Texas bans abortion.

[fishbob]

I don't think it matters. Let me see if I can break it down.

1) The right to an abortion is not a specific right in the Constitution, but a derived right by way of a Supreme Court decision. This means, in part, that it has more wiggle-room than more clearly delineated rights. We might look at how the commerce clause has been extended for examples.

2) Even those rights which are laid out more-or-less "as written," like the right to keep and bear arms, can still be regulated and have been.

3) The question then isn't between a complete "hands off" abortion and a ban, but how far legislators may restrict abortion services.

4) #3 does not depend on intent or motivation, merely on outcome. If I'm correct in this, the arguments about, "this is for women's health" vs. "this is a political ploy" are moot.

5) Texas is able, in the normal course of legislative affairs, to regulate the practice of medicine in Texas.

I think it's fine to assert that legislators are being sneaky bastards and attempting to use a loophole to shape the way abortions are provided in Texas. But so what? Shouldn't Texans be allowed to use the rules, whatever those rules turn out to be (by way of the Supreme Court) to accomplish the objectives they feel are important?

Consider that we already accept the same "flavor" of rules when it comes to abortions - I am not licensed to practice medicine in Texas. It would be illegal for me to offer abortion services from the back of my van there. I cannot claim that disallowing my "ready to go coat hanger" method unfairly restricts abortion, nor do I have to require Texas to demonstrate that I am endangering women, or any other thing. I am not licensed to practice medicine. Performing an abortion requires such a license. Case closed. It doesn't matter if Texas requires a medical license because they want to minimize abortions - we accept they have the duty to regulate the practice of medicine in their state.

So the legislators lie about it.
Lying to the public as part of regulating public policy is a terrible precedent.
So no, using any sneaky bastard lying means to accomplish their objectives is not OK.

 

[fishbob]

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.

Whoa there pardner. Besides being a really creepy example, this is not your right being restricted.

 

[fishbob]

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.

Informed opinions, not ginned up emotional responses fed by lies and misrepresentations. Your preferred outcome should come at the expense of the personal liberties of others.

 

[marplots]

So the legislators lie about it.
Lying to the public as part of regulating public policy is a terrible precedent.
So no, using any sneaky bastard lying means to accomplish their objectives is not OK.

One presumes their objectives are in parallel with their constituents' objectives.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One presumes their objectives are in parallel with their constituents' objectives.

Of course, everyone knows they are lying about why they are doing this and that it has nothing to do with womens health, just like when the defunded planned parenthood and then refunded it a couple of years later because defunding planned parenthood didn't magically create new women's clinics.

 

[xjx388]

Of course, everyone knows they are lying about why they are doing this and that it has nothing to do with womens health, just like when the defunded planned parenthood and then refunded it a couple of years later because defunding planned parenthood didn't magically create new women's clinics.

"Public health and safety," has always been the go to reason for creating laws that are really about morality. Again, the alcohol and drug laws are perfect examples of this. So why, I ask again, should abortion be different especially given the added moral complexities surrounding sex and killing?

 

[newyorkguy]

Abortion is different because in Roe v Wade the Supreme Court said women had a Constitutional right to have an abortion.

 

[cosmicaug]

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2016/03/in_oral_arguments_for_the_texas_abortion_case_the_three_female_justices.html

 

[PhantomWolf]

"Public health and safety," has always been the go to reason for creating laws that are really about morality. Again, the alcohol and drug laws are perfect examples of this. So why, I ask again, should abortion be different especially given the added moral complexities surrounding sex and killing?

The links between public intoxication and violence are well known, and accepted, not only as perpetrators, but also commonly victims, as, for instance this study on Alcohol Intoxication and Violent Crime, shows. Can you locate any scholarly materials that show that there is a general consensus that having Abortion Clinics with corridors wide enough for two gurneys will make them safer?

If not, then what is the point of the law? Laws should be made only when there is a need for them based on a consensus of experts in the field, not because they are a work around other laws you don't like on moral grounds.

 

[fishbob]

One presumes their objectives are in parallel with their constituents' objectives.

What is constitutional and the constituents objectives are diametrically opposed in this case. The constitution is the rule book. The constituents can take their ball and go home.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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.

1. The outcome is that it places unnecessary burdens on women that want to terminate a pregnancy with ZERO evidence of increasing safety to women's health.

2. The moral justification is garbage, they passed the law with the sole intention of further restricting abortion services.

 

[xjx388]

The links between public intoxication and violence are well known, and accepted, not only as perpetrators, but also commonly victims, as, for instance this study on Alcohol Intoxication and Violent Crime, shows. Can you locate any scholarly materials that show that there is a general consensus that having Abortion Clinics with corridors wide enough for two gurneys will make them safer?

If not, then what is the point of the law? Laws should be made only when there is a need for them based on a consensus of experts in the field, not because they are a work around other laws you don't like on moral grounds.

You miss the point. My right to consume alcohol whenever I want to is just as Constitutional as a woman's right to abort. Different justifications handle those rights differently. In Texas, I can't buy alcohol in a stire after 12am. That law has no measurable effect on violence; it's a moral law and any "safety" argument is window dressing to enforce a moral code.

If we apply your standard, then there go most similar laws: drugs, alcohol, public nudity, etc.

 

[newyorkguy]

My right to consume alcohol whenever I want to is just as Constitutional as a woman's right to abort.

Your right to consume alcohol whenever you want IS NOT as Constitutional as a woman's right to abort, not in any manner, shape or form. The Supreme Court never ruled the Constitution confers on people the right to drink alcohol anytime they want. Besides which, you do have the right to drink alcohol anytime you want, just not anywhere you want.


Like that song Closing Time says, "You don't have to go home but you do have to leave here."

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Exactly. If they suddenly closed every liquor store in Texas but one and instituted a three day waiting period to get a six pack, it MIGHT be a fair comparison. Maybe.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. If they suddenly closed every liquor store in Texas but one and instituted a three day waiting period to get a six pack, it MIGHT be a fair comparison. Maybe.

Not at all. States can go totally dry and still be perfectly fine constitutionally. There are dry counties in Texas that the sale of alcohol is totally banned. Nothing to do with the constitution.

Making owning alcohol illegal might start to hit some constitutional issues but they can ban all sale and be fine as far as the constitution is concerned. For example Mississippi was a dry state until 1966.

 

[lobosrul]

Not at all. States can go totally dry and still be perfectly fine constitutionally. There are dry counties in Texas that the sale of alcohol is totally banned. Nothing to do with the constitution.

Making owning alcohol illegal might start to hit some constitutional issues but they can ban all sale and be fine as far as the constitution is concerned. For example Mississippi was a dry state until 1966.

Apparently it is actually illegal to even possess alcohol in some counties in Mississippi. I always though of dry counties as just not being able to buy... which made people drive to another county which contributed to more DUI's, absolute stupidity.

http://www.reflector-online.com/news/article_76a13c18-19bd-11e3-a455-001a4bcf6878.html

http://www.msatheists.org/2013/02/illegal-to-possess-alcohol-in-some.html

 

[PhantomWolf]

Well I guess that scotches the entire "It's my constitutional right to drink" argument. I guess this is another case of not knowing the Constitution.....

 

[xjx388]

I don't see how anyone can argue that drinking alcohol is not a constitutional right in the same way abortion is a right. Neither is specified in the Constitution and this are derived from other ideas in the Constitution.

The government can curtail rights like gambling, alcohol and abortion when there is a compelling government purpose. Those purposes are often moral in nature but disguised with a "public safety" veneer.

 

[marplots]

I don't see how anyone can argue that drinking alcohol is not a constitutional right in the same way abortion is a right. Neither is specified in the Constitution and this are derived from other ideas in the Constitution.

The government can curtail rights like gambling, alcohol and abortion when there is a compelling government purpose. Those purposes are often moral in nature but disguised with a "public safety" veneer.

At its heart, public safety is a moral issue too.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't see how anyone can argue that drinking alcohol is not a constitutional right in the same way abortion is a right. Neither is specified in the Constitution and this are derived from other ideas in the Constitution.

Take it up with the supreme court.