Texas bans abortion.

[casebro]

I'm solidly pro-choice in the matter, even though my ex-wife had one without my knowledge (I didn't find out until 20 or so years after we were divorced, when my ex-sister-in-law dropped a dime on her).
...

Do you wonder who the father was?

 

[Minoosh]

So a year after the supposed ban on abortions in Texas, women can still legally get abortions in Texas? What's up with that?

Did you ever find the source I asked for?

 

[cosmicaug]

Did you ever find the source I asked for?

A month later, I'm guessing not.

 

[cosmicaug]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

So the question is, will Kennedy, who has voted ignorantly in the last 20 of 21 abortion decisions, including holding the false belief that because women might regret their decision later (ignoring this could apply to any surgical procedure decision) he should support some oppressive pro-life position, will be swayed by the reasonable arguments on the court now that Scalia's pro-life rationalizations are absent and make a better informed choice?

Let's hope so. Let's hope we don't need a fifth liberal, we only need rational arguments without Scalia's irrational but persuasive influence.

 

[Aridas]

150 miles is a very long way for anyone without a solid car and/or without the ability to take time off work (assuming they have a job in the first place). Hell, it's been years since I went more than 100 miles away from my home.

It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car... and only 9 out of 10? That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.

Besides, one would think Republicans would line up against this law. It's unnecessary government regulation and it's anti-business.

Yeah... I've long since ceased to buy the line that Republicans actually support those things in anything more than name. Similar, much less nice sounding things, perhaps, but not those.

 

[Ladewig]

It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car... and only 9 out of 10? That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.

Today, they said that 25% of women would live more than 100 miles away from an abortion clinic if the new law is enforced.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's a long, long way even for people with a decent car

Nah, it's a 2.5 - 3 hour drive, not that bad with a decent car and the US highway system, less if the speed limits are 70mph rather then 60mph.

That's openly admitting that they're still putting quite the significant potential burden on a LOT of women.

Quite agree with this, it's ridiculous that they have to travel so far. I used to have to travel 170 miles to see my Optometrist though, so I don't consider 150 that far at all.

 

[marplots]

What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?

 

[PhantomWolf]

What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?

Depends how far away the nearest Doctor's clinic is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Today, they said that 25% of women would live more than 100 miles away from an abortion clinic if the new law is enforced.

Of course that includes out of state clinic's that are not held to this important standard for womens safety.

 

[marplots]

What's a reasonable distance to travel to get an abortion?

Depends how far away the nearest Doctor's clinic is.

If there's no maximum distance, then arguments about travel seem a bit lacking. One presumes it wouldn't be a regular trip, but more of a semi-yearly holiday thing.

It's considered elective surgery, right?

 

[ponderingturtle]

If there's no maximum distance, then arguments about travel seem a bit lacking. One presumes it wouldn't be a regular trip, but more of a semi-yearly holiday thing.

It's considered elective surgery, right?

Well the waiting period and such means that it is out of the reach of those with out sufficient means. Of course such people are being irresponsible in the first place by having sex with out the financial means to take a few days off work in a hotel to get an abortion.

 

[marplots]

Well the waiting period and such means that it is out of the reach of those with out sufficient means. Of course such people are being irresponsible in the first place by having sex with out the financial means to take a few days off work in a hotel to get an abortion.

I don't think that's unique to abortion but a reflection of our healthcare system overall.

I recently signed up for VA healthcare benefits to offset what I would have otherwise had to pay to meet my Obamacare obligations. I have been informed that to use the benefit I have to drive an hour to their facility, even for emergency services (if I want them to foot the bill). On the plus side, they reimburse for mileage.

I would say the distance in my case would present a significant burden to those without transportation. Like many things, the working poor take it on the chin - making too much for the really good benefits, but too little to participate in the higher tier stuff. (Higher tier being lower-middle-class.)

My point isn't to manufacture a tu quoque, but to place abortion services in the larger context of how we approach healthcare generally and the difficulties in trying to reach "fair."

 

[newyorkguy]

I think the underlying issue is, whether the Texas law (the challenge is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court) was a good faith law or not. Whether it was really put in place to protect women or to actually try and limit access to abortion. Under Roe v. Wade women have a Constitutional right to abortion, so any law whose purpose is to limit that right is unconstitutional.

IMO the really sad thing is, anti-abortion groups have recommended using strategies such as the Texas law (similar laws are about to be enacted in Louisiana and I think Oklahoma) as a "legal" way to limit the availability of abortion. Essentially it's a charade. Texas officials lie (under oath) as to the real purpose of the law and the Court and the media have to pretend not to know that.

 

[marplots]

I think the underlying issue is, whether the Texas law (the challenge is being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court) was a good faith law or not. Whether it was really put in place to protect women or to actually try and limit access to abortion. Under Roe v. Wade women have a Constitutional right to abortion, so any law whose purpose is to limit that right is unconstitutional.

IMO the really sad thing is, anti-abortion groups have recommended using strategies such as the Texas law (similar laws are about to be enacted in Louisiana and I think Oklahoma) as a "legal" way to limit the availability of abortion. Essentially it's a charade. Texas officials lie (under oath) as to the real purpose of the law and the Court and the media have to pretend not to know that.

It will be interesting to read the decision. I find a strong parallel with gun rights and limitations, only in that case it's the other political wing wanting to use the same mechanism.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think that's unique to abortion but a reflection of our healthcare system overall.

But in other area's we don't have people specifically making things more expensive for those people to get them to avoid treatments. That is the goal of most of these laws, to add enough BS restrictions to close most abortion providers and make it so that only those of sufficient means can access this and the worthless classes can't.

I recently signed up for VA healthcare benefits to offset what I would have otherwise had to pay to meet my Obamacare obligations. I have been informed that to use the benefit I have to drive an hour to their facility, even for emergency services (if I want them to foot the bill). On the plus side, they reimburse for mileage.

Yea entitlement programs are a often insufficient.

 

[xjx388]

It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?

 

[ponderingturtle]

It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?

And can it add in any random requirement it decides it wants to raise the cost and make clinics close?

The requirements are total BS. They are there to close clinics period. So when is the government permitted to add restrictive pointless regulations solely to make a constitutionally protected right much more costly and less available?

 

[elbe]

It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one. For example, pediatric neurosurgeons are concentrated in larger urban areas. Rural people in Texas who need their services must travel for that service. And let's not fool ourselves, even finding a primary care doctor can involve travel for the medically underserved. Yet no one would suggest that we lower the standards of surgery and primary care facilities to make it easier to open up in rural areas. Why should Texas lower the standards that it's duly elected legislature as deemed appropriate?

There will always be underserved areas for services, but the issue is when the state government is taking actions to intentionally reduce current access by requiring standards that no medical agency feels are anywhere near necessary.