Texas bans abortion.

[marplots]

Other states should not be able to restrict abortion either.

I don't think you can escape the rule-making. For example, if I wish to do an abortion on my teenaged daughter, without her consent, and such a thing is prohibited, that's a restriction on abortion. As soon as we set out to delineate what is allowed and what is not, we've already taken steps down the road.

 

[marplots]

Is the difference between "someone performing an abortion should be a doctor" and "someone performing an abortion needs wide hallways" list on you?

Do you think they are equally valid?

They have the same basis for deriving their validity - our opinions on what constitutes a necessary restriction.

If you are going to rely on, "Well, it's obvious" then you are left with the question, "Why isn't it obvious to those who support the legislation?"

To make any headway, we'd need to find some principle everyone agrees to and then try to extend it to support our preferred outcome.

 

[beren]

They have the same basis for deriving their validity - our opinions on what constitutes a necessary restriction.

If you are going to rely on, "Well, it's obvious" then you are left with the question, "Why isn't it obvious to those who support the legislation?"

To make any headway, we'd need to find some principle everyone agrees to and then try to extend it to support our preferred outcome.

It is obvious to the supporters. That's why they support it.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[marplots]

Should states be allowed to make rules that restrict people's Constitutionally protected rights if they feel said rules are important? No they not only shouldn't they can't. The burden is on the states to show that they are balancing their duty to protect the rights with regulations that are vital to protect public safety.

Public safety is not the only rationale that can be used, is it? But further, an appeal to public safety in one spot can have consequences in another, not obviously related spot. I can, for example, require product labeling in an appeal to public safety (without actually demonstrating it improves safety), and thereby eliminate the ability of people to sell things they have been selling which cannot be so labeled, or only labeled at a prohibitive cost. In general, the cost to the provider is a secondary consideration.

An example would be protections people have against unlawful searches and seizures. A bedrock principle is that the state does not have the right to stop you, even momentarily, to see if you might be breaking the law when the state has no reason to suspect you are. The state has the burden of reasonable suspicion.

Yet the Supreme Court has ruled that police have the right to establish sobriety checkpoints -- stopping motorists not because they are drunk but only to see if they MIGHT BE -- because of the large number of drunken driving accidents in the U.S. and the difficulty in finding drunk drivers. The Court ruled that this minimal incursion into people's protections against unlawful seizures was balanced by the state's duty to protect the public.

They have also ruled that customs agents may inspect without probable cause, that zoning and licensing agencies may do the same, and allow a thousand other "inspection" types as requirements for some activity or other.

This is why the opponents of the Texas law are arguing the medical necessity of the HB2 law is less than compelling. Why they are arguing the law is unconstitutional because it specifically targets abortion while ignoring medical procedures that are very similar in nature. They are arguing that Texas did not pass the burden test.

Yes, I think I understand the argument.

It sounds like you are opposed to abortion or at best don't think it should be a protected right. That if states want to devise ways to chip away at those rights that's fine. But it's not fine. The state has a public safety burden but it can't use that burden as a subterfuge to restrict protected rights.

I'm pro-choice. But the question here, for me, isn't simply about abortion, it's about how we go about doing what we want to do (the "we" being the citizens of some delineated population) in an environment where larger restrictions (national vs. state) are in play. I have been interested in it since marijuana legislation brought up such fights between national, state and local governments, all of whom were/are jockeying for positions reflecting their constituencies.

The larger philosophical question comes from determinism and the impossibility of making sufficiently detailed rules to cover all situations - hence always allowing for loopholes which can be exploited should the populace need them.

Would this dispute have arisen if (at least some) Texans didn't want to restrict abortion?

 

[marplots]

It's because many people can't be objective about something they personally have strong feelings about and take other viewpoints into consideration. If Texas state legislators feel strongly that abortion is murder and should be outlawed, then work within the constitutional system and hope the majority of Americans eventually agree with you.

Otherwise, don't resort to what Texas is doing now. They're just being aholes about it

They say abortion is murder. Should we believe them?

How might I act if I thought abortion were murder?

 

[twinstead]

They say abortion is murder. Should we believe them?

It's irrelevant what they believe abortion is.

How might I act if I thought abortion were murder?

If you were in the Texas legislature, you'd be trying restrict access to legal abortions just like they are I suppose

 

[newyorkguy]

...I can, for example, require product labeling in an appeal to public safety (without actually demonstrating it improves safety), and thereby eliminate the ability of people to sell things they have been selling which cannot be so labeled, or only labeled at a prohibitive cost. In general, the cost to the provider is a secondary consideration.

You keep throwing up hypotheticals but you never get to the heart of the argument. Anyway, I don't think the state can require any kind of labeling without demonstrating it is necessary. I was involved in manufacturing for many years -- over-the-counter drugs (among other things) -- and the Food & Drug Administration did expand packaging label requirements. But they were always straight forward about it, explaining why they were requiring it, presenting data to support their conclusion and usually providing a review period where manufacturers could communicate any concerns they had. And more than once, in response to complaints, the FDA backed off and the new reg was modified or cancelled.

Would this dispute have arisen if (at least some) Texans didn't want to restrict abortion?

I don't think the law would have been enacted in the first place if Texas was Pro-life. It's possibly the most restricting abortion law of any of the states. It's naive to say you can't see the possibility of an ulterior motive, that the real reason for the law is to try and minimize abortion -- which probably the majority of Texans oppose -- as being the real purpose. Especially when anti-abortion groups themselves affirm that it has become the favored tactic. This is from one of those websites:

Pro-Life activities since the early 1990s...[m]ost, if not all, legislative/political activity has centered around not ending abortion once and for all but in only ‘limiting abortion.’.

The Supreme Court has ruled women have a Constitutional right to abortion. The anti-abortion groups have no intention of accepting "their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative."

 

[marplots]

. It's naive to say you can't see the possibility of an ulterior motive, that the real reason for the law is to try and minimize abortion -- which probably the majority of Texans oppose -- as being the real purpose. Especially when anti-abortion groups themselves affirm that it has become the favored tactic. This is from one of those websites:


The Supreme Court has ruled women have a Constitutional right to abortion. The anti-abortion groups have no intention of accepting "their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative."

Of course it's meant to restrict abortions, or at least reduce the number of abortions. I'm sorry if I implied it was not. Rather, I'm pointing out that Texas is taking advantage of what they see as a loophole to pass legislation their constituency likes. Further, the intent and motivations aren't particularly relevant. I think I covered this. Why? Because if they really did believe the story they've concocted, we wouldn't then say, "Well, of course, we now accept the law should stand." In my opinion, the "motivations" argument is a red herring.

So what does matter? The outcome. That's the metric we can measure and judge, and that's the measure I think/hope the Supreme Court will use.

 

[newyorkguy]

There is some speculation that Justice Anthony Kennedy may not be inclined to uphold the Texas HB2 law. In oral arguments heard last Wednesday Kennedy seemed to be pointing out that the Texas law had the effect of limiting Texas' women's access to abortion early in their pregnancies. This is from a report in the Washington Post:

On Wednesday, as lawyers for the clinics argued the new law placed an "undue burden" on patients, Kennedy appeared concerned about how the abortion climate has shifted in Texas. He asked whether the law encouraged women to get surgical procedures rather than drug-induced abortions, a switch that may indicate some patients are waiting longer to end their pregnancies.

In Texas, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy pointed out, the number of medical abortions — the method used almost exclusively in early terminations — is falling faster than the surgical procedure, used for most later terminations...“My reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas,” Kennedy said. “This may not be medically wise.” news link

 

[thaiboxerken]

So what does matter? The outcome. That's the metric we can measure and judge, and that's the measure I think/hope the Supreme Court will use.

By that standard, the law should definitely be overturned because all it accomplishes is undue restrictions on abortions without any increase women's health/safety.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, similar arguments have been made against marijuana restrictions - that the point wasn't patient safety, but stopping the free-flow of medical marijuana. (Allowing prescriptions, but then making it too onerous to actually run a dispensary and provide the weed.)

What makes this abortion thing tricky is the target - not women directly, but medical regulations, something we all agree the government has the right/duty to do.

You clearly don't argue with enough libertarians to see that not everyone agrees to that last bit.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

But at least we can stop them by having overly onerous restrictions on them. So what would the states evidence be that these actually promote safety instead of giving convenient ways to shut down abortion clinics, and what should they need to prove?

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

But at least you have people advocating for your rights to open carry firearms while drinking in a bar.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

And it requires you to say have that many hours off when the clinic will be open and means of transport and money for transport.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Actually I think the abortion procedure is often less invasive and safer than a D&C now. That is an older broadly outdated method.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It doesn't matter. All that matters is that Texas legislators believe it is safer.

And when texas lawmakers believe that the heliocentric theory is a Jewish conspiracy and make laws as such that is also totally good.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And when texas lawmakers believe that the heliocentric theory is a Jewish conspiracy and make laws as such that is also totally good.

I don't get it. First he was arguing that what they believe doesn't matter, now he's arguing that it does.

 

[marplots]

I don't get it. First he was arguing that what they believe doesn't matter, now he's arguing that it does.

Two different perspectives. My perspective is that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't) when adjudicating whether the law meets Constitutional requirements, and a second perspective, whether the legislators themselves are outright lying about intent or simply believe they are doing what they claim to be doing.

In the first case, belief doesn't matter when set against outcomes. In the second, it matters to provide a moral justification.

I hope that clears up the difference.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Two different perspectives. My perspective is that it doesn't matter (or shouldn't) when adjudicating whether the law meets Constitutional requirements, and a second perspective, whether the legislators themselves are outright lying about intent or simply believe they are doing what they claim to be doing.

And the supreme court vastly disagrees with you. Intent and impact have overturned lots of laws.

 

[marplots]

And the supreme court vastly disagrees with you. Intent and impact have overturned lots of laws.

Always paired? I would be greatly surprised to read that intent alone was enough to declare a law unconstitutional when the impact was constitutional. But I live to learn, and I can't claim to know.