Stupid, but fine.

I have a huge problem with not then instantly getting another employee who can provide them. The idea of the shield law is so someone isn't forced to do something against their religious beliefs by the government, not to block people from doing things against others' beliefs.
posted by spaltavian at 1:01 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

turn on your sarcasm reader hex.
posted by Stynxno at 1:01 PM on January 30, 2007

Weird that your contention would be with whether or not the woman was a criminal, not whether or not criminals deserve to be forced baby incubators....
posted by crackingdes at 1:04 PM on January 30, 2007

Hex1848: Failed to detect sarcasm--go back three spaces. Miss a turn.
posted by sourwookie at 1:04 PM on January 30, 2007

I don't get the whole notion. You should go into a field with your eyes open. You shouldn't expect to get to pick and choose what you get to do once you take a job. If you have a religious objection, either go into a different field, or find an employer within the field who can support this.

(I'm not saying "expect to be let off for religious holidays." I'm looking at things that are key functions of your job.)

(2) my understanding from another FA is that she already had the second dose which had been provided by her doctor, and the jail employee refused to let her take it. So it's not like she was asking the jail to provide her with something she didn't have.

This is particularly annoying. This is medication she is supposed to take and presumably has a lawful prescription for, and has impacts if not taken on time. Jail employee needs to be shown the door! What's next: the ability to confiscate legally purchased condoms?
posted by MrGuilt at 1:08 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Verdandi: if this woman gets pregnant from the rape, the employee can go right ahead and pay for all of the woman's baby needs. Or, if the victim gives the baby up for adoption, the employee can pay for all of the new family's adoption fees.

Actually, I think that the employee should get full custody of the child upon birth. If the employee is a woman with a functioning uterus, she should become the surrogate and carry the child to term - which is probably not medically feasible, but they should at least threaten her with it so we can all pump our fists in glee. Unfortunately, the child will then be an adopted surrogate offspring of rape. Man, when the world shits on you, it's shits right on your forehead.
posted by krippledkonscious at 1:09 PM on January 30, 2007

God Bless America....
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 1:10 PM on January 30, 2007

MrGuilt: Some zealots believe that it is their obligation to impose their religious views on the world at large. Such people often seek out positions of authority.
posted by Mister_A at 1:11 PM on January 30, 2007

Florida has a shield law that allows people to opt out of personally having to provide contraceptives if it's against their beliefs. Stupid, but fine.

I don't know about this -- I doubt that the shield law applies to government employees who have complete control over other people, like jails over detainees or mental institutions over patients.

Anyway, thank god for 42 USC 1983.
posted by footnote at 1:11 PM on January 30, 2007

Even if the employee expects adoption to be the only answer, they are forgetting about that long nine months before the adoption, carrying a reminder of probably the scariest day of the woman's life... Frankly, if it was scientifically possible, I think a fitting thing for the employee to do would be to gestate any resulting fetus for the woman.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 1:13 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

"Now don't y'all step foot in the state of florida again."
"We won't."
posted by sarcasman at 1:14 PM on January 30, 2007

I have a huge problem with not then instantly getting another employee who can provide them.

Typically (as you often hear in the case of pharmacies), the folks who pull this believe they have absolutely no obligation to do the slightest thing to facilitate this "sin." This includes as small a thing as tapping the shoulder of the other person behind the counter.

I recently read where Muslim cabbies (I believe in Detroit) were refusing to transport folks with alcohol on religious grounds. The moment a Christian complains, I'm going to call shenanigans--it is, in effect, the same thing (not doing your job on religious grounds).
posted by MrGuilt at 1:14 PM on January 30, 2007

Later, as she was riding in a patrol car trying to locate the crime scene in the dark, police found the warrant stemming from a 2003 juvenile arrest for grand theft and burglary. It said she owed $4,585.

"They stopped the investigation right there," and put her in handcuffs, Moore said.

So does this mean they stopped investigating the crime committed against her and took her back the jail and that's the end of that?
posted by lyam at 1:15 PM on January 30, 2007

What scares me more than stuff like this is people who can't detect blatant, obvious sarcasm. Those are the ones you wanna watch out for, man!
posted by spicynuts at 1:15 PM on January 30, 2007

Religion overrules the common law. Sad.
posted by homodigitalis at 1:18 PM on January 30, 2007

lyam, thank you. That's what bothered me most about all this. Why is it acceptable that they just stopped caring about the alleged sexual assault? "Sucks to be you, girlie -- we might have cared that you were raped... before we found out you weren't perfect."

(Don't get me wrong, the contraception refusal bit is egregious, but I'm in Texas where we've been mostly numb to that for a couple of years now. I think the state legislature passed a law protecting those who refuse to dispense birth control or EC.
posted by pineapple at 1:22 PM on January 30, 2007

The pill thing is egregious, the arrest seems like a poor judgment call that is being addressed ("we're rewriting the policy right now"). If you rest at the level of buzzword, you're likely to misread this story.
posted by OmieWise at 1:23 PM on January 30, 2007

I recently read where Muslim cabbies (I believe in Detroit) were refusing to transport folks with alcohol on religious grounds.

I'm totally fine with this. The cabs are private companies, not state provided services. The problem here is that a state agent refused and blocked another state agent from acting.
posted by spaltavian at 1:24 PM on January 30, 2007

The most horrifying detail of the article would be that they are running background checks on a RAPE VICTIM, because, you know - she must be guilty of something. And women aren't terrified enough of reporting rape as it is.

This is like if a guy reported being shot in the leg and the police took him to the hospital to get stitched up, but then on the way to the crime scene the cops realized that he had a bench warrant. So instead of investigating the fact that someone shot him, the cops would just toss him in jail and refuse to give him the antibiotics the doctor gave him. Because, you know, he's a criminal now.

Thanks for reminding me why I left that godforsaken state. The only good thing about it is four months of good weather.
posted by SassHat at 1:25 PM on January 30, 2007 [7 favorites]

That post didn't come across as being sarcastic the first time I read it.. I just read it again. Sorry about that I get the dumbass award for the day :-)
posted by hex1848 at 1:26 PM on January 30, 2007

Un.freaking.believable.

I hope she sues both the city and the employee. I hope someone takes up the banner against shield laws as a whole. Under no circumstances should medical care be contravened by a bozo who just "don't like sluts getting pills".

If this rape results in a pregnancy, the state AND the employee should be held financially liable for any termination or gestation, and the resulting finances for the next 18 years of care, clothing, etc.

This case is obscene, and heads should roll.
posted by dejah420 at 1:27 PM on January 30, 2007

Yeah all you teenage girls, don't shoplift! otherwise, if you get raped someday, it won't be a crime.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 1:29 PM on January 30, 2007

LOLXIANS
posted by The Straightener at 1:29 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

I recently read where Muslim cabbies (I believe in Detroit) were refusing to transport folks with alcohol on religious grounds.

Also in Minneapolis-St. Paul.
posted by ericb at 1:30 PM on January 30, 2007

spaltavian - I don't know about Detroit, but in Philadelphia and NYC, cabs are part of the public trust; they are licensed and regulated by the city and state, and must abide by certain rules and regulations, including, for example, prohibitions against racial or religious discrimination (but ask a young black man who's tried to hail a cab in NYC after dark about how well that works). So they may be required to transport passengers carrying alcohol, though I can't say for sure.
posted by Mister_A at 1:32 PM on January 30, 2007

> You shouldn't expect to get to pick and choose what you get to do once you take a job.

Jawohl! I vas chust followink orders!
posted by jfuller at 1:36 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

The most horrifying detail of the article would be that they are running background checks on a RAPE VICTIM

Although it sounds horrible in this case, pretty much every police agency runs routine checks on everyone they take in for any reason. It's just policy. My brother is a cop and he told me as much when he was relating a somewhat similar story. The officers in question sound like complete assholes, but they may have simply been trying to verify her residence or locate her parents.
posted by elendil71 at 1:37 PM on January 30, 2007

Although what the police agency did after that was clearly reprehensible...
posted by elendil71 at 1:38 PM on January 30, 2007

I'm honestly shocked by this story. What's more amazing is I still have the capacity to be shocked by stories like this.

Sasshat, your comment is right on.
posted by agregoli at 1:39 PM on January 30, 2007

Detroit also licenses and regulates their taxicabs. The city has issued 1,310 taxi licenses/medallions (also called "bond-certificates") -- a set number. The cost of the licenses ranges from $6,000 to $10,000 on the open market. Twice-a-year Detroit taxis undergo police inspections for cleanliness and safety^*. Cabs are considered public conveyances -- and are subject to city amd state regulations -- including those that pertain to discrimination (as are applied to conveyance on a subway or bus).
posted by ericb at 1:44 PM on January 30, 2007

What OmieWise said. (As usual).

So does this mean they stopped investigating the crime committed against her and took her back the jail and that's the end of that?
posted by lyam at 3:15 PM CST on January 30

See, this is the problem of single link newsfilter. People read and react based on one view of things, often written for the most shocking effect at the expense of accuracy (see, e.g., the recent Fugees story) No, that's not what happened.

If you read a less slanted version of the story, such as the one in the Tampa newspaper, you would have seen these choice bits that seem rather relevant:

Police are reviewing their policies after the arrest.

The jail nurse, said the mother and the victim's attorney, denied the medication for religious reasons.

Hillsborough County sheriff's spokeswoman Debbie Carter could not comment about that allegation or anything else about the woman's medical situation because of the federal health information privacy act. However, she said all medications are confiscated from inmates upon their arrival until they are verified.

Police supervisors did not learn the woman's circumstances until early Monday, after inquiries from the media and the woman's attorney, Virlyn "Vic" Moore III of Venice. At that point, police worked with Circuit Judge Walter Heinrich to grant her bail: $4,585 that a Sarasota County court said was unpaid in a 2003 auto theft and burglary case, McElroy said.

Jail records show that the woman was booked into Orient Road Jail on Saturday for "failure to appear" on two felony warrants: grand theft auto and burglary. In fact, McElroy said, the "failure to appear" was recorded because of the alleged nonpayment.

Unsure of how to proceed, police drove the woman to a gas station at Howard Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard to consult with an acting sergeant, who determined the woman should be arrested, McElroy said.

The woman's mother said she received a phone call about 9 p.m. Saturday from a female officer saying her daughter "was raped today at 2, but her name came up on a bulletin and I have to take her to jail."

In her opinion, the mother said, "The rape investigation has come to a screeching halt."

McElroy disagreed, saying that officers referred their report to the detective division. A detective tried to find potential witnesses Sunday but was unsuccessful, she said. The detective did not try to speak to the woman in jail Sunday because there were no "time-sensitive leads," McElroy said.

I'm going to be that there is more to this story. Just like the Fugees one.

And that is what is so shitty about single link news stories that seem so outrageous: so often they are wrong, but that isn't found out until after all the righteous indignation has been spilled about.
posted by dios at 1:45 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Splitting hairs, Dios. If this story turns out to be even 1/10th as outrageous as it seems now, it's still outrageous. This isn't a trial; it's commentary on reported events.
posted by footnote at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2007

Smell that? That smell is a big fat lawsuit. Mmmmm, monetary compensation for police stupidity!
posted by fenriq at 1:48 PM on January 30, 2007

The jail nurse, said the mother and the victim's attorney, denied the medication for religious reasons.

Sorry, but I'm still outraged. It is not their business what she wants to do regarding after-the-fact contraception. She's over 18, right? Her choice, period.
posted by agregoli at 1:49 PM on January 30, 2007

This worst of all this is that the next woman with an old warrant that gets raped will decide not to report it, in fear of being jailed. And rape is severely under-reported as it is.
posted by internet!Hannah at 1:50 PM on January 30, 2007

I read that crooked, forgive me.

Regardless, this woman's right to Plan B was taken away from her for no good reason.
posted by agregoli at 1:51 PM on January 30, 2007

but that isn't found out until after all the righteous indignation has been spilled about.

Dammit! got here too late!

:: takes righteous indigantion back to spill on the U2 thread ::
posted by eustacescrubb at 1:51 PM on January 30, 2007

jfuller in usual fine form, invokes the third reich. So if the jailers gave the woman her medication, in spite of their moral misgivings... they would be Nazis!
posted by Mister_A at 1:54 PM on January 30, 2007

Sorry, but I'm still outraged. It is not their business what she wants to do regarding after-the-fact contraception. She's over 18, right? Her choice, period.
posted by agregoli at 3:49 PM CST on January 30

You realize that it is the allegation of the outraged mother, right?

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

We don't know. But one thing we know from experience, 9 times out of 10 our initial outraged version ends up not being that outrageous when all information is known.

Clearly they need to rethink the policy of arresting rape victims. She would have been ignored if it were misdemeanors, but she had two felonies (<---bad things). But there ought to be some method between ignoring felonies and locking her up. Like maybe put her under custodial watch at a clinic or something. Or put a guard at her house or something.
posted by dios at 1:55 PM on January 30, 2007

post: "Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape. A woman visiting the Tampa area for Gasparilla was thrown in jail after being accused of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest. The Tampa jail refused to provide the woman with a second dose of the morning after pill because of the religious beliefs of an employee."

When asked why, authorities at the Tampa jail said, "We asked experts how we could craft an even that would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, break Metafilter and cause a shouting match. This is what they came up with, and we're pretty proud of the result."
posted by koeselitz at 1:56 PM on January 30, 2007

JEEEEEEEEEEB BUSH!

Isn't in charge. What a stupid comment.

The only good thing about it is four months of good weather.

Wow, someone isn't very well-traveled.
posted by oaf at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2007

She was jailed for two days and two nights!!!

The police know they fucked-up.

"...Tampa police are investigating why more compassion wasn't shown toward the woman after she reported her sexual assault to law enforcement.

'We may need to revisit our policy,' police spokeswoman Laura McElroy said.

...'As soon as the chief's office found out about it Monday, detectives were assigned to get her out of jail,' McElroy said. 'Obviously, we're very concerned about this young woman.'

Jail records show the woman was booked about eight hours after the reported rape."^*

A failure of a flawed system and the lack of compassion on the part of a few, further compounded by the alleged insensitivty (and possibly illegal action) of a religious zealot.
posted by ericb at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Jawohl! I vas chust followink orders!

Strange comment, considering it is his job, as a nurse (not nurse practitioner), by definition, to provide healthcare as determined by the patient's doctor. It's the doctor's job, not the nurse's, to administer prescription medicine based on an assessment of the patient's physical health and healthcare needs.

Anyway, in a country as free as the United States, the jail nurse could have walked away from the paycheck, but instead, as most moral calculus goes these days, whether this fellow or fundamentalist pharmacists, he wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2007

Incidentally, even the framing of this post is curious:

A woman visiting the Tampa area for Gasparilla was thrown in jail after being accused of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest. The Tampa jail refused to provide the woman with a second dose of the morning after pill because of the religious beliefs of an employee.

So the warrant being issued for her failing to pay restitution for two felonies is based on "an accusation" but it is clearly "fact" that the Tampa jail refused the prescription because of religious beliefs.... even though that just comes from her mother and her attorney (already lawyered up and making allegations).
posted by dios at 1:59 PM on January 30, 2007

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

No. What if she required some sort of medication on a regular basis just to live, and wasn't allowed to have it because it was in her purse? That would be incredibly stupid, and would probably open them up to litigation on the grounds that, you know, they were physically injured because they weren't allowed to take necessary medication.
posted by oaf at 2:01 PM on January 30, 2007

In other Florida (wtf!) news, Florida has issued 1400 Concealed weapons permits to felons.
posted by Tenuki at 2:02 PM on January 30, 2007

So if the jailers gave the woman her medication, in spite of their moral misgivings... they would be Nazis!

Mister_A for the (God?)win. ;)
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2007

Dios, everything reported in the news could turn out not to be true in the end. All the comments here might as well have a disclaimer that "If this doesn't turn out to be true, then I'm not outraged."

Pointing out that the story is only an "allegation" is a way for you to quash discussion because you don't actually want to be so bold as to completely disagree on the merits.
posted by footnote at 2:03 PM on January 30, 2007 [4 favorites]

Sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but... was the morning-after pill for the rape? She went to the doctor before she went to the police? That's actually a pretty good idea, and indicates an impressive presence of mind.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:06 PM on January 30, 2007

No. What if she required some sort of medication on a regular basis just to live, and wasn't allowed to have it because it was in her purse? That would be incredibly stupid, and would probably open them up to litigation on the grounds that, you know, they were physically injured because they weren't allowed to take necessary medication.
posted by oaf at 4:01 PM CST on January 30 [

Fine.

Construct any value-neutral policy in your mind then. And suppose that the denial (if it occurred) was the result of that. Construct some policy in your mind which is based on anything other than a subjective decision to not provide an abortion pill, and suppose that a denial (if it occurred) was the result of that. Are you still outraged?

My point is this: there may be another side to this story. We only have the mother's allegations. The prison is prohibited from commenting on it due to HIPAA.

Think critically. Might there be some logical explanation other than the allegation? If so, then one is well served to reserve judgment until all the facts are out there.
posted by dios at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2007

She went to the doctor before she went to the police?

Yes, probably, but only because she likely went to the doctor before she was raped.
posted by oaf at 2:10 PM on January 30, 2007

Ah, I see: "Adding to the mother's ire is her claim that a jail nurse prevented her daughter from taking a second dose of emergency contraception prescribed by a nurse at a clinic as part of a rape examination."

Still, I'm a big believer in non-governmental rape-victim advocates. It's a confusing system, and it helps to have someone who hasn't just been victimized to walk you through the legal/medical hurdles you'll face, even in more ideal circumstances.
posted by anotherpanacea at 2:10 PM on January 30, 2007

Forget about the 'morning after' pill -- whether she was refused to take the second dose in time -- and whether such action was the result of a jail worker's religious conviction. The simple fact that the police are acknowledging that they jailed an alleged rape victim for two-days, having her go through an eight-hour booking process, not to mention the slowing of the investigation of her claim, is outrageous enough.
posted by ericb at 2:10 PM on January 30, 2007

dios, that preview button is your friend - as I realized my mistake and posted so right after that post.

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

Of course it doesn't. There are many valid medications (this being one of them) that someone just arrested might have to take - and they shouldn't be denied those either.

So...what's the fabulous reason medication that was prescribed to her and needed to be taken at a certain time wasn't given to her? Why am I suspecting that if it was heart medication she would have gotten it no problem?
posted by agregoli at 2:11 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Pointing out that the story is only an "allegation" is a way for you to quash discussion because you don't actually want to be so bold as to completely disagree on the merits.
posted by footnote at 4:03 PM CST on January 30

Bullshit. Complete bullshit. What I know from experience is that 9 times out of 10 these hyperbolic stories based only on the allegations of the aggrieved party turn out to be untrue. Or at least, the most outrageous points are exaggerated for effect. Hell, the second source suggests as much.

So don't play that crap.
posted by dios at 2:11 PM on January 30, 2007

footnote: "Dios, everything reported in the news could turn out not to be true in the end. All the comments here might as well have a disclaimer that "If this doesn't turn out to be true, then I'm not outraged.""

Damned straight. Dios, you have no right to get in the way of our outrage.

In other news, I just flagged this post as 'noise.' How about that?
posted by koeselitz at 2:12 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

anotherpanacea writes "She went to the doctor before she went to the police? "

No. The police took her to a rape crisis center after she initially reported the rape; she was prescribed the drug there. She was arrested on the way back to the station after having visited the center.

This is all in the linked article.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2007

Sorry, maybe I'm just slow, but... was the morning-after pill for the rape? She went to the doctor before she went to the police? That's actually a pretty good idea, and indicates an impressive presence of mind.

Not slow, but maybe you might read some of the newer links in the thread.

"She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, [police spokesperson] McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours." ^*

BTW -- she is a pre-med student and I suspect requested the treatment.
posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2007

So...what's the fabulous reason medication that was prescribed to her and needed to be taken at a certain time wasn't given to her? Why am I suspecting that if it was heart medication she would have gotten it no problem?
posted by agregoli at 4:11 PM CST on January 30

Suppose the pill was just something in her pocket unidentified. Suppose she was asked if she had a prescription of the unidentified pill and she didn't. Suppose any number of factors. There exists plausible reasons why a jail wouldn't let a person take a pill. Consider those instead of accepting the outrageous allegation of an interested party wholesale.
posted by dios at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2007

On preview -- what mr_roboto just said!
posted by ericb at 2:14 PM on January 30, 2007

Are you still outraged?

I wouldn't be very outraged if she weren't denied the morning-after pill because it was a morning-after pill. Annoyed enough to wag my finger in Tampa's direction, probably. The information available seems to be a bit skimpy on details, so I can't really tell. I just don't think it's a good idea that you might be denying people their heart medicine, insulin, etc., by forbidding all medication to people who are jailed.
posted by oaf at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2007

All the comments here might as well have a disclaimer that "If this doesn't turn out to be true, then I'm not outraged."

Well, that goes without saying, but there is certainly precedent for this type of abuse of power. She's not exactly accusing Martians of being eight snakeheaddumb shades of purple.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2007

The police took her to a rape crisis center after she initially reported the rape

Ah, whoops. Well, the morning-after pill is something you can carry around with you without losing its effectiveness, like aspirin, right?
posted by oaf at 2:18 PM on January 30, 2007

Suppose the pill was just something in her pocket unidentified. Suppose she was asked if she had a prescription of the unidentified pill and she didn't. Suppose any number of factors. There exists plausible reasons why a jail wouldn't let a person take a pill. Consider those instead of accepting the outrageous allegation of an interested party wholesale.

#1: Implausible.

#2: If she didn't have a prescription, they could have checked on that. And I find it hard to believe she didn't, she just came from the hospital, for crying out loud. Still implausible.

Why are you grasping at straws? Why do you resent the fact that we believe the story as presented? What's it to you, basically?

I don't really care about your "what ifs." You're postulating for unknown reasons. We have no reason to doubt the story at the moment and hopefully more facts come to light as it progresses.
posted by agregoli at 2:18 PM on January 30, 2007

What I know from experience is that 9 times out of 10 these hyperbolic stories based only on the allegations of the aggrieved party turn out to be untrue.

If you think this is unpostworthy newsfilter, fine. I just feel like you might be objecting because of the underlying content, not because of the source.
posted by footnote at 2:19 PM on January 30, 2007

Hey, we either discuss the link, or we don't. And the point of this site is to discuss the link. We all know stories can change, what is your objection to using metafilter the way it's intended, dios?
posted by agregoli at 4:15 PM CST on January 30

What about being informed about you are discussing? This is the fundamental problem with single link newsfilter posts. The link being discussed is less informed and less complete then the story on the front page of the Tampa paper I linked to, but we are supposed to discuss the AP story as fact? That is the problem with the single source. The problem is accentuated by the nature of Newsfilter: stories develop and initial stories are apt to be wrong in particulars or completely.

That is the problem with Newsfilter and that is why it doesn't fit within the normal use of "metafilter the way it's intended."
posted by dios at 2:19 PM on January 30, 2007

The policespokesman, Laura McElroy has publicly ackowledged that the police knew the alleged victim had taken the first dose -- and also ackowledges the fact it is known that a second dose should be taken after 24-hours.
posted by ericb at 2:24 PM on January 30, 2007

dios :

Or at least, the most outrageous points are exaggerated for effect.

Maybe if you try underlining that the _newspaper_ may have distorted/exaggerated the allegations , then somebody may see that you are not accusing the victim of being necessarily a liar.

You usually pay such a commendable attention to logic and details that some people may consider your _apparent_ detachment from the victim as a very odd discontinuity in attention.

even though that just comes from her mother and her attorney (already lawyered up and making allegations).

And you are using just the links as support for your suggestion the lawyer is doing some "lawyering" like accusing left and right of whatever could stick.
posted by elpapacito at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2007

What about being informed about you are discussing?

Yeah, what about that? Dios, maybe you should read the freaking article just once before you start "commenting."
posted by bshort at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2007

What about being informed about you are discussing? This is the fundamental problem with single link newsfilter posts.

So flag it and move on. Or make a whiny MeTa thread about it. We are not interested in hearing your crying here, is the point.
posted by agregoli at 2:27 PM on January 30, 2007

dios - stop blindly supporting the cops every time they screw up. Geeze!

Suppose the pill was just something in her pocket unidentified. Suppose she was asked if she had a prescription of the unidentified pill and she didn't.

Sure, except

"She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, [police spokesperson] McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours."

THE COPS TOOK HER TO THE RAPE CRISIS CENTER. THEY SAW HER GET THE PILLS.
posted by MythMaker at 2:31 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Newsfilter: stories develop

And MetaFilter is one of those blogs/sites where many astute participants keep the community 'up-to-date' and informed as more information becomes available.

Don't like Newsfilter threads, then skip them. If so, keep up with new links, etc.
posted by ericb at 2:43 PM on January 30, 2007

This is why I hate Christians.
posted by mds35 at 2:45 PM on January 30, 2007

ANYWAY.

Enough derailment, eh?
posted by agregoli at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2007

ericb: "Don't like Newsfilter threads, then skip them."

The trouble with telling dios that is: if we didn't have him to be outraged at, this silly thread would've ended fifty comments ago.
posted by koeselitz at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2007

I'm not sure what facts could come to light that would make this story any less disgusting.

So it was a felony, not a misdemeanor? Does it matter? I don't care if she killed someone in cold blood that morning. Treat her as a victim first, and a criminal second.

Even if the pill was an unidentified substance in her pocket. (which it shouldn't have been, since the cops took her to get them..) When she said "hey, I need my prescription" they should have looked into it, which, since many prescriptions are time-sensitive, should have taken much less than 24 hours.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 2:50 PM on January 30, 2007 [2 favorites]

Reuters is now reporting on the incident. The police chief makes a public statement himself.

"Tampa Police Chief Steve Hogue said in a statement that he was revising the department's arrest policies to give supervisors more discretion in similar situations.

'When I learned that the victim of a sexual battery was arrested on an outstanding warrant, I was very concerned that our policy did not allow a greater degree of discretionary latitude,' Hogue said.

posted by ericb at 2:59 PM on January 30, 2007

This is why I hate Christians.

Assholes come in all denominations. This is why people with a lack of empathy and a self-righteous sense of knowing what's good for anyone else -- no matter whether their excuse is God, science or their own convenience.

Just as I don't expect all agnostics to be a stand-in for everything I believe, I don't judge every Christian based on the fact that they've got some a-holes that like the same book as they do.
posted by Gucky at 3:02 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

Oaf, your comments in this thread are all eponysterical. RTFA already.

Wow, someone isn't very well-traveled.

Well-traveled nothing. I lived there for six years, and left less than a year ago. I stand by my comment.
posted by SassHat at 3:05 PM on January 30, 2007

Eh, Florida's all right if you like parking lots.
posted by The Card Cheat at 3:06 PM on January 30, 2007

I stand by my comment.

Well, you know that there's quite a bit redeeming about Florida, then, so I don't have to explain it to you. Or you clearly haven't been around that much.
posted by oaf at 3:14 PM on January 30, 2007

You realize that it is the allegation of the outraged mother, right?

And no comment by the police. Thus, we must draw conclusions based on the available information.

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

It would enhance my outrage, actually.

There are issues where it's appropriate to play devil's advocate, dios, and this isn't one of them.
posted by solid-one-love at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2007

You realize that it is the allegation of the outraged mother, right?
posted by dios

What does dios have against outraged mothers?
posted by papakwanz at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2007

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
posted by nathancaswell at 3:17 PM on January 30, 2007

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

That would be a ridiculously stupid policy.
posted by papakwanz at 3:20 PM on January 30, 2007

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage?

No, that would fuel it. Can you imagine such a policy even being remotely possible? No heart medication, no psychiatric medication, no seizure medication? The implementation of such a policy would be a legal and medical nightmare. Try again.
posted by edgeways at 3:28 PM on January 30, 2007

She was refused the morning after pill. Is this a reprehensible judgment call for the FL DOC? Yes. If this an irreversible decision? No. The victim can still have a medical abortion, which, although is rather painful, would probably be preferable to bringing the child to term.
posted by gagglezoomer at 3:31 PM on January 30, 2007

Hey guys, this is a lawyer talking.
posted by you just lost the game at 3:31 PM on January 30, 2007

This woman was treated as a victim first, she was taken to a rape crisis center in response to her statements. I'm not sure why that keeps getting left out of this equation. It was then found that there were outstanding warrants for her arrest, and she was arrested. She was mistreated there, no question. At the very least the nurse should be fired, and certainly I'd like to know why she was in jail so long, but rape isn't a get out of jail free card. Having been raped does not entitle anyone to expect that they aren't going to have to face the music on outstanding warrants or on future actions. Anyone making that case would also be arguing for vigilante justice, and would have to indicate what it is about rape that makes it such a special case.

It doesn't surprise me at all that the cops ran her name through the computer. It may well be policy to run the names of anyone filing a complaint through the database. Even if it isn't, it may be a reflex, as it is with me when someone calls my clinic to ask about a patient. Even as I tell them that I don't know if the person is a patient, and cannot even check without a signed release, I'm checking the database so that I'll have more information about what's going on. If someone's got outstanding warrants they should be concerned about interfacing with the police, and if they don't want to be concerned they should make damn sure they've taken care of all the old shit in their file.

I think the nurse fucked up hugely, and I think the police also fucked up, but I don't think that (aside from the nurse, who clearly was not acting out official policy, or the victim would not have gotten Plan B in the first place) it really rises to the level of a moral outrage. The problem with inflating it is, frankly, that it smacks of the kinds of picayune moments that are re-hashed on LGF as an indication that Karl Marx runs America: it's exaggeration driven by righteous indignation, and as such, it's too easy to dismiss.
posted by OmieWise at 3:33 PM on January 30, 2007

I have always wondered how people would react if a vegan (or even vegetarian) clerk refused to ring up meat sold at a grocery store as it is against their morals. Meat is murder and all that.

I can already hear someone say "Well, why are they working there in the first place?"
That's the same thing I want to know about this nurse and others who work in similar environments where they know they'll have to deal with contraceptives.

Bah!
posted by idiotfactory at 3:44 PM on January 30, 2007

they treated her as a victim first by taking her to the clinic... but they didn't allow her to finish her prescription (in the timeframe prescribed by the doctor at the clinic.) it makes me feel as though they didn't see it to completion. they "half-assed" it. (my opinion. now everyone tell me how i'm wrong!)

I have no problem at all with her answering for her crimes.
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 3:51 PM on January 30, 2007

Normally I'd agree with you Omie, but I'd say this story is actually deserving of all the knee-jerk indignation it gets. It's far from picayune: the denial of the Plan B was allegedly due to official policy of allowing the nurse's "religious" objections to take precedence. I'm starting to think that at some point, people in this country are going to have to make a big stand for reproductive rights -- outrage, polemics, and even a little exaggeration, might be warranted.
posted by footnote at 3:52 PM on January 30, 2007

Aren't even violent criminals, after being apprehended by force, treated for their wounds before being taken into custody?

Sorry, that's what crossed my mind. Sorry because now I have to ask: is a forced pregnancy considered an injury?
posted by krippledkonscious at 3:58 PM on January 30, 2007

Religion! Who knew it could be so fun?
posted by luckypozzo at 3:59 PM on January 30, 2007

Remember the Bugs Bunny cartoon where he was insulted at the low price of Rabbit fur compared to other furs so he decided to raise a huge bounty on himself by committing HUGE acts of vandalism? Remember when bugs sawed off the isthmus of Florida right on the state line and it floated off into the Atlantic.

Let's do that.
posted by tkchrist at 4:05 PM on January 30, 2007

krippledkonscious writes "Aren't even violent criminals, after being apprehended by force, treated for their wounds before being taken into custody?"

She was treated! Yes, half-assed, and yes, the nurse should not have been allowed to refuse her the final dose of the meds, she wasn't just thrown in a cell with a dirty blanket and some stale bread until she had her baby.

footnote, you may be right, and I have to think about it more. I hate the idea of these shield laws, and they drive me crazy. The idea that a pharamcist can avoid doing their job because they don't like it strikes me as very wrong. There is something different, here, though, more egregious, because this woman was receiving care at a state facility, where she was being kept under mandate. While I'm not sure what the policy is (is it a dept policy, part of state law, what?), it does seem to change things that the state essentially allowed religion to intrude into the care given to this woman in a state facility.
posted by OmieWise at 4:06 PM on January 30, 2007

You realize that it is the allegation of the outraged mother, right?

You realize the AP article already indicated that the allegation came from the lawyer, right? And that identifying the lawyer as the victim's mother would essentially identify the victim, which the AP does not do, right? The AP article was very clear in mentioning that they do not release the name of alleged rape victims in their articles.

Ultimately, though, I don't know why you've decided that the laywer/mother issue somehow means this situation doesn't deserve an outraged response.
posted by smashingstars at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2007

Welcome to Jeb Bush's Florida. He's the "responsible" one.
posted by delmoi at 4:23 PM on January 30, 2007

delmoi writes "Welcome to Jeb Bush's Florida. He's the 'responsible' one."

As others have pointed out, he hasn't been for over a month now. The new guy looks like a total wanker, though.
posted by mr_roboto at 4:25 PM on January 30, 2007

OmieWise: She was treated! Yes, half-assed, and yes, the nurse should not have been allowed to refuse her the final dose of the meds, she wasn't just thrown in a cell with a dirty blanket and some stale bread until she had her baby.

I'm merely pointing out additional legal complications - I'm aware that she received some treatment. However, she was denied the second dose, for whatever reason, and this might result in a pregnancy. In which case, all kinds of new crap gets piled on, including my question of whether the police/nurse can be held liable for allowing the pregnancy to happen, and whether a forced pregnancy can even be considered injurious. In other words, the extent of her "damages" are not even known yet, so whether the police rendered all applicable aid is still in question.

And this is just side salad with the other issues in this case, and largely hypothetical, and by the time we know all the facts our attention will surely be on new outrages.
posted by krippledkonscious at 4:27 PM on January 30, 2007

There is something different, here, though, more egregious, because this woman was receiving care at a state facility, where she was being kept under mandate.

Your instinct is correct.

Normally, the government has no obligation at all to do anything to help you -- the police can stand by and watch you get murdered, pretty much. But when you're in state custody, the government has a higher, affirmative duty to prevent harm. It's a much different legal (constitutional) situation than if a private pharmacist refuses to provide medication to a free person.
posted by footnote at 4:37 PM on January 30, 2007

That sounds very lawyerly, footnote- so how come dios didn't make that point earlier?
posted by hincandenza at 4:43 PM on January 30, 2007

elendil71 writes "Although it sounds horrible in this case, pretty much every police agency runs routine checks on everyone they take in for any reason. It's just policy."

Yes, standard operating procedure for all police departments.

"This worst of all this is that the next woman with an old warrant that gets raped will decide not to report it, in fear of being jailed. "

This is the price you pay anytime you've got an outstanding warrant, you can't call the police unless you want to have the warrant served. You've got to decide whether getting justice is worth have justice applied to you.

Green Eyed Monster writes "So it was a felony, not a misdemeanor? Does it matter? I don't care if she killed someone in cold blood that morning. Treat her as a victim first, and a criminal second. "

Which they did.
posted by Mitheral at 4:43 PM on January 30, 2007

[jeb bush] Isn't in charge. What a stupid comment.

He was in charge for what, the last eight years? Christ has been in for what, a month? His policies and ideas guide the state, right into the fucked-up sociopatic government we have today.

If it were to come out that there was a standing policy that no medication be taken at all in by persons under custody, does that assuage your outrage? -- dios

No medication? So any arrest of a diabetic would be a life sentence? No antibiotics for bacterial infections? No inhalers for asthmatics? Are you out of your fucking mind?

Suppose the pill was just something in her pocket unidentified. Suppose she was asked if she had a prescription of the unidentified pill and she didn't. Suppose any number of factors. There exists plausible reasons why a jail wouldn't let a person take a pill. -- dios

Suppose you didn't always leap to the defense of the most depraved and disgusting government behavior. Seriously, what the fuck?

And as agregoli mentioned, don't you think they had some responsibility to figure out wtf was going on? I mean we are talking about a rape victim here. Regardless of what "Plausible" reason the jail had, it was a disgusting thing to do. It doesn’t make any difference what policy they had, it was wrong.

What about being informed about you are discussing? This is the fundamental problem with single link newsfilter posts. The link being discussed is less informed and less complete then the story on the front page of the Tampa paper I linked to, but we are supposed to discuss the AP story as fact? -- dios

The AP is a legitimate news organization, and it's perfectly reasonable to assume what they write is true, and checked with multiple source. Just because you wish something wasn't true doesn't mean it's not. I know you don't like newsfilter, Dios, and by your logic it would be impossible to discuss any news at all. No one is stopping you from running your own site.
posted by delmoi at 4:50 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

That sounds very lawyerly, footnote- so how come dios didn't make that point earlier?
posted by hincandenza at 6:43 PM CST on January 30

Because he misstated the law. I've had prisoner cases who sue my hospitals. I know the law in this area. She has to show a deprivation of civil rights.

There is no claim for medical malpractice for prisoner's as wards of the state. There is only a claim under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of civil rights. In order to prove that claim, a prisoner must show that the governmental official acted or failed to act with subjective deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97 (1976); Farmer v. Brennan, 511 US. 825 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth 74 F.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996, en banc). Negligence or gross negligence is insufficient to establish deliberate indifference as a matter of law. See Estelle, 429 U.S. at 104-06.

The prisoner in this case must show the she sustained injuries that were proximately caused by the governmental policy. Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F.2d 762 (5th Cir. 1984). Finally, a governmental entity may not be held liable under s 1983 unless the constitutional deprivation was caused by a government policymaker. Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 481 (1986).

So this prisoner has to show that the people at the jail knew that she had a serious medical need, and yet, they subjectively and deliberately were indifferent to that medical issue. The initial question is, of course, whether she is pregnant. If she isn't, then she has not been proximately harmed by anything and she has not claim. (Again, why it would great to wait before jumping on this news). If she is pregnant, she would have to show that the city was aware of the risk but just didn't care. Here, we don't know that. All we have is the allegation that a nurse knew she needed it but didn't give it to her for personal reasons. If that is true, then it is not a constitutional deprivation by a policymaker under Pembaur. It is a deprivation by a nurse, arguably. Moreover, there is no indication that they knew or should have known there was a serious medical need that they were consciously indifferent to. If they have a value neutral policy that was followed, there will be no civil rights claim because there will be no subjective deliberate indifference.

In sum, there are no where near the amount of facts available to start discussing a legal claim. This isn't simple negligence (they knew or should have know she needed the drug). She has to show conscious indifference, which if footnote does in fact know anything about the law, she will tell you is the highest level of culpability that one must prove in this context.

Look, I said in my first or second post that this policy is bad. They should have had something different in place. Good for them for changing it. But I highly, highly doubt the argument that the nurse refused her medication she knew she had to have because of religious reasons. I am quite confident there is more to the story. And all the outrage is rather spurious given the absence of important information, specifically, the jail's side of it.
posted by dios at 5:00 PM on January 30, 2007

And yes, I lifted that case information from a previous briefing that I did on the subject, so I apologize for the lack of links.
posted by dios at 5:01 PM on January 30, 2007

I'm totally fine with this. The cabs are private companies, not state provided services. The problem here is that a state agent refused and blocked another state agent from acting.

---

Thing is that livery are licensed and regulated by the city or state or other municipality, as part of a service you perform as part of that license. An individual may be able to discriminate in their private vehicle, or perhaps even in a company vehicle used for internal company use. But you dont get to commit religious discrimination when you are providing a service to the public.
posted by MrLint at 5:02 PM on January 30, 2007

Moreover, there is no indication that they knew or should have known there was a serious medical need that they were consciously indifferent to.

In hastily throwing that together, I made an important and fundamental mistake in this sentence. There has to be an indication that they where consciously aware of her medical need. So I was sloppy in my words in this sentence when I used the lower standard of "knew or should have known." My apologies.
posted by dios at 5:15 PM on January 30, 2007

Another vote for outrage. This case might be anomalous, but the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of people in this country who think their skygod trumps our shared rights under the Constitution/BoR is worth worrying about.

And if I'm overly paranoid about Christianists, fine. That's my problem. If they take away your right to something as essential as proper medical care, don't say I didn't warn you.

(And it's hardly a Christian thing, it's a Majority of World Religions thing. In some Muslim countries, she'd be murdered by her own family for "asking" for the rape. Funny how much rhe Religious Right and Muslim radicals have in common, in spirit if not degree.)
posted by bardic at 5:16 PM on January 30, 2007

1 - Did the alleged victim receive dosage #1 of two doses of the "morning-after" pill on Saturday afternoon. Yes.

2 - Were the police aware of this and that a second dosage was required 24-hours later? Yes.

3 - How do we know these two facts? Tampa Police spokesperson Laura McElroy provided this information to the AP.

4 - Did the alleged victim receive the second pill 24-hours later on Sunday afternoon? No -- according to reports she was given the second dosage on Monday "after reporters called police and jail officials."

5 - Was the delay in giving her a second dosage the result of a nurse objecting due to religious grounds? Not known for sure -- the alleged vicitim's attorney has made this claim and police will not comment on it due to patient confidentiality.

6 Did the police "fuck up." Yes. They've already announced changes in policy regarding the manner in which they handled this alleged victim...and will investigate the mishap regarding the medication.
posted by ericb at 5:35 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

When I said that Jeb was the "Responsible" one, I was referring, sarcastically, to various conservatives who talk up Jebya longingly, calling him responsible, compared to his brother.

Is Jeb responsible for this? Well, the law was his idea, right? It doesn't make too much sense to blame Charlie Crist, who's only been in charge for a month.
posted by delmoi at 5:39 PM on January 30, 2007

Dios - Despite what you say, I think what actually happened was that the fundamentalist jail nurse stood by as the sadistic guards raped this poor woman and then prevented her from taking her asthma medication because she believed that the victim was "asking for it." And that's my opinion. And I'm entitled to it.
posted by Slap Factory at 5:50 PM on January 30, 2007

Hincandeza -- I think that footnote was quicker to cite that constitutional standard of care than Dios because law students are often closer to those sorts of subjects than practitioners who rarely have much everyday experience with them.
posted by Slap Factory at 5:52 PM on January 30, 2007

ABC News/Tampa-St. Petersburg:

"A Hillsborough Sheriff's official confirms a nurse at the jail is accused of refusing to give the woman the 'morning after' pill she was prescribed after the incident.

The nurse claims it was because of religious beliefs.

The Sheriff's office issued a statement today saying it was investigating the claim.

The woman involved spent the day talking to rape crises counselors."

posted by ericb at 6:34 PM on January 30, 2007

Also:

"The victim also claimed she was not given the morning after pill because of a jail employee's religious concerns. The employee said she is not allowed to give medication without direct orders. The employee has been placed on administrative leave."

posted by ericb at 6:37 PM on January 30, 2007

ericb -

It's not clear to me that, as you say, the police were aware that the second dose should be taken 24 hours later. The AP article says:

She reported the rape Saturday afternoon, and officers took her to a rape crisis center where she was given the first of two doses of the morning-after pill, McElroy said. The second dose is supposed to be taken within 24 hours.

So maybe you can infer from the fact that the police took her to the rape crisis center that they knew about the medication she was taking. I have no way of knowing if police are immediately privy to that kind of information. But regardless, I read the second sentence as the AP reporter imparting information to the reader, not McElroy. At best, it's ambiguous.

Also, when it comes to playing "what did they know and when did they know it?", we have to remember that there are two sets of government actors here: the police, and the jail officials. Again, it's not clear to me what, if anything, the police told the jail officials about the woman's medication--or what they should have told the jail officials, but didn't.

That said, let me just add -- look, if the facts are as reported, then I think this is an outrage. Absolutely. But my first instinct upon reading that AP article, which depended for its most inflammatory allegations on the victim-felon's mother and lawyer, was skepticism. To flip the situation, if I read a news article sourced almost exclusively to a prosecutor, I would have the same reaction--what am I not being told here? Wouldn't you? I don't see any reason to apply a different standard just because the story is coming from a defense attorney.

Again, again -- yes, it could all be true, and if so, that's outrageous. Just so we're clear.
posted by chinston at 6:54 PM on January 30, 2007

From more recent reporting we are learning that the police have confirmed that an investigation is underway regarding the delay in the alleged victim receiving a second dose.

The alleged victim, a pre-med student was most likely given directions at the rape crisis center to take the second dose 24-hours later. She was likely required to hand over personal possessions at the jail (including the just-prescribed medication). It seems reasonable that at some point during her 8-hour booking procedure she mentioned the instructions to authorities that she had been told to take the second dose 24-hours later. It is obvious that such would be administered by a nurse in the jail/police facility.

Whatever the reason for the delay in administering appropriate health care at the jail, the nurse is now on administrative leave and an investigation is underway for the delay.
posted by ericb at 7:06 PM on January 30, 2007

Is Jeb responsible for this? Well, the law was his idea, right? It doesn't make too much sense to blame Charlie Crist, who's only been in charge for a month.

It would make more sense to blame the legislature, since they actually make the laws.
posted by oaf at 7:06 PM on January 30, 2007

"Debbie Carter, a spokeswoman for the Sheriff's Office, which runs the jail, said she couldn't comment on the situation because medical information is private. But she said medical service policies are set by Armor Correctional Health Services, which contracts with the jail.

Armor's corporate offices were closed late Monday when the St. Petersburg Times tried to reach a spokesperson" ^*
posted by ericb at 7:11 PM on January 30, 2007

Armor Correctional Health Services:

"MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of Armor Correctional Health Services is to deliver health care that will be regarded as the standard for correctional facilities nationwide while continually advancing innovative health care practices.

VISION STATEMENT
The vision of Armor Correctional Health Services is to provide a clinically-driven model of quality health services to patients in correctional facilities utilizing health care professionals committed to providing innovative, outcome-based practices in a cost effective manner. Armor will treat all patients with respect and dignity and will work to achieve client satisfaction in all areas of service. A high priority is placed on effectively managing its organizational resources to achieve excellence in services, clinical outcomes and financial performance.

CORE VALUES
Exceptional Service to our Patients
Accountability for Positive Outcomes
Value to our Employee Family & Develop Professional Leadership
Builds Collaborative Teams Including Community Linkage
Foster an Innovative Environment"

posted by ericb at 7:16 PM on January 30, 2007

This is another one of those situations where all I can do is mindlessly throw hate at fundamentalist Christians and police. Where are the good cops in this situation? Where are the unoppressive Christians when stupid shit like this is happening? Does any cop follow their duties anymore? Does any Christian in a position of power and responsibility such as a Nurse for fuck's sake really follow their oaths? Hell, do any of them even follow the spirit of the fucking Bible? I really need to see some examples of people actually doing their fucking duties or I'm going to lose my shit. Too many situations like this are popping up, damnit.
posted by tehloki at 7:26 PM on January 30, 2007

I've been amazed by the idea that the cops would run a check on a VICTIM. I understand someone picked up for something, or "taken in" as someone said earlier. But what would be the point of checking up on a victim unless they had a reason to be suspicious of her claim.

Perhaps I am naive.
posted by etaoin at 7:49 PM on January 30, 2007

I think the fact that the cops drove her to the clinic to get the pills beforehand and then she was not allowed to take them afterwards is what's blowing minds right now.

Also, I'm just going to throw this out there. They should have arrested her but they still could have continued the investigation rather than just driving her back to the station. Unless there's a law that says they have to deliver the arrested individual to the police station in 30 minutes or the pizza is free, I don't see how just stopping the investigation cold like that is useful.

Yes they called in an investigator, but so what? The time it took to do that pretty much guaranteed that any "time sensitive leads" would have gone dead, so. Personally I think the police made a horrible desicion. Now they probably won't ever arrest the man responsible for the rape and the woman might have to undergo a surgical abortion (assuming she doesn't carry to term, which I doubt she would want to).
posted by Talanvor at 8:00 PM on January 30, 2007

So I'm way too late on this thing, but I'd like to support everything that dios said, except for the legalese which I didn't finish reading. He is being reasonable. That is all.
posted by taliaferro at 10:05 PM on January 30, 2007

There's hardly anything surprising about it.

Put Christian conservative republicans in charge of anything and watch it turn to shit.
posted by rougy at 10:45 PM on January 30, 2007 [1 favorite]

As I read this thing, there's two very big problems here. The arrest of the rape victim on prior charges led to her incarceration within 8 hours of her reporting the crime against her, but the Tampa police force (due to some nudging from her lawyer and the local media) has taken steps to change thier procedures. So that's a good step. But what's troubling is the behavior of the nurse. She's a contract employee, and she seems to be arguing that without the direct order of her supervisor, she was free to deny the plan b to the rape victim. But this happened on a weekend, and I wonder if her supervisor would have been available. Was she taking advantage of the situation to make a statement about her beliefs? This seems to me to be the worst case scenario regarding the shield laws. If there isn't another employee in place who can take over for the offended party, then the shield law becomes vigilante justice.
posted by maryh at 10:52 PM on January 30, 2007

Please stop calling this soulless morons 'Christians'. If it doesn't have compassion, it ain't a Christian. They are ZOMBIES!

It is vitally important to lock people up based on years-old warrants/information for juvenile issues that may be incorrect, especially on weekends. (exceptions my be granted for those poltically connected, or able to generate appropriate connections with that well-known conductor called 'campaign contribution')

This so reminds me of the Johnny Bravo story where he plays security guard, and penalizes anyone caught...complaining of security violations.

I speak as someone who was once threatened by a state trooper (in Michigan) for daring to complain of his mishandling of a matter in which I was the victim. (Note: Florida is largely populated by old folks from Michigan, at least those not from New York).
posted by Goofyy at 11:54 PM on January 30, 2007

I'm not entirely certain how many hours, or days, or weeks or what have you, the police should wait before executing a standing warrant against you when you march up to them to report a crime.

I mean, I get the chilling effect argument; I really do. And obviously the necessary-medication factor is a whole other thing. But this idea that "someone committed a crime against me therefore I get this magic 48-hour period (or whatever) where you shouldn't arrest me" is... weird, at the very least. And of course the seriousness of the crimes on the warrant matter. You don't arrest a person who hasn't paid their parking tickets when they've come to you to report a rape. Wanted murderer? I kinda think you do. Unless you take such a black and white view of human nature that you think that victims and perpetrators are always different people. Hint: they're not.

oh, and ease up on dios for clearing up several matters (such as the supposed dropping of the investigation) that made up part of what made this such an outrageous set of circumstances. As for casting doubt on other details, that's hardly a hanging offence just because the R word was invoked. You people are why juries are just plain scary.
posted by dreamsign at 12:33 AM on January 31, 2007

Goofyy: actually, they're the Christians who embody the traditional bulk of the religion's system of moral values and dogma. The "moderates" are just born rational agnostics who had the idea of god pounded so far into their head as a child, they can't get it out.
posted by tehloki at 12:58 AM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

tehloki: embody the traditional bulk of the religion's system of moral values and dogma.

Oh, I see your problem. All kinds of un-Christian words there, such as 'tradition', 'bulk', 'religion', 'system' and 'dogma'. But of course, you probably realize that (bunch of smart folks hang out on Metafilter, doncha know).

I stand with my assesment that these are zombies. America will do much better when it quits worrying about the yammering of a bunch of undead corpses. Surely you agree with that, eh?
posted by Goofyy at 2:35 AM on January 31, 2007

etaoin writes "I've been amazed by the idea that the cops would run a check on a VICTIM. I understand someone picked up for something, or 'taken in' as someone said earlier. But what would be the point of checking up on a victim unless they had a reason to be suspicious of her claim.

"Perhaps I am naive."

You are. You have no idea why they ran the check. Maybe the woman said something, maybe it was idle curiosity, perhaps it was policy, perhaps it was a mistake. What we know is that the cops got her medical care, and then, they arrested her. They even checked with a Sargeant to figure out if that was the right thing to do. It seems to me they handled that just as it should be handled. (Although I'm not sure why she was in jail for so long.)

Talanvor writes "They should have arrested her but they still could have continued the investigation rather than just driving her back to the station. Unless there's a law that says they have to deliver the arrested individual to the police station in 30 minutes or the pizza is free, I don't see how just stopping the investigation cold like that is useful.

"Yes they called in an investigator, but so what? The time it took to do that pretty much guaranteed that any 'time sensitive leads' would have gone dead, so."

So, tell me, how are rape investigations handled in your state? In Florida? First, the victim's mother said she felt that the investigation had been stopped. That does not make it so. Second, and more to the point, investigations are normally handled by investigators or detectives. What is it that you imagine happening, the cops throwing on their blinkers, running their patrol car up on the curb, and throwing some "perps" up against some buildings? In my experience patrol cops don't investigate complaints for major crimes like rape, so there's always an investigator called in. The police miss time sensitive stuff all the time, not because they're devils, because they're a beurocracy.
posted by OmieWise at 4:45 AM on January 31, 2007

This woman was Schiavoed, DeLayed, Fristed, and Jebbed!

Good old Florida, making the other southern states look better by comparison year after year.
posted by nofundy at 5:46 AM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

Isn't Tampa/Clearwater "Tom Cruise, the Second Coming" territory?
posted by nofundy at 5:47 AM on January 31, 2007

Dios, that's a great post -- the woman's attorneys can lift it straight from Mefi and put it into her summary judgment oppostion. And remember, this isn't just a deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim, but it's also an interference with her fundamental liberty interest in reproductive choice. That may be subject to a different standard than deliberate indifference. Finally, she's not a prisoner but a pre-trial detainee, which may have some bearing on the standard of care. I'm guessing that you're correct, though, and the standard is still deliberate indifference.

My post, on the other hand, wasn't analyzing what the woman's particular civil rights claim would be. I was explaining why Florida's shield law might not operate at all in the situation of government custody. And over course, the fact that the government becomes responsible for your health and welfare once you're in governmental custody, in a way that it's not if you're free, is one underlying reason why the woman might have a civil rights claim in the first place.
posted by footnote at 6:01 AM on January 31, 2007

I mean, they can take your post and just subsitute in the opposite conclusions to your statements of the law:

serious medical need = preventing conception
deliberate indifference = cops and nurse knew she needed the medication because the cops took her to the clinic in the first place, and they knew she had been raped
harm = pregnancy, or the period of time she's worried that she will get pregnant, or an abortion.
policy = the department's policy of throwing rape victims into jail without allowing them to complete their treatment.

Honestly, I've read a lot of prison litigation cases, and I can't think of one with better facts than this.
posted by footnote at 6:11 AM on January 31, 2007

My very last comment: here's a good Findlaw article about prisoners' reproductive rights.
posted by footnote at 6:40 AM on January 31, 2007

Honestly, I've read a lot of prison litigation cases, and I can't think of one with better facts than this.
posted by footnote at 8:11 AM CST on January 31

All the ones that I have read or handled were because they dealt with serious medical needs, such as the one I had where the prisoner alleged we didn't get him to a doctor soon enough for his eye injury and it resulted in him going blind. "Eye popping out of socket, need medical help" is a serious medical need.

The problem is that you are assuming she is, in fact, pregnant. Take away that assumption, and it all falls apart. Again, if she is not pregnant, there is absolutely no basis for a case or hand-wringing over this. Where is the harm? Where is the medical need? Where is the damage?

But even assuming that she is pregnant, she still would have to show that the right to a second morning after pill is a serious medical need. I am unaware of any case which holds that the right to a second morning after pill is a medical need of the prisoner. Suppose they arrest someone during a bank robbery, and that robber said, "Prior to the robbery, I had sex. Give me the morning after pill." Do you think that it is a serious medical need of that prisoner to receive such a pill, the failure of which rises to the level of conscious indifference and a deprivation of a civil right? I suspect not.
posted by dios at 6:43 AM on January 31, 2007

The harm (which is very significant) is the panicked 2 weeks she's going to spend wondering if she's pregnant as a result of being raped by a stranger. No need to prove she's pregnant.

Even if this isn't characterizable as a "medical" need, it's still undoubtably interference with the constitutional right to reproductive choice, which would be measured either by Casey or Turner v. Safely.
posted by footnote at 7:30 AM on January 31, 2007

etaoin writes "I've been amazed by the idea that the cops would run a check on a VICTIM. "

Every time you identify yourself to cops they run your ID. Exactly for the reason of catching people with outstanding warrants. It's the whole point of arrest warrants. And they'll be especially vigilant if you are from out of town, which it appears she was. Besides, no cop wants to be the guy to let some escaped from gaol serial killer get away, it looks really bad on your CV.

Also I'm in agreement with dreamsign, how long and for what crimes should the victim of any crime be given a look the other way when identifying themselves to the police? And what about the victim of their crime? Would everyone outraged that she was arrested (Note: arrested, not the failure to provide EBC) be happy if it was their car which had been stolen and the Police just let the thief go because she was a rape victim?
posted by Mitheral at 7:31 AM on January 31, 2007

I'm torn on the issue of immediately arresting crime victims. Of course they shouldn't be able to get a free pass from their prior crimes, but it's undoubtably true that the policy will keep victims from reporting crimes. It seems like bad policy.

It's very similar to the need to keep immigration and local policing separate: if you get an immigration check run on you if you report a crime, then no undocumented person is going to report a crime. Many local police chiefs have come out against having to enforce immigration laws for just this reason -- it makes it impossible to gain the trust of the community and get witnesses and victims to come forward.
posted by footnote at 7:44 AM on January 31, 2007

There is no claim for medical malpractice for prisoner's as wards of the state. There is only a claim under 42 USC 1983 for deprivation of civil rights. In order to prove that claim, a prisoner must show that the governmental official acted or failed to act with subjective deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs.

(didja submit your brief with the grocer's plural, dios?)

You think Estelle supports the jail on this one? Let me quote the relevant part of Estelle here:

We therefore conclude that deliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 173, 96 S.Ct. at 2925 (joint opinion), proscribed by the Eighth Amendment. This is true whether the indifference is manifested by prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs FN10 or by prison guards in intentionally denying or delaying access to medical *105 care FN11 or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed.FN12 Regardless of how evidenced, deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious illness or injury states a cause of action under s 1983. Estelle, 429 US at 104-105.

The more important points here are a) whether this is a serious medical need and b) damages. But consider this-- it was a serious enough need to require a prescribed treatment, which then was intentionally interfered with. I would suspect most courts would side with the plaintiff on that point. And it may not matter whether she got pregnant or not-- the fear and anxiety caused by a potential pregnancy may itself be actionable.
posted by norm at 7:46 AM on January 31, 2007

norm: I'm not sure how what you said is supposed to be refutation of anything I have posted.

But since you and footnote both brought this up, let me just briefly respond that "fear and anxiety" is never actionable. Damages have to be actual. There is no mental anguish claim unless there is also a physical harm.I can't stand on street corner and sue you because I thought you were going to hit me. You have to actually hit me for me to have a claim. So, yes, she has to actually be pregnant to have harm. Her fear that she *might* be will not support any claim, much less a civil rights claim as there is no harm at all.

This is interesting in this respect because, as I understand it, a clinic gives you a pregnancy test and only gives you a morning after pill (a contraceptive) if it shows you are not pregnant. So at the time she was taking the pill, it is my understanding that we have had a negative pregnancy test. (If that is incorrect with regards to the morning after protocol, please tell me). This is interesting for two reasons: (1) if the test showed she is not pregnant, then that really undermines the serious medical need aspect of it; and (2) if the test showed she is not pregnant, and she ultimately is not pregnant, then there is no harm whatsoever. If she ultimately becomes pregnant after a negative test, I wonder what her claim is. For one, she still can have an abortion; she hasn't been deprived of that liberty interest definitively. Moreover, I'm not sure what the courts would do about the harm. At least in this state, I know the courts have expressly rejected a "wrongful birth" cause of action, and it is my understanding other states have as well. But those tricky legal questions aren't even broached if she is not in fact pregnant because "fear of pregnancy" is not a cognizable harm.
posted by dios at 8:00 AM on January 31, 2007

From the link posted by ericb at 4:30 PM EST on January 30:

Eva Buzek, a flight attendant and Minneapolis resident, said she was recently refused service by five taxi drivers when she was carrying wine as she returned from a trip to France.

But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

It would be really great if one of those Christian pharmacists who refuses to fill birth control pill prescriptions would be refused taxi service because he is toting a six-pack.

Seriously, I think we are going to be reading more and more of these religious conviction stories until people get outraged enough to change the law.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:14 AM on January 31, 2007

Dios - cite please, that psychological harms resulting from deliberate indifference to medical needs or interference with another constitutional right are not actionable? I'm pretty sure I've read cases saying the opposite.

As for the way Plan B works -- The whole reason you take it is to prevent conception, so in any event she would not have a positive test before she took it. The test results really have no bearing on the case.
posted by footnote at 8:21 AM on January 31, 2007

But since you and footnote both brought this up, let me just briefly respond that "fear and anxiety" is never actionable. Damages have to be actual. There is no mental anguish claim unless there is also a physical harm.

Dios, the law is changing since you were in law school, and such cases have been emerging recently. In Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003), for example, the Supreme Court held that the fear of developing asbestosis was itself actionable. Other areas where "fear and anxiety" have been held actionable absent actual injury are in a) exposure to AIDS and b) fear of cancer caused by negligent exposure to carcinogens. You are correct in stating that the fear and anxiety of maybe being pregnant has not yet been held to be actionable, but your broader blanket statement is *not* true anymore.
posted by norm at 8:23 AM on January 31, 2007

norm: I'm not sure how what you said is supposed to be refutation of anything I have posted.

I posted that because Estelle says that one of the ways to demonstrate deliberate indifference is to show that the jail intentionally interfered with a prescribed treatment.
posted by norm at 8:36 AM on January 31, 2007

In Norfolk & Western Ry. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U.S. 135 (2003), for example, the Supreme Court held that the fear of developing asbestosis was itself actionable.

Is that what the Court said? Here is the quote I took from that opinion:

In sum, our decisions in Gottshall and Metro-North describe two categories: Stand-alone emotional distress claims not provoked by any physical injury, for which recovery is sharply circumscribed by the zone-of-danger test; and emotional distress claims brought on by a physical injury, for which pain and suffering recovery is permitted...

Unlike stand-alone claims for negligently inflicted emotional distress, claims for pain and suffering associated with, or "parasitic" on, a physical injury are traditionally compensable. The Restatement (Second) of Torts §456 (1963-1964) (hereinafter Restatement) states the general rule:

"If the actor's negligent conduct has so caused any bodily harm to another as to make him liable for it, the actor is also subject to liability for

"(a) fright, shock, or other emotional disturbance resulting from the bodily harm or from the conduct which causes it ... ." (Emphases added.).

And that is what I said. There has to be an attendant actual harm. In Norfolk, the Plaintiff suffered from abestiosis. What is the attendant physical harm here? There isn't any.

Mere fear of pregnancy absent any other harm is not actionable. The court in Norfolk reinforces that point. If she was never pregnant, she has no claim.
posted by dios at 8:43 AM on January 31, 2007

I think there's no question that the woman was in the "zone of danger" created by the government's actions. But I'm not sure that you'd apply common law negligence standards to this case anyway: as you earlier pointed out, negligence is not the standard in jail conditions cases.

I think you might be thinking of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, which does exclude any sort of mental harms not accompanied by a physical harm. But the PLRA doesn't apply to people who aren't prisoners when they file.
posted by footnote at 9:08 AM on January 31, 2007

Is that what the Court said?

I mistyped. The court was saying that the fear of developing cancer was actionable, not asbestosis. Nevertheless, my overall point stands: courts are rapidly moving away from the position that you must have a physical injury to prove emotional or anxiety related damages. The Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation handbook, for example, devotes a couple of chapters to this developing type of law (see MTLLL 32:20. "Negligent conduct causing emotional injury--Plaintiff as direct victim: Apprehension of harm to plaintiff--Physical injury rule--No physical injury required" for examples).

Anyway, it's pretty far afield from the overall point, which is that her anxiety caused by this action could be actionable. But here's a guess-- no court will hear about it, because the city/county will settle posthaste. Talk about some terrible facts to explain to a jury. Sheesh.
posted by norm at 9:12 AM on January 31, 2007

footnote writes "Of course they shouldn't be able to get a free pass from their prior crimes, but it's undoubtably true that the policy will keep victims from reporting crimes. It seems like bad policy.

"It's very similar to the need to keep immigration and local policing separate: if you get an immigration check run on you if you report a crime, then no undocumented person is going to report a crime."

I don't think it's quite the same thing. In the case of immigration you've got a whole group of people within the US who are basically law-abiding (aside from the immigration violation), who would have to resort to an entirely separate machinery of justice if we put immigration enforcement in the hands of local police. We also already have a whole set of Federal personnel tasked with handling the problem.

In the case of arresting people reporting crimes, it's hard to know where you would draw the line. I can immediately think about the drug trade (already completely removed from societal constraints), where dealers get stolen from reasonably frequently. Should they be able to report the theft of drugs or money from drugs and gain the police as allies? Obviously not. So what's the metric for being able to obtain relief under the law without suffering the consequences of your own past actions? Really, there have to be two measures, one which gages the crime being reported (for severity, victimhood, whatever), and one which gages the crime the reporter is not being arrested for (surely murderers don't ever get to skip out). It seems hard to imagine a system that would take the justice of all parties into account, where the present system actually seems to do that: if I report a crime it gets investigated to the full extent of the law, but if I have an outstanding warrant I have to deal with the consequences of that. Neither one affects the other. (In theory, which is all we're really talking about here.)
posted by OmieWise at 9:25 AM on January 31, 2007

courts are rapidly moving away from the position that you must have a physical injury to prove emotional or anxiety related damages. The Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation handbook, for example, devotes a couple of chapters to this developing type of law (see MTLLL 32:20. "Negligent conduct causing emotional injury--Plaintiff as direct victim: Apprehension of harm to plaintiff--Physical injury rule--No physical injury required" for examples).

Respectfully, I have never seen any court take the position that you can an emotional or anxiety-relate damage be supported without an attendant physical injury. The case you cited earlier from the Supreme Court reinforces my view. I do not have keep a copy of "MTLLL," so I can't review it. But if what you say is true, I'm sure you could provide a case cite from there that shows that courts are moving away from that and ruling that you can a claim from mental anguish without any physical injury. It would be news to me.

But I'm not sure that you'd apply common law negligence standards to this case anyway: as you earlier pointed out, negligence is not the standard in jail conditions cases.

I'm not doing that. To prove a civil rights claim, you have to prove the duty and breach, but still have to prove damages. Without damages, you have no claim. If she is not pregnant, she has no damages, and thus no claim.

So while these facts maybe strongly show that there needs to be a rethinking of the policies adopted by the police station with respect to (1) rape victims who present with outstanding warrants and (2) the provision of contraceptives to detained individuals, that does not in itself suggest there is a clear civil rights violation. There isn't. We don't even know if she is pregnant. If she is not, this seems rather much ado about nothing with respect to the pill issue.

As I asked a long time ago up-the-thread, if there is a valid, neutrally-applied rule that prevented the suspect from getting the pill (which I suspect there is), then that lowers the outrage factors, as well as eliminates the civil rights claim.
posted by dios at 9:28 AM on January 31, 2007

We don't even know if she is pregnant. If she is not, this seems rather much ado about nothing with respect to the pill issue.

I don't see how this could possibly be "much ado about nothing" about the pill issue, even if she is not pregnant. To me it is completely immaterial if she is pregnant or not.

She was given a prescribed medication and was not allowed to take the second dose of it when she needed to. I cannot fathom why, "She's not pregnant so it doesn't matter" is a valid argument. It does matter, and it will matter if this ever happens again to another rape victim turned arrestee.
posted by agregoli at 9:35 AM on January 31, 2007

agregoli: with all due respect, I know you are one of the more vehement feminist/women's rights people on this board, so I am not going to get into an argument with you about the necessity, classification, or symbolic importance of a second morning after pill with you. The quote you referred to was discussing potential legal issues surrounding this, and that was the context it which it was made. I'm not going to go into policy issues or symbolic issues of female reproductive rights which you seem to be inviting me to discuss.
posted by dios at 9:42 AM on January 31, 2007

agregoli writes "I cannot fathom why, 'She's not pregnant so it doesn't matter' is a valid argument. It does matter, and it will matter if this ever happens again to another rape victim turned arrestee."

She should have been allowed to take her medication, no doubt. If the medication was to prevent pregnancy, though, and she does not turn out to be pregnant, that would seem very germane. I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise. Yes, she may have experienced more anguish after not being able to take the pill, even if she is not pregnant, but that doesn't mean that the physical issues are irrelevant, or that simply stating that it doesn't matter if she's pregnant makes it not matter.

What if she self-soothes best by lying in a warm tub with a glass of red wine? Can she claim harm because she wasn't allowed to do that after getting arrested? I'm not trying to be flip, I spent an hour treating a rape victim yesterday evening between the time of my first comment and when I revisited this thread, and I have a lot of experience with how emotionally destructive rape can be; but thinking that rape is horrible and should not happen to people, and that we should do everything we can to help the victims of rape to feel better, does not obviate the need to have reasoned responses that take into account the always less than perfect responses to sexual violence from the point of view of the survivors.
posted by OmieWise at 9:45 AM on January 31, 2007

I'm not "inviting" you to discuss anything. And I am even less impressed with your opinion when I see you're divorcing the aspects you mention with the legal discussion - I believe it's necessary to discuss both of those aspects together.

Female reproductive rights? This is a human rights issue. It just happens to be tied up in people's ideas of reproductive freedom and who deserves to exercise it.
posted by agregoli at 9:50 AM on January 31, 2007 [2 favorites]

She should have been allowed to take her medication, no doubt. If the medication was to prevent pregnancy, though, and she does not turn out to be pregnant, that would seem very germane. I'm not sure why you would claim otherwise.

It would matter little in this case. It matters a LOT on the large scale - if we can always say, "Well, it didn't matter in that case," what about the next one?

The point is, no one knows at the time if it will matter - if she will end up pregnant. The outcome is not important. At the time, they have no idea, so far all they knew, she needed that second dose to prevent pregnancy. And the next person? Might need that dose.

And I still feel the most critical issue here has nothing to do with the pregnancy issue - she was denied prescribed medication. That to me, is a human rights violation. It has nothing to do with making the victim "feel better."
posted by agregoli at 9:53 AM on January 31, 2007

Dios - You're ignoring the "zone of danger" test. You're also ignoring the fact that another way to see the injury injury (her Roe v Wade rights to reproductive choice) occured when she was denied birth control -- the same way First Amendment injuries happen when you're denied the right to speak or Fourth Amendment injuries happen when you're illegally searched. Just because it's intangible doesn't mean there's no constitutional harm.
posted by footnote at 9:58 AM on January 31, 2007

agregoli writes "It would matter little in this case. It matters a LOT on the large scale - if we can always say, 'Well, it didn't matter in that case,' what about the next one?"

Well, sure, I completely agree. I thought we were talking about this case, the lawyers have been, and I was kind of following along. I only meant my comments to apply in this case.
posted by OmieWise at 10:02 AM on January 31, 2007

Dios - You're ignoring the "zone of danger" test.

No I am not. Maybe you are not understanding what I am saying. (You pointing that out suggests me that you are). Explain what you think I am ignoring instead of throwing a concept out there.

You're also ignoring the fact that another way to see the injury injury (her Roe v Wade rights to reproductive choice) occured when she was denied birth control

Well, at the outset, I would say that Griswald was the contraception case. Roe was an abortion case. Be that as it may, the question is: does the state have an obligation to provide the contraception? Once placed in jail, she became a custodian of the state. The rules there require that they not unduly interfere on fundemental rights unless the interference is related to a penological goal. I have no idea how to evaluate whether a nurse should have given a second morning after pill when we don't know the policy at issue or why it wasn't given. But the question is going to turn on that information. It isn't going to turn on Roe and a refusal to allow her to have an abortion. That's another issue.

And still, if she is going to prosecute a 1983 claim, she has to show damages. I provided some caselaw above. I haven't seen anything otherwise.

Until we know more facts, it is impossible to evaluate the legal aspect of this.
posted by dios at 10:21 AM on January 31, 2007

D'oh. I always leave off "n't"s accidentally. Hopefully you can still follow me.

I'm an idiot. I'm sorry.
posted by dios at 10:22 AM on January 31, 2007

Just to make note of a misunderstanding, because more than one has made the claim the police treated the woman as a victim first.

They treated her as a victim until they found out she had warrants. At that point, they stopped. All sources agree on this thus far. It is clear, from what is known, that she wasn't treated as anything else but a person with outstanding felony warrants after that point. That's fact.

If they had continued to treat her as a victim, something showing this would have occured after that point. The nurse who refused to do their job is just an inflamatory side story. This paragraph is opinion.
posted by mattfn at 10:44 AM on January 31, 2007

mattfn writes "If they had continued to treat her as a victim, something showing this would have occured after that point."

You mean they would have done something like pass the complaint onto the investigators, as they do with all rape complaints?
posted by OmieWise at 11:13 AM on January 31, 2007

The rules there require that they not unduly interfere on fundemental rights unless the interference is related to a penological goal.

That's not the rule for everything that happens in prison. Read Johnson.

My point about the "zone of danger" is that even if that's the proper test, and even if this case is in fact only about medical care (both of which I doubt) she was certainly in the "zone of danger" by any definition. The logical result of denying proper medical care is that the patient will feel distress about her condition.
posted by footnote at 11:26 AM on January 31, 2007

IA(Obviously)NAL

Questions for the lawyers in the room.

What was the legal "status" of the alleged victim while she was in the jail for two-days?

She was being held on an old warrant, accusing her of failing to pay restitution for a 2003 theft arrest. She claims that restitution was paid. No hearing, court-case or finding had been established at the time of her incarceration, as to whether her claim was/is true or not. I suspect that that is the next step in the process.

So, was she classified as a "prisoner," or is there some other status for someone who is "being held" until a resolution of the outstanding warrant has happened? Or, is everyone behind bars considered a "prisoner," no matter what?

If there is a material difference in status (between being held and being sentenced), does the 'Prison Litigation Reform Act' -- and similar rules/laws -- apply only to convicted and sentenced prisoners? Or does it apply to everyone/anyone who is held in a jail (prior, during or after conviction)?

posted by ericb at 12:18 PM on January 31, 2007

Respectfully, I have never seen any court take the position that you can an emotional or anxiety-relate damage be supported without an attendant physical injury. The case you cited earlier from the Supreme Court reinforces my view. I do not have keep a copy of "MTLLL," so I can't review it. But if what you say is true, I'm sure you could provide a case cite from there that shows that courts are moving away from that and ruling that you can a claim from mental anguish without any physical injury. It would be news to me.

This actually isn't even that new of a trend. Here's a clip from the ol' MTLLL:

It has been correctly observed that the impact doctrine "has been thoroughly repudiated by the English courts which initiated it, rejected by a majority of American jurisdictions, abandoned by many which originally adopted it, and diluted, through numerous exceptions, in the minority which retained it."[FN1]

[**norm's note, the quote comes from Battalla v. State, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 219 N.Y.S.2d 34, 176 N.E.2d 729 (1961). This was a case which involved both physical and mental injuries, but the physical injuries happened as a result of the mental distress.**]

More:

The current trend is to allow recovery for the consequences of fright negligently inflicted, notwithstanding the absence of contemporaneous physical contact.[FN2] Courts have held in favor of recovery for negligently induced emotional distress without impact.[FN3]

(32:17). Here are some case cites from the third footnote alluded to above.

Robb v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 58 Del. 454, 210 A.2d 709 (1965) (plaintiff could recover for physical injuries resulting from fright caused by train striking her car moments after she fled from it); Nickens v. McGehee, 184 So. 2d 271 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966), writ refused, 249 La. 199, 186 So. 2d 159 (1966); McCastle v. Woods, 180 So. 2d 421 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965); Belgarde v. City of Natchitoches, 156 So. 2d 132 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963); Wallace v. Coca-Cola Bottling Plants, Inc., 269 A.2d 117 (Me. 1970) (overruled on other grounds by, Culbert v. Sampson's Supermarkets Inc., 444 A.2d 433 (Me. 1982)); Occhipinti v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 252 Miss. 172, 172 So. 2d 186 (1965); Falzone v. Busch, 45 N.J. 559, 214 A.2d 12 (1965); Niederman v. Brodsky, 436 Pa. 401, 261 A.2d 84 (1970) (abrogation on other grounds recognized by, Bloom v. Dubois Regional Medical Center, 409 Pa. Super. 83, 597 A.2d 671 (1991)); Vaillancourt v. Medical Center Hospital of Vermont, Inc., 139 Vt. 138, 425 A.2d 92 (1980); Brueckner v. Norwich University, 169 Vt. 118, 730 A.2d 1086, 135 Ed. Law Rep. 198 (1999) (if plaintiff has not suffered impact, plaintiff must have been in zone of danger); Savard v. Cody Chevrolet, Inc., 126 Vt. 405, 234 A.2d 656 (1967); Hughes v. Moore, 214 Va. 27, 197 S.E.2d 214 (1973) modfg Bowles v. May, 159 Va. 419, 166 S.E. 550 (1932).

Sorry for the citedump, but I wanted to make sure I was fully illustrating my point.
posted by norm at 12:29 PM on January 31, 2007

Assuming she was arrested for the separate crime of not paying restitution, the best term for her would be "arrestee." The legal status of arrestees and pre-trial detainees is actually somewhat murky -- the Supreme Court has never said exactly where their rights derive from, but clearly they have as much, if not more, protection than convicted prisoners.

But practically speaking, arrestees probably have about the same rights as prisoners as far as prison conditions go, although in some circuits they may be seen as having somewhat broader rights than prisoners.

Arrestees aren't subject to the 8th Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment because they haven't been convicted. They can't be punished at all.

The Prison Litigation Reform Act does apply to arrestees, but only if they're asserting violations of federal law. And the PLRA doesn't apply at all once you get out of jail -- assuming the statute of limitations hasn't expired, once you get out you can file a claim for anything that happened to you in jail without being subject to the PLRA. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on this, but all the circuit courts to examine the issue agree that the PLRA doesn't apply when you get out.
posted by footnote at 12:48 PM on January 31, 2007

"But even assuming that she is pregnant, she still would have to show that the right to a second morning after pill is a serious medical need. I am unaware of any case which holds that the right to a second morning after pill is a medical need of the prisoner. Suppose they arrest someone during a bank robbery, and that robber said, "Prior to the robbery, I had sex. Give me the morning after pill." Do you think that it is a serious medical need of that prisoner to receive such a pill, the failure of which rises to the level of conscious indifference and a deprivation of a civil right? I suspect not."

Are you really that dense?

You are equating the violent rape of a woman with voluntary sex?

I hope it happens to you, dio. I swear to god, I hope it happens to you.
posted by rougy at 1:19 PM on January 31, 2007

If I needed a lawyer in this thread, I think I know who I would prefer.
posted by ericb at 2:33 PM on January 31, 2007 [1 favorite]

I find it disturbing that the article plays so much on the fact that she was jailed. I find it far more disturbing that she wasn't allowed permission to take the pill.
posted by JacksonEsquire at 2:57 PM on January 31, 2007

It seems only right that an accused felon thought to be fleeing justice would be jailed. The denial of prescribed medical care is the real issue.

I've always thought that the "shield" laws to allow pharmacists and health care providers to apply their personal ethics rather than professional ethics start us down a very slippery slope.

What is to stop me from getting a job as a pharmacist or nurse, joining the Christian scientists and demanding that they pay me for doing nothing because all medical treatment goes against Gods will.
posted by Megafly at 5:17 PM on January 31, 2007

From the various news reports I've read, the woman said that she paid the restitution 4 years ago and the warrants are the result of a clerical error. And the medical staff at the jail are employees of Armor Correctional Health Services Inc., a private contracting firm. From the link:

October 14, 2005 Tampa Tribune
A new company took over medical care this month for Hillsborough County's jail inmates after Sheriff David Gee solicited new bids rather than renew a contract with the previous provider. Armor Correctional Health Services Inc. assumed control of the jail's two 50-bed infirmaries on Oct. 1, replacing Prison Health Services. The contract will cost taxpayers $19,888,000 in its first 12 months and total more than $60 million over the course of the three-year agreement, Col. David Parrish said. PHS served Hillsborough jails for for the last three years and for seven years during the 1980s. The company came under fire and was the target of a federal lawsuit by former Hillsborough inmate Kimberly Grey earlier this year after she gave birth in a jail toilet after complaining for hours she felt ill. Her infant son died en route to the hospital. Parrish said one of the motivating factors that prompted the sheriff to open up the contract to bidding rather than to renew with PHS was the bad publicity that the jail received because of the Grey case. Armor is based in Broward County, where it holds a five- year contract with that county's five-jail system. Armor's chief executive officer, Doyle Moore, founded PHS in 1978 and stayed with the firm in various leadership positions until 2004. Four other key officers also worked for PHS.

Yeah, the story keeps getting better and better.
posted by echolalia67 at 7:26 PM on January 31, 2007

While she was behind bars, according to the college student's attorney, a jail worker refused to give her a second dose of the morning-after contraceptive pill because of the worker's religious convictions.

This person should be jailed outright.
posted by hadjiboy at 8:37 PM on January 31, 2007

Here's another case, the other way around in reverse, sans religion: Jailed woman miscarries after being denied medical treatment
posted by LordSludge at 9:29 AM on February 1, 2007

rougy writes "You are equating the violent rape of a woman with voluntary sex?

"I hope it happens to you, dio. I swear to god, I hope it happens to you."

Yeah, that's exactly what he was doing you vengeful asshole. Maybe if you learn to account for context you won't be so quick to wish violent, physical ills on other people. But probably not.
posted by OmieWise at 9:31 AM on February 1, 2007

« Older (Almost) Straight Shooting on Dope | Old School! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape
January 30, 2007 12:29 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape January 30, 2007 12:29 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

Women Jailed and refused contraceptive after reporting rape
January 30, 2007 12:29 PM Subscribe