Texas bans abortion.

[BardKesnit]

That's pretty much what the case is about. We'll have to see what the experts rule.

The attorney arguing for the TX law stated that Texas does not care about women's health. After stating about 25% of TX women would live more than 100 miles from a clinic if the law went into effect, he went on to say women in western TX can go to a clinic in New Mexico. Of course, NM law does not regulate clinics the way TX does. If the concern of the state of Texas really was women's health, there is no way TX would want to encourage women to go to an "unsafe" clinic in New Mexico.

 

[marplots]

The attorney arguing for the TX law stated that Texas does not care about women's health. After stating about 25% of TX women would live more than 100 miles from a clinic if the law went into effect, he went on to say women in western TX can go to a clinic in New Mexico. Of course, NM law does not regulate clinics the way TX does. If the concern of the state of Texas really was women's health, there is no way TX would want to encourage women to go to an "unsafe" clinic in New Mexico.

I think we'd all prefer that some entrepreneurial doctor opens a safe clinic closer to women who need care. But we can't force them to.

That was my whole question about Constitutional rights. We can say that Texas shouldn't restrict them, but do they then have the obligation to promote them? That, to me, is the more interesting question.

 

[beren]

I think we'd all prefer that some entrepreneurial doctor opens a safe clinic closer to women who need care. But we can't force them to.

That was my whole question about Constitutional rights. We can say that Texas shouldn't restrict them, but do they then have the obligation to promote them? That, to me, is the more interesting question.

So what is unsafe about the ones being forced to close? What actual danger did they pose?

I mean, if I proposed a law requiring all cars to be brush in color for safety, would you support that?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[marplots]

So what is unsafe about the ones being forced to close? What actual danger did they pose?

I don't know. Does it matter? I don't think the purpose of a law is actually reason enough to throw out the law. They are free to say a law is meant for one thing when it isn't. The test, at least I think it's the test, is what the law does in the real world. Good reasons can make bad law and bad reasons don't necessarily make bad law.

I mean, if I proposed a law requiring all cars to be brush in color for safety, would you support that?

No, I wouldn't support it. That's not new. I didn't support safetybelt laws nor Michigan's current deposit bottle law. The question isn't whether I support it or not, but whether the legislature should have the ability to pass such laws. Insofar as they are Constitutional, they do.

If you promoted a law standardizing car colors, and that law passed, and it was Constitutional, I would be subject to it, same as anyone else. As far as I know, "stupid" isn't enough of a reason to throw a law out.

 

[newyorkguy]

No Texas does not have the obligation to promote them. Nor does Texas have an obligation to provide them or pay for them. What Texas has an obligation to do is obey the law and not try and find ways to limit womens' access to abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is Constitutionally protected. Protected. Meaning a government entity can not try and sabotage it even in a subtle sneaky way.

 

[beren]

I don't know. Does it matter?

.

Of course it matters.

.

No, I wouldn't support it. That's not new. I didn't support safetybelt laws nor Michigan's current deposit bottle law. The question isn't whether I support it or not, but whether the legislature should have the ability to pass such laws. Insofar as they are Constitutional, they do.

If you promoted a law standardizing car colors, and that law passed, and it was Constitutional, I would be subject to it, same as anyone else. As far as I know, "stupid" isn't enough of a reason to throw a law out.

If the laws aren't really for safety, then they would not be constitutional. It they don't make things safer in any way, can the government get away with saying they are due safety to do an end run around the Constitution? You seem to be saying yes.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Tero]

"Why, you can't have women having babies and getting abortions in the same hospital! What if the doctor gets the rooms mixed up?"

 

[marplots]

No Texas does not have the obligation to promote them. Nor does Texas have an obligation to provide them or pay for them. What Texas has an obligation to do is obey the law and not try and find ways to limit womens' access to abortion. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion is Constitutionally protected. Protected. Meaning a government entity can not try and sabotage it even in a subtle sneaky way.

That's true, for some meaning of "sabotage" and "subtle, sneaky way." It's not clear where the balance should be, which is why I'm looking forward to reading the opinions.

As we discussed upthread, laws are not enacted nor enforced in a vacuum. A perfectly valid restriction here may have consequences over there. I think the intent of the legislation is a red (or at least pink) herring. The real observation should be what the law actually does on the ground. For example, if they wrote a law that had the best intentions re women and abortion, but the consequences were a loss of access to abortion, then the good intent wouldn't overcome the actual outcome.

Further, regardless of how underhanded the legislature intended to be, if the law doesn't actually impair the right, then there's no case on the "intended" basis.

 

[marplots]

Of course it matters.

.

If the laws aren't really for safety, then they would not be constitutional. It they don't make things safer in any way, can the government get away with saying they are due safety to do an end run around the Constitution? You seem to be saying yes.


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

No, I'm saying their reasons for making a law don't matter much. "Jesus wants you to wear a safety belt" generates the same law as "safety belts save lives."

 

[marplots]

"Why, you can't have women having babies and getting abortions in the same hospital! What if the doctor gets the rooms mixed up?"

Or worse, what if the souls from the aborted babies start landing in newborns? You might end up with a soul from a black baby in a white infant. Pretty much how we got Marshall Mathers.

 

[beren]

No, I'm saying their reasons for making a law don't matter much. "Jesus wants you to wear a safety belt" generates the same law as "safety belts save lives."

It matters when there are reason they are not allowed to use.

Hence why the case is before a court.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[elbe]

I think we'd all prefer that some entrepreneurial doctor opens a safe clinic closer to women who need care. But we can't force them to.

That was my whole question about Constitutional rights. We can say that Texas shouldn't restrict them, but do they then have the obligation to promote them? That, to me, is the more interesting question.

On Last Week Tonight a couple weeks back they had the story of a Doctor who cashed in his life savings to build a new office that met all of his state's new, overly rigorous regulations and the result is the state then trying to pass law saying they (the doctors, employees, and patients) would not be allowed within some distance of a school, probably some distance that the new building is already within.

 

[marplots]

On Last Week Tonight a couple weeks back they had the story of a Doctor who cashed in his life savings to build a new office that met all of his state's new, overly rigorous regulations and the result is the state then trying to pass law saying they (the doctors, employees, and patients) would not be allowed within some distance of a school, probably some distance that the new building is already within.

What ended up happening?

 

[xjx388]

Texas does not allow alcohol sales after 12am M-Th in a grocery store. We can't buy liquor in a grocery store. We can consume any alcohol in a bar but only until 2am. Ostensibly, the reason is "public safety." But given more liberal laws in other states and the lack of public safety concerns there, we can conclude that Texas' alcohol laws are actually moral in nature and have nothing to do with -and little impact on- safety. I don't hear anyone fighting in the Supreme Court for my Constitutional right to sell/drink alcohol whenever I please. The right to drink alcohol is a Constitutional right every bit as much as Abortion. Why the big uproar with abortion rights and not alcohol and wouldn't a strike down of Texas' abortion law also implicate its alcohol (gambling, marijuana, etc) laws?

 

[Aridas]

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.

5-6 hour round trip is still a fair chunk of time. Personally, I have difficulty driving particularly safely after 2.5 hours of driving, regardless, though, on a good day when I start out well rested. If it were me wanting an abortion, I'd certainly try to at least look into more locally available alternatives.

 

[cosmicaug]

A bad analogy would be with gun rights. I have the right to keep and bear arms, but as far as I know, the government doesn't have to buy me a gun.

Maybe the gun laws are such that everyone who wants a firearm can legally get one (even felons). However, gun laws have been rewritten so that in practice no one (or only a very select minority) can get one. Would that be OK?

For instance, you do have to be licensed. However, licensing fees run about twice the median household's salary. There is a waiting period of 8 weeks in case you might change your mind regarding really wanting a firearm. It is known that adults sometimes change their minds and this is meant to protect you from this (who can afford those firearms, anyway --have you seen the licensing fees?).

You have to demonstrate proficiency in a state licensed indoor firing range. Licensing of firing ranges involves the following:

• Radon levels at or below 0.1 pCi/L (in the cases of >0.1 pCi/L, remediation is not to be considered acceptable --it probably involves forced ventilation and that could fail-- so a different location must be found).
• They must comply with a new OSHA rule (which curiously only applies to firing ranges) which, to protect workers from reverberating sound, requires that all inside surfaces must be covered in anechoic chamber style sound absorbing material (and there will be a costly certification process to verify that the establishment meets strict acoustic criteria).
• Great concern for the safety of firearm owners requires that all firing ranges be certified as able to withstand an 8.5 magnmitude earthquake.

Note that most of the firing ranges in the state have closed when they have been unwilling or unable to meet the new licensing requirements. This means that very few are available to as a venue for the proficiency testing aspect of licensing.

Did I mention that you must also demonstrate proficiency in gunsmithing and that there are only two state employees qualified to evaluate you during the one-on-one 3 day gunsmithing skills demonstration workshop? This is not a trivial undertaking, by the way, and it involves the use of machining equipment which, in turn, requires additional certifications of its own (this was passed on the same fiscal year as the hearing protection law --frankly, to use that sort of equipment you really should know what you are doing so it's just a good idea).

Again, no one is actually banned from owning a firearm. You are aware that the laws are onerous and are only meant to, in practice and despite protestations to the contrary, limit access to firearms (the Worker Hearing Protection Act only applies to firing ranges? Come on!). You know this! But does the right to own a firearm really mean that owning a firearm should be easy?

Would this be fine? Would answering this really be something that required so much thought on your part? Would it require that we wait to see what the experts rule?

 

[marplots]

(excellent premise snipped for space)
...
Again, no one is actually banned from owning a firearm. You are aware that the laws are onerous and are only meant to, in practice and despite protestations to the contrary, limit access to firearms (the Worker Hearing Protection Act only applies to firing ranges? Come on!). You know this! But does the right to own a firearm really mean that owning a firearm should be easy?

Would this be fine? Would answering this really be something that required so much thought on your part? Would it require that we wait to see what the experts rule?

"Fine" isn't really a good metric. Because it would be fine with the people imposing the sanctions and not fine for those subject to them. And yes, if our touchstone is going to be the Constitution, then we are going to have to wait until the experts rule - we pay them precisely to do that.

This business of outflanking the Constitution isn't an uncommon tactic. People who support laissez faire gun policies accuse "gun-grabbers" of doing it all the time. They even have a stronger case, because gun rights are mentioned specifically and abortion rights are derivative - the Constitution doesn't mention abortion or who owns a fetus. Plainly, the political winds shift and old decisions are revisited with work-arounds in mind.

The Constitution isn't necessarily an insurmountable burden, so long as a clear majority wants things one way or another. We end up doing what we want anyhow. Consider the situation with legalized marijuana. I don't think states are allowed to ignore federal laws, at least not Constitutionally. (Otherwise, whatever Texas does on abortion is allowed, including banning it.) But so long as the Department of Justice doesn't bring it before the Supreme Court, states where marijuana is legal will continue on their merry way - why? Because that's the way we want it.

In the case of abortion we have two vocal, politically active camps. No one is going to ignore it. But, to address your hypothetical, if there was just the one camp - an anti-abortion side - then ways to effectively ban it would arise. I can even think of one that might work.

In most states there is some form of child endangerment law that extends to harming a fetus in utero. Some versions mention illegal drugs (meth in particular) but some (Alabama comes to mind) have a broad statute like, "chemical endangerment of a child" that can rope in stuff like alcohol abuse.

In any case, if you want to cut back on abortions, require the post-abortion fetus be tested for controlled substances and alcohol. If the results are positive, arrest the mother for felony abuse of a child. The idea is to get women to fear having an abortion because they might get busted. You don't really care about the fetus - that's dead already. What you want to do is make poor women fear the process.

If you want to conceal it further, require all babies - alive or dead - be tested.

So why wouldn't that work in practice? Because we have two camps. They each restrict the behavior of the other. The "fine" bit arises from this tension. The Supreme Court's role in all this is to keep us from killing each other over this stuff. When we read split decisions, we find perfectly good arguments offered on each side of the question at hand. This tells me that in some disputes, the matter is not clear on a Constitutional basis. Which, again, just supports my point that we will find a way to do whatever the hell we want to. It's not a flaw, it's a feature.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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?

Exactly. San Francisco did similar things to make it hard to sell guns and conservative were all butt hurt.

 

[Sherkeu]

You don't need any analogies to see the intent of this law.

A surgical abortion is the same procedure a woman would get if she was being treated for endometriosis, fibroid tumor, molar pregnancy, polyps, or heavy bleeding.
A d&c.
It's a very safe, low-risk procedure. For many uterine conditions.

With this law, when surgery is for the purpose of abortion, it requires all these extra safety requirements.
When it's for another reason, it doesn't.
Same procedure!

It would make more sense that the "non-abortion" uterine procedures have more risk since many of those women are much older and/or have a hysteroscopy at the same time.

But I understand if you guys want to talk about guns and stuff.

 

[newyorkguy]

You don't need any analogies to see the intent of this law. A surgical abortion is the same procedure a woman would get if she was being treated for endometriosis, fibroid tumor, molar pregnancy, polyps, or heavy bleeding. A d&c. It's a very safe, low-risk procedure. For many uterine conditions...

A very good point and one the lawyers seeking to have the law modified/appealed have highlighted. That the HC-5 law serves no medical purpose and similar procedures do not put the same burden on providers. It's almost impossible, I think, for any objective person not to see the law for what it is. An attempt by anti-abortion politicians, and their judicial supporters, to do an end run around the Constitution. As anti-abortion activists have said, "What good does it do a woman to have the legal right to an abortion...if she can't get one!" In recent years their efforts have been more on making abortion extremely difficult to access rather than attacking Roe v Wade. Texas has some of the harshest restrictions on abortion of any of the states.

It's shameful that people who boast about how law-abiding they are are so willing to circumvent a law when they personally don't happen to agree with its intent.