In 2004, a female inmate filed a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, challenging the Maricopa County Sheriff's unwritten policy that required a court order to allow the transport of an inmate for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. The unwritten policy at issue ...
read more >
In 2004, a female inmate filed a class-action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, challenging the Maricopa County Sheriff's unwritten policy that required a court order to allow the transport of an inmate for the purpose of obtaining an abortion. The unwritten policy at issue prohibited transportation of inmates offsite for elective medical procedures. The Sheriff applied that policy to women seeking abortions and as a result, would only transport women for non-therapeutic abortions if ordered by the court and if the inmate made complete financial arrangements for the procedure and for transportation costs. Plaintiff, who was represented by the ACLU, challenged the policy as violating a woman's Fourteenth Amendment right to choose to have an abortion, as articulated by Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
The Superior Court (Judge Barry C. Schneider) granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and enjoined the Sheriff and the County from enforcing the policy as applied to inmates seeking abortions. Doe v. Arpaio, 2005 WL 2173988 (Ariz.Super. Aug 25, 2005) (NO. CV 2004-009286). The Sheriff and the County appealed.
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the policy was not reasonably related to the County's professed neutral objectives and was therefore invalid. Doe v. Arpaio, 150 P.3d 1258 (Ariz.App. Div. 1 2007).
On December 21, 2007, the Sheriff and County filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. On March 24, 2008, certiori was denied.
However, Sheriff Arpaio continued to require women to obtain a court order before an abortion. In August 2008, the ACLU asked the court to hold Arpaio in contempt. In the course of settlement negotiations in this matter, Arpaio shifted tactics and began insisting that inmates who seek abortions must pay upfront for transportation and security costs. Inmates requiring transportation for other medical care were not charged for transport either before or after receiving services.
As a result, in July 2009, the ACLU challenged this prepayment policy and asked the court to prevent Arpaio from enforcing this new obstacle to care. On
October 20, 2009, the court ruled that Arpaio could no longer require inmates seeking abortion care to prepay their transportation and security costs before they can obtain an abortion. The case is now closed.
Dan Dalton - 01/15/2008
Averyn Lee - 06/09/2019
compress summary