Texas bans abortion.

[elbe]

What ended up happening?

It sounded like the issue was still pending in the state legislature.

 

[marplots]

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.

Are the procedures you list generally done at clinics or hospitals? (I don't know, but I'm interested in the parallel you draw.)

 

[KDLarsen]

Speaking of analogies, I think Justice Ginsburg made the best one:
Why single out abortion when other procedures, like colonoscopies and liposuctions, pose an exponentially higher safety risk?

 

[Sherkeu]

Are the procedures you list generally done at clinics or hospitals? (I don't know, but I'm interested in the parallel you draw.)

These procedures can be done in a doctors office, outpatient clinic, or hospital.

Hospitals are like 10x the cost so I imagine they are required by emergency, patient choice, or the doctor deems the patient higher risk. I have no idea what the actual numbers are though.

You can google ob/gyn offices anywhere in TX and see that many of them provide D&C at the office.
You will also see they can do surgery with general anesthesia.
They are also allowed to do laparoscopic surgery, uterine ablation (turns the lining of the whole uterus into scar tissue), tubal ligation, and use lasers to remove cancerous cervical cells (LEET).
It's very common.

Fertility centers in TX do much of the above as well in their offices.

 

[marplots]

These procedures can be done in a doctors office, outpatient clinic, or hospital.

Hospitals are like 10x the cost so I imagine they are required by emergency, patient choice, or the doctor deems the patient higher risk. I have no idea what the actual numbers are though.

You can google ob/gyn offices anywhere in TX and see that many of them provide D&C at the office.
You will also see they can do surgery with general anesthesia.
They are also allowed to do laparoscopic surgery, uterine ablation (turns the lining of the whole uterus into scar tissue), tubal ligation, and use lasers to remove cancerous cervical cells (LEET).
It's very common.

Fertility centers in TX do much of the above as well in their offices.

IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[Tero]

It's more of a cost issue. The insurance won't pay for abortion for the poor folks or their deductible is so high that they essentially pay for the whole thing.

We found cash or self-pay first-trimester surgical abortion fees generally range from around $300 to $1,200.

http://clearhealthcosts.com/blog/2014/06/much-abortion-cost-draft-theresas/

If you have to go out of state, there are travel costs.

 

[Sherkeu]

IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Do you think a hospital is safer? Do you think having a doctor use hospital equipment and personnel he isn't familiar with, without any other risk factor, is really safer?

The Texas Solicitor Keller, in answering the SC questions, could not document for the record any past cases where this law would be 'safer' for the women of Texas.
How many women were affected because the doctor didn't have admitting privileges? It seems none were. Not one case could be found.

Breyer stated:"What is the benefit to the woman of a procedure that is going to cure a problem of which there is not one single instance in the nation?"

As to pt 2: If they want to apply these regulations across the board, they can do that at some future date. They should get some evidence of risk first to make sensible improvements.
I bet if they did pass new laws on that, it would not involve shutting down colonoscopy centers immediately with some new safety requirement of 8ft hallways. Like any sensible law requiring time and investment, it would have a multi-year plan to go into full effect. I'll take bets on it!

This law couldnt be clearer on intent.
It wants to unconstitutionally burden a womans' right to abortion services by targeting abortion clinics with undue restrictions, specifically, immediately, and separately from other outpatient surgical facilities, to the point they have to operate at tremendous costs or close immediately, as part of a pro-life agenda.

I am embarrassed for the Texas SG Keller to have gone all the way to the SCOTUS with only anecdotes and unsupported generalizations in his pocket. Before Scalia's death, perhaps he assumed he didn't need to be very clever.

 

[newyorkguy]

As usual, Kennedy is supposed to be the pivotal Justice. If he decides the law passes Constitutional muster -- that it is not essentially aimed at limiting the number of abortions (for political reasons) -- the Court will probably tie 4-4 and the lower court's ruling (allowing the law to stand) will probably prevail.

 

[marplots]

Do you think a hospital is safer? Do you think having a doctor use hospital equipment and personnel he isn't familiar with, without any other risk factor, is really safer?

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

As to pt 2: If they want to apply these regulations across the board, they can do that at some future date. They should get some evidence of risk first to make sensible improvements. [/quote]

Yes, they could. But the requirement for evidence is pretty loose. I wouldn't put it past them to stack a hearing with a couple doctors who agree with them already. If they couldn't find doctors, then a couple academics from the local religious university would do just as well.

This law couldnt be clearer on intent.
It wants to unconstitutionally burden a womans' right to abortion services by targeting abortion clinics with undue restrictions, specifically, immediately, and separately from other outpatient surgical facilities, to the point they have to operate at tremendous costs or close immediately, as part of a pro-life agenda.

The unconstitutionality remains to be determined by the court. That's the point of having a Supreme Court. I'm willing to accept their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative. Are you?

 

[newyorkguy]

It doesn't matter if it's not safer it only matters that the Texas legislators think it's safer. Echoes of Scalia: It doesn't matter if the legislators are introducing Christian religious doctrine into science classes it only matters that the legislators don't think that's what they're doing.

Again, I don't see how any reasonable person can look at all the evidence and not see that this is about limiting access to abortion in places that don't think abortion should be legal in the first place. Below is a quote from an anti-abortion group that wants a total ban on abortion. They are unhappy with the Pro-lifers who foster and support strategies limiting abortion such as the Texas law currently before the Supreme Court:

If you try to remember recent Pro-Life activities since the early 1990s you will find one shocking fact. Most, if not all, legislative/political activity has centered around not ending abortion once and for all but in only ‘limiting abortion.’... The Pro-Life Movement, for the past 20 years, has been focused mainly on “Limiting Abortion” – a strategy that can never end legalized abortion. Link

This is from US News & World Report:

Anti-abortion proponents are making progress. On Tuesday, the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld key parts of a Texas law that could soon close about half of the remaining abortion clinics in the state. (Over half have already been shuttered there since 2012.)

Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View says the law stands a fair chance of remaining intact if it reaches the Supreme Court. Abortion is "subject to death by a thousand cuts," he writes, thanks to the court's 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The "ad-hoc" language in that ruling "invited states to pass laws that were not formally directed at limiting abortion, but that incidentally made abortion harder to come by," notes Feldman. In other words, laws like Texas's HB2.

Casey created "a sliding scale" for judges to decide the constitutionality of abortion restrictions, and Justice Anthony Kennedy (and his politics) will likely tip that scale if the issue comes before the court. Says Feldman, "If Kennedy judges that the politics of abortion have moved in the direction of making it harder to get abortions in practice while preserving the right in principle, he might well uphold the Texas law." Link

 

[Sherkeu]

The unconstitutionality remains to be determined by the court. That's the point of having a Supreme Court. I'm willing to accept their decision - one way or the other - as authoritative. Are you?

Absoutely! Justices are supposed to only interpret the current law in light of constitutional rights. If they think Texas has the right to make these restrictions, then that is law of the land.

When they blocked Texas' law last June there were 4 public dissents. Yesterday, they blocked a similar Louisiana law with only 1 public dissent - Judge Thomas. This looks like the laws' chances aren't so good.

I think they will either make a final ruling against (setting a national precedent), or remand it back to Texas and hear it next year or the year after.

 

[thaiboxerken]

IF that's the case, then I can see two arguments from the Texas legislator side. First, if patients have a choice between a clinic and a hospital for care, then the patient can decide where to get the procedure done. But this is not a choice with an abortion if hospitals are unwilling to do them. Second, they could respond that they will be examining these other procedures and may pass similar legislation but haven't yet got to it.

Overall, the tu quoque won't work though, since abortion can be evaluated as a standalone item. Otherwise (from the anti-abortion point of view) it's making the perfect the enemy of the good.

You are arguing that these legislators made these laws in good faith (the safety of women.) This is about reducing access to abortion services.

 

[marplots]

You are arguing that these legislators made these laws in good faith (the safety of women.) This is about reducing access to abortion services.

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.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Texans should not be allowed to restrict abortions.

 

[marplots]

Texans should not be allowed to restrict abortions.

Why not? Every other state restricts them.

This is from Planned Parenthood:
"Different states have different laws about how late in a pregnancy a woman can get an abortion. These laws apply to abortion providers within a given state, so it doesn’t matter what state the patient lives in – just the state the abortion is happening in. Across the board, abortions are very infrequently performed anywhere after the 24th week of pregnancy, and at that point are usually only done for health reasons."

 

[thaiboxerken]

Why not? Every other state restricts them.

Other states should not be able to restrict abortion either.

 

[beren]

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.

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?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[thaiboxerken]

http://samanthabee.com/episode/04-2/clip/abortion-texas-style/ #TBS #FullFrontalTBS

Samantha discusses these Texas laws on her show.

 

[newyorkguy]

...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?...

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[twinstead]

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