Texas bans abortion.

[xjx388]

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?

Uh, in every instance it wants to? Marijuana, alcohol, medicine itself . . . The practice of medicine is subject to a myriad of laws which increase cost and reduce access -who can practice, where and how they practice, how they bill, how they refer for medical services- all in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system. But no one argues that those regulations "close clinic," even though the recent laws (last 20 years or so) have steadily done just that.

 

[elbe]

Uh, in every instance it wants to? Marijuana, alcohol, medicine itself . . . The practice of medicine is subject to a myriad of laws which increase cost and reduce access -who can practice, where and how they practice, how they bill, how they refer for medical services- all in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system. But no one argues that those regulations "close clinic," even though the recent laws (last 20 years or so) have steadily done just that.

Would you think requiring all optometrist offices to have hallways wide enough that two gurneys can pass to be a reasonable requirement even if it will likely never happen and would likely shut down every optometrist in the state? Or perhaps there's a level of undue burden the state can enforce beyond reasonable safety regulations?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Uh, in every instance it wants to? Marijuana, alcohol, medicine itself . . . The practice of medicine is subject to a myriad of laws which increase cost and reduce access -who can practice, where and how they practice, how they bill, how they refer for medical services- all in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system. But no one argues that those regulations "close clinic," even though the recent laws (last 20 years or so) have steadily done just that.

So forceably closing all gun stores that do not meet their new standard for being thief proof would be perfectly acceptable?

These laws are solely intended to close clinics. The admitting requirement is a joke because it is not standard for many other practices that have much higher rates of complications and deaths. The need for halways wide enough for two gurneys to pass is pointless as they do not move patients around on gurneys.

So what specific other regulations are you trying to compare to these?

 

[marplots]

Uh, in every instance it wants to? Marijuana, alcohol, medicine itself . . . The practice of medicine is subject to a myriad of laws which increase cost and reduce access -who can practice, where and how they practice, how they bill, how they refer for medical services- all in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system. But no one argues that those regulations "close clinic," even though the recent laws (last 20 years or so) have steadily done just that.

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.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's not the job of the government to ensure easy access to abortion for anyone who wants one.

It is absolutely their job to ensure that access is not unnecessarily restricted.

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?

You've got this whole thing backwards. We're talking about laws that would end up restricting access to services. It's as if the state were implementing laws that drive pediatric neurosurgeons and primary care doctors even further from potential customers.

 

[newyorkguy]

The issue isn't about a state's right to regulate medical procedures or providers. Justice is blind but it's not stupid. This is about a state crafting regulations that limit womens' right to have an abortion because of the intense political pressure -- up to and including murdering abortion doctors -- of those who oppose abortion on moral grounds. The Supreme Court has already ruled that women have a Constitutional right to have an abortion if they choose. Anti-abortion groups don't care what the Supreme Court has ruled nor what the law says. They consider abortion to be murder and they are dedicated to limiting it as much as possible until the day when they can finally get it outlawed completely. We know that, there's no question about that.

Over half of Texas's abortion clinics have closed since the new law was passed. The law is clever since it makes anti-abortion political pressure very effective, especially in smaller towns and rural areas. If a clinic in a rural county wants to have admitting privileges there's usually only one nearby facility, usually a county medical center. Anti-abortion activists can picket the county medical center, harass and threaten employees going to or from work, attempt to ostracize and embarrass the directors of the facility -- always accompanied by the very real fear of violence -- until they give in and revoke the admitting procedures. This has happened all across Texas.

If the law was really aimed at ensuring women had access to a safe and professional clinic, if the state was really willing to support the law, support the fact that abortion is Constitutionally protected, they would be concerned by the fact that over half the state's clinics have closed as a result of the law. They would see that the law was violating a women's right to an abortion whether that was the intention of the law or not.

But they're not concerned because it is all a charade. They want to stop abortion and, failing that, limit it as much as possible.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

Hundreds of abortion clinics have closed in Texas since the new law was passed.

You might want to re-check your numbers.

 

[Babbylonian]

But they're not concerned because it is all a charade. They want to stop abortion and, failing that, limit poor people's access to it as much as possible.

FTFY.

 

[marplots]

If the law was really aimed at ensuring women had access to a safe and professional clinic, if the state was really willing to support the law, support the fact that abortion is Constitutionally protected, they would be concerned by the fact that hundreds of clinics have closed as a result of the law. They would see that the law was violating a women's right to an abortion whether that was the intention of the law or not.

It seems to me it pivots on another question as well. Even if women have the Constitutional right to an abortion (which they do), what role does the state play in allowing that right to be exercised?

It's one thing to say they are limiting the right (which they may be), but another thing if they aren't limiting it directly, but not supporting it either.

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.

So, does Texas have to provide the means to obtain an abortion or merely not make abortion illegal? If they don't have to provide the means, then they are free to make those means as difficult to obtain as they wish - so long as they can be obtained. Not obtained easily, or freely, or locally, just available somehow or other, and not illegal.

 

[newyorkguy]

It's not true that Texas can craft regulations for the purpose of making a woman's Constitutional right to obtain an abortion very difficult. Texas isn't arguing that either; they can't. They maintain they have no position on abortion they just want to make sure it is done safely in a way that protects women. If that was true -- if this was a good faith law, passed to protect women -- they would be concerned with the fact the law has forced over half of Texas' abortion clinics to close. But they're not concerned at all.

The fact is these kinds of laws are touted by anti-abortion groups as a way of forcing clinics to close for the express purpose of limiting women's access to an abortion. That is not legal. That is the issue Texas won't discuss. State officials pretend they don't know anything about it. And they have to.

Under the law Texas can't deliberately set out to try and limit womens' access to abortion. When they do that they are violating the Constitution. Which is why no state official will admit -- even under oath -- that limiting access to abortion is a focus of this law. Even though everyone knows it is.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

So, does Texas have to provide the means to obtain an abortion or merely not make abortion illegal? If they don't have to provide the means, then they are free to make those means as difficult to obtain as they wish - so long as they can be obtained. Not obtained easily, or freely, or locally, just available somehow or other, and not illegal.

Wrong. Roe v. Wade explicitly said that the right to abortion must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.

At least the Wikipedia entry on Roe v. Wade says that. I didn't read the actual decision.

 

[CynicalSkeptic]

the law has forced hundreds of abortion clinics to close.

Again, it's not hundreds. I'm on your side on this argument, but those no reason to mis-state the numbers.

 

[newyorkguy]

I was going by memory -- which is always risky (especially for me!) -- and I thought there had been many more clinics that had been open. According to the New York Times there were forty-one clinics open in Texas in 2012 compared to eighteen in June 2015 (the most recent number I found). That is still over half that have shut down. And I believe the number is even smaller today.

Does Wikipedia have the current number? I don't have time to look right now.

 

[fishbob]

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?

Its not the job of the government to make access more difficult. Its not the job of the government to impose unreasonable and unsupportable standards, then lie about the reason for doing it. However, it is the job of the government to improve access for the medically underserved.

 

[fishbob]

Uh, in every instance it wants to? Marijuana, alcohol, medicine itself . . . The practice of medicine is subject to a myriad of laws which increase cost and reduce access -who can practice, where and how they practice, how they bill, how they refer for medical services- all in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system. But no one argues that those regulations "close clinic," even though the recent laws (last 20 years or so) have steadily done just that.

It is not the job of the government to impose unreasonable and unsupportable standards in the name of patient safety and integrity of the healthcare system, when that is clearly not the reason for doing it.

 

[marplots]

It's not true that Texas can craft regulations for the purpose of making a woman's Constitutional right to obtain an abortion very difficult. Texas isn't arguing that either; they can't. They maintain they have no position on abortion they just want to make sure it is done safely in a way that protects women. If that was true -- if this was a good faith law, passed to protect women -- they would be concerned with the fact the law has forced over half of Texas' abortion clinics to close. But they're not concerned at all.

If we accept Texas' intention as stated, the the closure of those hundreds of clinics has made Texas safer for women. The intent was to shut down unsafe clinics.

Does Texas have an obligation to replace those missing clinics at government expense? Take the hypothetical that the Texas AMA (supposing there is some overwhelming doctor group with dictatorial powers) decided it was unethical for their members to perform abortions. Consequently (and still hypothetically), no doctor in Texas will perform an abortion. Does that mean that Texas should then be required to make abortion a procedure which doesn't require a doctor to be involved? Would they have to import doctors or provide some other means to meet their Constitutional obligation?

The elephant in the room, for me, is why hospitals of all stripes aren't doing abortions as a matter of course. Solves all the problems.

 

[fishbob]

If we accept Texas' intention as stated, the the closure of those hundreds of clinics has made Texas safer for women. The intent was to shut down unsafe clinics.

Does Texas have an obligation to replace those missing clinics at government expense? Take the hypothetical that the Texas AMA (supposing there is some overwhelming doctor group with dictatorial powers) decided it was unethical for their members to perform abortions. Consequently (and still hypothetically), no doctor in Texas will perform an abortion. Does that mean that Texas should then be required to make abortion a procedure which doesn't require a doctor to be involved? Would they have to import doctors or provide some other means to meet their Constitutional obligation?

The elephant in the room, for me, is why hospitals of all stripes aren't doing abortions as a matter of course. Solves all the problems.

Stop right there. Your premise is wrong, everything after is irrelevant.

 

[marplots]

Stop right there. Your premise is wrong, everything after is irrelevant.

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

 

[newyorkguy]

...The elephant in the room, for me, is why hospitals of all stripes aren't doing abortions as a matter of course. Solves all the problems.

You'll find some pretty solid answers back in this thread. The reason hospitals usually do not provide abortion services are partly financial (federal funds can not be used to pay for abortions). As a result many states provide funding for abortion services but none of the so-called Bible Belt states are among them. The other reason is political pressure. This is a quote from a Time Magazine story from August 2013:

“It’s generally not that hospitals don’t want to [perform abortions], but they feel tremendous pressure, either from laws that their legislators pass or from politics in general,” says Philip Darney, a professor of obstetrics and reproductive services at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the lead authors behind the ob-gyn professors’ statement...In a statement set to be published in the September issue of the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 100 ob-gyns condemn new state restrictions on abortion as a “political regression.” The article, obtained by TIME, criticizes hospitals for relinquishing abortion to stand-alone clinics that are easily targeted by abortion activists, and calls on the medical community to integrate the procedure into women’s-health services and medical training. Link

 

[marplots]

You'll find some pretty solid answers back in this thread. The reason hospitals usually do not provide abortion services are partly financial (federal funds can not be used to pay for abortions). As a result many states provide funding for abortion services but none of the so-called Bible Belt states are among them. The other reason is political pressure. This is a quote from a Time Magazine story from August 2013:

They are being paid for somehow at the clinics. That, at least should be a wash. As to the political pressure, that cycles us right back to this case and I think hospitals would win.

I'm wondering on what basis hospitals won't do them - if it's a Constitutional right?