IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , abortion laws , Texas issues

Closed Thread
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:34 AM   #321
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,138
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
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.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:43 AM   #322
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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?
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:50 AM   #323
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,509
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 02:39 PM   #324
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.

Last edited by marplots; 3rd March 2016 at 02:40 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:12 PM   #325
Cl1mh4224rd
Philosopher
 
Cl1mh4224rd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,778
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Cl1mh4224rd; 3rd March 2016 at 03:13 PM.
Cl1mh4224rd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:19 PM   #326
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
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.

Last edited by newyorkguy; 3rd March 2016 at 05:19 PM.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:25 PM   #327
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
Hundreds of abortion clinics have closed in Texas since the new law was passed.
You might want to re-check your numbers.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:27 PM   #328
Babbylonian
Penultimate Amazing
 
Babbylonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.
Babbylonian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:30 PM   #329
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:56 PM   #330
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
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.

Last edited by newyorkguy; 3rd March 2016 at 05:17 PM.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 03:57 PM   #331
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 04:00 PM   #332
CynicalSkeptic
Master Poster
 
CynicalSkeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,608
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.
CynicalSkeptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 04:54 PM   #333
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 05:04 PM   #334
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,298
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 05:08 PM   #335
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,298
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
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.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 06:14 PM   #336
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 06:21 PM   #337
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
 
fishbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Chilly Undieville
Posts: 7,298
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
__________________
"When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder.
"It looks like the saddest, most crookedest candy corn in an otherwise normal bag of candy corns." Stormy Daniels
I hate bigots.
fishbob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 06:29 PM   #338
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 06:40 PM   #339
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
...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:
Quote:
ďItís generally not that hospitals donít want to [perform abortions], but they feel tremendous pressure, either from laws that their legislators pass or from politics in general,Ē 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 professorsí 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 ďpolitical regression.Ē 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 womenís-health services and medical training. Link
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:01 PM   #340
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:21 PM   #341
BardKesnit
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 332
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
BardKesnit is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:28 PM   #342
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by BardKesnit View Post
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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:36 PM   #343
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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
__________________
Thereís only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you donít cry when youíre doing it. ~ James Acaster
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:42 PM   #344
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by beren View Post
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.

Originally Posted by beren View Post
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.

Last edited by marplots; 3rd March 2016 at 07:44 PM.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:45 PM   #345
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:47 PM   #346
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
I don't know. Does it matter?

.
Of course it matters.

.
Quote:
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
__________________
Thereís only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you donít cry when youíre doing it. ~ James Acaster
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:51 PM   #347
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,329
"Why, you can't have women having babies and getting abortions in the same hospital! What if the doctor gets the rooms mixed up?"
__________________
The republicans are here to save us from government/socialism. Which would like to give us healthcare. But that would make us weak. And generate a lot of old people.

Politics blog: https://esapolitics.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Tero; 3rd March 2016 at 08:13 PM.
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:55 PM   #348
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by newyorkguy View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:57 PM   #349
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by beren View Post
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 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 07:59 PM   #350
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by Tero View Post
"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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:06 PM   #351
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,245
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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
__________________
Thereís only four things you can be in life: sober, tipsy, drunk and hungover. Tipsy is the only one where you donít cry when youíre doing it. ~ James Acaster
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:11 PM   #352
elbe
Illuminator
 
elbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 4,983
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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.
__________________
"Take the weakest thing in you and beat the bastards with it"
realityisnotadditive... blog... thingy...
elbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:22 PM   #353
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by elbe View Post
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?
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 08:35 PM   #354
xjx388
Moderator
Moderator
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 10,138
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?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 09:39 PM   #355
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 8,302
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
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.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 3rd March 2016 at 09:42 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 09:47 PM   #356
cosmicaug
Graduate Poster
 
cosmicaug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,594
Originally Posted by marplots View Post
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?
__________________
--
August Pamplona

Last edited by cosmicaug; 3rd March 2016 at 09:49 PM.
cosmicaug is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 10:27 PM   #357
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
Originally Posted by cosmicaug View Post
(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.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 3rd March 2016, 11:46 PM   #358
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 31,885
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
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.
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it.
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2016, 01:24 AM   #359
Sherkeu
Master Poster
 
Sherkeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Disneyland
Posts: 2,642
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.
Sherkeu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 4th March 2016, 05:05 AM   #360
newyorkguy
Penultimate Amazing
 
newyorkguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: NY
Posts: 11,841
Originally Posted by Sherkeu View Post
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.
newyorkguy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.