I don't know if this would have proceeded if Scalia was still on the bench, but it's nice to see that the court isn't going to entertain this shitty and short sighted idiocy.
Yeah, this is one of those cases where the ruling may have to result in a "bad outcome". If domestic violence is serious enough to eliminate gun rights, it should be a felony. There's not really a good justification for removing rights for misdemeanors.
Could there be an equal protection issue as well? I know that domestic violence convictions are biased towards convicting men. Would this fall under disparate impact?
Very doubtful you could look at prosecution stats and find a consistent bias to reach the level that it invalidates this law.
So, we have a pretty major case in arguments today: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The stakes here are pretty high - a 4-4 ruling will leave the lower court's ruling intact, shuttering a number of clinics across Texas.
So, we have a pretty major case in arguments today: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The stakes here are pretty high - a 4-4 ruling will leave the lower court's ruling intact, shuttering a number of clinics across Texas.
So Kennedy still gets to play the swing-vote here? Wheeee!
So, we have a pretty major case in arguments today: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The stakes here are pretty high - a 4-4 ruling will leave the lower court's ruling intact, shuttering a number of clinics across Texas.
So Kennedy still gets to play the swing-vote here? Wheeee!
Yep. The only bright side is that if he decides to side with the conservative faction, it won't legitimize TRAP laws across the US now.
So not having Scalia around isn't that bad for the time being then right? Since he's generally on the side of rulings that are undesirable anything that would be 5-4 and set a precedent would now just be 4-4 and would not.
0
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
So not having Scalia around isn't that bad for the time being then right? Since he's generally on the side of rulings that are undesirable anything that would be 5-4 and set a precedent would now just be 4-4 and would not.
5-4 would have been worse than 4-4, so it's kind of like a silver linings thing and not really a happy situation
This is going to be an intersting case overall because I believe that there is a similar case working it's up with a different ruling or am I thinking of something else? This could be the first ruling to cause separate parts of the country to live under different rules for a long time. Somewhat unique in that these restrictions find exciting and new ways to completely end the constitutional protections established by Roe v Wade.
So not having Scalia around isn't that bad for the time being then right? Since he's generally on the side of rulings that are undesirable anything that would be 5-4 and set a precedent would now just be 4-4 and would not.
Arguable. It doesn't change much of relevance here. Kennedy was going to decide this before, he's still going to decide it now.
Now if we're talking about the magical fairyland where the Senate does it's job this would probably be worst case a 5-4 win with whomever Obama would appoint.
So not having Scalia around isn't that bad for the time being then right? Since he's generally on the side of rulings that are undesirable anything that would be 5-4 and set a precedent would now just be 4-4 and would not.
5-4 would have been worse than 4-4, so it's kind of like a silver linings thing and not really a happy situation
Well yeah, that's what I mean. The chances of a really undesirable Supreme Court ruling cease to exist because without Scalia all of those rulings would end up being 4-4 and just void.
This is going to be an intersting case overall because I believe that there is a similar case working it's up with a different ruling or am I thinking of something else? This could be the first ruling to cause separate parts of the country to live under different rules for a long time. Somewhat unique in that these restrictions find exciting and new ways to completely end the constitutional protections established by Roe v Wade.
That is mostly because the majority in Roe v Wade is a terrible opinion. It didn't recognize a right to an abortion, just a right to privacy. Except that right to privacy is dependant on how advanced medical science becomes, because that effects fetal viability.
This is going to be an intersting case overall because I believe that there is a similar case working it's up with a different ruling or am I thinking of something else? This could be the first ruling to cause separate parts of the country to live under different rules for a long time. Somewhat unique in that these restrictions find exciting and new ways to completely end the constitutional protections established by Roe v Wade.
That is mostly because the majority in Roe v Wade is a terrible opinion. It didn't recognize a right to an abortion, just a right to privacy. Except that right to privacy is dependant on how advanced medical science becomes, because that effects fetal viability.
Eh, this is really about Casey's "undue burden" rather than anything in Roe.
This is going to be an intersting case overall because I believe that there is a similar case working it's up with a different ruling or am I thinking of something else? This could be the first ruling to cause separate parts of the country to live under different rules for a long time. Somewhat unique in that these restrictions find exciting and new ways to completely end the constitutional protections established by Roe v Wade.
That is mostly because the majority in Roe v Wade is a terrible opinion. It didn't recognize a right to an abortion, just a right to privacy. Except that right to privacy is dependant on how advanced medical science becomes, because that effects fetal viability.
That vagueness in Roe as you claim has never become an issue though. Viability has remained at the same stage for the last 40 years as well as the ruling itself allowing changes due to explicitly stating the reasoning. That said none of the current cases even involve that as no laws have even attempted to use that as a method for limiting the right.
The current laws are based, in vague terms, on women's health but also establishes a way to functionally ban abortion by popular rule through the admitting privileges caveat. That essentially overturns it without ever overturning it. If a different federal court rules against it and we get a split this creates a very weird and bad set of circumstances for the country.
I somewhat disagree it involves more Casey given the devastating impacts and aggressive nature of the laws in question. Laws very much like these are closing all abortion providers in certain states. It involves Casey in as much as the question is can you use Casey to make Roe irrelevant.
This is going to be an intersting case overall because I believe that there is a similar case working it's up with a different ruling or am I thinking of something else? This could be the first ruling to cause separate parts of the country to live under different rules for a long time. Somewhat unique in that these restrictions find exciting and new ways to completely end the constitutional protections established by Roe v Wade.
That is mostly because the majority in Roe v Wade is a terrible opinion. It didn't recognize a right to an abortion, just a right to privacy. Except that right to privacy is dependant on how advanced medical science becomes, because that effects fetal viability.
I'm pretty sure that you can't recognize a right to a specific medical procedure. MAYBE sex reassignment surgery, but even that's pushing it.
The only justification for abortion to be forced to be legal in all states is that the government can't make decisions about personal medical care. Even as someone who is strongly anti-abortion, I can respect that logic.
Acute emergency procedures are generally considered to be a right, and respected / treated as such (you may get a bill in the mail, but it's not like the ambulance asks for payment up front before rushing you to the hospital). Access to vaccination & disease prevention is generally considered to be a right (if for no other reason than to prevent the old plagues from coming back).
The justifications for maintaining first world status quo for abortions are many, including the fact that anti-abortions laws are incompatible with functional societies. Contrast that with the justifications for making the practice illegal, almost all of which are rooted in superstitious and/or metaphysical arguments rooted in theological tradition.
Acute emergency procedures are generally considered to be a right, and respected / treated as such (you may get a bill in the mail, but it's not like the ambulance asks for payment up front before rushing you to the hospital). Access to vaccination & disease prevention is generally considered to be a right (if for no other reason than to prevent the old plagues from coming back).
The justifications for maintaining first world status quo for abortions are many, including the fact that anti-abortions laws are incompatible with functional societies. Contrast that with the justifications for making the practice illegal, almost all of which are rooted in superstitious and/or metaphysical arguments rooted in theological tradition.
Hence the rise of TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws, which uses safety regulations to strangle clinics.
Acute emergency procedures are generally considered to be a right, and respected / treated as such (you may get a bill in the mail, but it's not like the ambulance asks for payment up front before rushing you to the hospital). Access to vaccination & disease prevention is generally considered to be a right (if for no other reason than to prevent the old plagues from coming back).
The justifications for maintaining first world status quo for abortions are many, including the fact that anti-abortions laws are incompatible with functional societies. Contrast that with the justifications for making the practice illegal, almost all of which are rooted in superstitious and/or metaphysical arguments rooted in theological tradition.
Abortion is not (usually) an acute emergency procedure. And even in the case, you're not guaranteed a right to a specific procedure, merely a procedure sufficient to save your life. Otherwise the FDA would not be able to restrict medications.
That's my point. If it makes you feel better, add "constitutional" in front of justification. It was implied due to the context of the thread.
Seconds after Texas sSolicitor gGeneral Scott Keller began to speak Wednesday morning, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg zeroed in on the “undue burden” question—quickly and mercilessly knocking Keller off balance, and setting the tone for the rest of his nearly 40 minutes at the lectern. Ginsburg asked Keller how many women would live 100 miles or more from a clinic if the Texas law went into effect. About 25 percent, he responded—but that didn’t include the clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, just over the border from El Paso. The existence of this clinic featured heavily in the Fifth 5th Circuit’s decision to uphold the Texas statute; it asserted that the law did not impose on “undue burden” on abortion-seeking El Paso women, because they could simply cross state lines for the procedure.
“That’s odd that you point to the New Mexico facility,” Ginsburg said, in a clear and firm voice. New Mexico, after all, doesn’t force abortion clinics to meet the same standards that Texas would—standards which, Texas claims, are absolutely critical to protect women.
“So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”
“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
This exchange was Keller’s first of the morning, and Ginsburg delivered a knockout punch. She very efficiently revealed the inconsistency at the heart of Texas’ argument. The state vows that its new standards—which include minimum sizes for hallways, doorways, and ventilation systems—are essential to protecting women’s health. But when challenged confronted with the fact that these standards are so onerous and expensive that they will shutter many clinics, Texas shrugs and suggests women drive to another state without those ostensibly crucial standards. And in an impressive display of chutzpah, the state even relies on the continued existence of New Mexico’s clinics to defend the constitutionality of its own law.
That the appeals court took that argument seriously makes me really question what the fuck the fifth was thinking. Like that another states clinic is open currently doesn't imply it will be open forever. Like say New mexico puts up its own trap laws, than what at one points wasn't an undue burden just became one?
Also don't a lot of these abortion regulations also include language about prosecuting people for leaving the state to have an "illegal" abortion? Usually referring to a later than 20 week one, but without medical records the police wouldn't know that and could start charging women for leaving the state.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
How is it a weak argument? She's rightfully pointing out that they're saying that they are implementing these regulations to protect the safety of the women, but then are arguing that there's no undue burden...because they can just go across the border to a facility that is, by Texas law, "unsafe".
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
Ehh, we discuss optics all the time in this thread.
If they pass rational basis, then the undue burden argument gets into a problem with circularity. The court would be nullifying laws that protect women's health in order to protect women's health. That makes my head hurt.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
How is it a weak argument? She's rightfully pointing out that they're saying that they are implementing these regulations to protect the safety of the women, but then are arguing that there's no undue burden...because they can just go across the border to a facility that is, by Texas law, "unsafe".
I see no reference in that article to the New Mexico clinic being "unsafe". Maybe it's poorly written or maybe the clinic qualifies as "safe". Admittedly, since it's Slate, it probably is the former.
Either way, the argument from the Texas side is entirely coherent. "We think that these rules are necessary to ensure the safety of women in Texas. But, if they absolutely can't make it to one of the clinics that passes our tests, they can travel to another state."
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
Ehh, we discuss optics all the time in this thread.
If they pass rational basis, then the undue burden argument gets into a problem with circularity. The court would be nullifying laws that protect women's health in order to protect women's health. That makes my head hurt.
But the point is that their very argument shows that the laws aren't about protecting women's health, because they're arguing that there's no undue burden because the women can just go to a clinic that they ruled was unsafe.
Is it because when you're imposing a burden, you have to present proper cause to burden a right? And then, if the Texas lawyers are admitting that New Mexico facilities pass muster, that they are not applying these standards for a valid reason and therefore are imposing an undue burden?
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
Ehh, we discuss optics all the time in this thread.
If they pass rational basis, then the undue burden argument gets into a problem with circularity. The court would be nullifying laws that protect women's health in order to protect women's health. That makes my head hurt.
But the point is that their very argument shows that the laws aren't about protecting women's health, because they're arguing that there's no undue burden because the women can just go to a clinic that they ruled was unsafe.
She's engaging in a false dichotomy. There's a range between "unsafe" and "safe to Texan standards".
The argument is just a proxy for the rational basis test. No one would be up in arms if Texas passed a law saying that doctors are required to wear masks in surgery, even if that meant that all the hospitals in the state closed down. Because the regulation passes the rational basis test.
This is about a medical procedure, not the right to vote.
If the law is irrational, throw it out. If it's rational, donate some more money to Planned Parenthood so they can retrofit one of the clinics that closed.
Assuming the New Mexico clinic meets Texas' standards, it may not be an undue burden for women living in El Paso to get there, but there sure would be undue burden for women in Houston, Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Dallas, etc. to make it to that clinic that is not under the purview of Texas law to stay open or provide services based on Texas law.
Assuming the New Mexico clinic meets Texas' standards, it may not be an undue burden for women living in El Paso to get there, but there sure would be undue burden for women in Houston, Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Dallas, etc. to make it to that clinic that is not under the purview of Texas law to stay open or provide services based on Texas law.
A map would be really helpful for this discussion, I think. Considering how the population density is spread, I'd be fairly surprised if more than one of those cities was outside the 100 mile radius to a clinic.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
How is it a weak argument? She's rightfully pointing out that they're saying that they are implementing these regulations to protect the safety of the women, but then are arguing that there's no undue burden...because they can just go across the border to a facility that is, by Texas law, "unsafe".
I see no reference in that article to the New Mexico clinic being "unsafe". Maybe it's poorly written or maybe the clinic qualifies as "safe". Admittedly, since it's Slate, it probably is the former.
Either way, the argument from the Texas side is entirely coherent. "We think that these rules are necessary to ensure the safety of women in Texas. But, if they absolutely can't make it to one of the clinics that passes our tests, they can travel to another state."
The argument by Texas is that clinics offering abortion have to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical clinics in order to protect the safety of women undergoing procedures there. They then argue that this is not an undue burden, because women can go to clinics across the state border, which are not held to those standards.
The state cannot say "these regulations are necessary to protect the health and safety of these women" and "these regulations are not burdensome because women can go to clinics in other states that are not held to the same standards of safety."
The implication is that the new mexico clinic which is not subject to texas's law does not have to be set to their standard, so texas can not write laws in their state saying its ok because another state which they do not govern and therefore can not say one way or another, has a facility to perform the service they are restricting. If the new mexico clinic does not meet the texas law, and Texas is ok referring people to that clinic to perform that service than why does texas have the law in the first place?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Assuming the New Mexico clinic meets Texas' standards, it may not be an undue burden for women living in El Paso to get there, but there sure would be undue burden for women in Houston, Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Dallas, etc. to make it to that clinic that is not under the purview of Texas law to stay open or provide services based on Texas law.
A map would be really helpful for this discussion, I think. Considering how the population density is spread, I'd be fairly surprised if more than one of those cities was outside the 100 mile radius to a clinic.
Texas is big. The point is that if all the clinics in El Paso (a decent sized city) closes, it prevents access to not just the women in El Paso but also the women living in smaller cities for quite a distance.
I really don't get what's so confusing about this.
"For abortions to be provided safely, they require X, Y, and Z."
"What percentage of women live within 100 miles of the clinics in the state?"
"... 25%, but more if you include ones not actually located in the state!"
"Which would in turn not be required to have the same safety considerations?"
"ummmmmmm."
If these regulations are required for safety, then why the fuck are they suggesting that other clinics are fine even without them!? It's almost like 'safety' isn't remotely the issue at hand, rather than a convenient reason to shut down... y'know what, here, I'll just let John Oliver explain the whole thing.
My apologies, I know "watch 16 minute video" isn't a polite answer, but we're talking about an issue with considerable context surrounding it, and the LWT crew are pretty damned good about thoroughly covering issues while still being entertaining (at least to me).
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Is it because when you're imposing a burden, you have to present proper cause to burden a right? And then, if the Texas lawyers are admitting that New Mexico facilities pass muster, that they are not applying these standards for a valid reason and therefore are imposing an undue burden?
This is what makes sense to me from her argument. If the New Mexico clinic doesn't meet these standards but Texas argues that it is still safe for women to go to then they are admitting the regulations are just arbitrary at best. At worst they are arguing certain parts of the state don't deserve the same protections though I can't imagine anyone arguing that.
As for how it for last the fifth circuit? They are crazy conservative. They were never going to overturn anything that remotely looked constitutional.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
This is because no direct challenge to Roe v Wade will ever be entertained. They can't come out and say they want to legislate it away or they will never even get out of the gate. Undue burden is what they are trying to use to effectively eliminate them piece meal. The most generous interpretation I can think of would be they are seeing how much of a burden they can put on before it becomes undue, but that is still pretty shitty.
The implication is that the new mexico clinic which is not subject to texas's law does not have to be set to their standard, so texas can not write laws in their state saying its ok because another state which they do not govern and therefore can not say one way or another, has a facility to perform the service they are restricting. If the new mexico clinic does not meet the texas law, and Texas is ok referring people to that clinic to perform that service than why does texas have the law in the first place?
The full scope of the safety regulations aren't being understood, perhaps.
The state aims to protect Texas women (and the rest of the population) from being turned into pillars of salt and/or struck by brimstone & fire. Standard OSEA/WHMS stuff.
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
RBG points out that Texas is also knowingly placing an undue burden on access to "safe" facilities, because by their own definition the NM facility does not qualify.
If access to abortion in other states -at all- is viable criteria for determining if your state is placing an undue burden, then Rhode Island, Massachusetts, or Connecticut could (effectively) ban it entirely without running afoul. But not all of them!
If MA and CT (effectively) banned it, because people can just pop next door, RI would be unable to then do so. This is bs on a states rights premise alone. Ruling that undue burden may consider neighboring states allows Texas to effectively control NM abortion laws.
+14
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I think that's a fairly weak argument from RBG. Just because the New Mexico clinic isn't under Texas laws doesn't imply that it fails to meet most of the standards.
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
Ehh, we discuss optics all the time in this thread.
If they pass rational basis, then the undue burden argument gets into a problem with circularity. The court would be nullifying laws that protect women's health in order to protect women's health. That makes my head hurt.
But the point is that their very argument shows that the laws aren't about protecting women's health, because they're arguing that there's no undue burden because the women can just go to a clinic that they ruled was unsafe.
She's engaging in a false dichotomy. There's a range between "unsafe" and "safe to Texan standards".
The argument is just a proxy for the rational basis test. No one would be up in arms if Texas passed a law saying that doctors are required to wear masks in surgery, even if that meant that all the hospitals in the state closed down. Because the regulation passes the rational basis test.
This is about a medical procedure, not the right to vote.
If the law is irrational, throw it out. If it's rational, donate some more money to Planned Parenthood so they can retrofit one of the clinics that closed.
Assuming the New Mexico clinic meets Texas' standards, it may not be an undue burden for women living in El Paso to get there, but there sure would be undue burden for women in Houston, Austin, Waco, San Antonio, Dallas, etc. to make it to that clinic that is not under the purview of Texas law to stay open or provide services based on Texas law.
A map would be really helpful for this discussion, I think. Considering how the population density is spread, I'd be fairly surprised if more than one of those cities was outside the 100 mile radius to a clinic.
I think the issue here may be that you don't understand the case law you're talking about and you don't understand the situation you're talking about.
Per Casey, "undue burden" is part of the requirement that must be met for a law regarding abortion to be considered constitutional.
Texas' law will result in one single abortion clinic in the entire state, a state that, if it were placed over the east coast, would stretch from Detroit, MI, to Savannah, GA.
Posts
I don't know if this would have proceeded if Scalia was still on the bench, but it's nice to see that the court isn't going to entertain this shitty and short sighted idiocy.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Very doubtful you could look at prosecution stats and find a consistent bias to reach the level that it invalidates this law.
So Kennedy still gets to play the swing-vote here? Wheeee!
Yep. The only bright side is that if he decides to side with the conservative faction, it won't legitimize TRAP laws across the US now.
5-4 would have been worse than 4-4, so it's kind of like a silver linings thing and not really a happy situation
Arguable. It doesn't change much of relevance here. Kennedy was going to decide this before, he's still going to decide it now.
Now if we're talking about the magical fairyland where the Senate does it's job this would probably be worst case a 5-4 win with whomever Obama would appoint.
Well yeah, that's what I mean. The chances of a really undesirable Supreme Court ruling cease to exist because without Scalia all of those rulings would end up being 4-4 and just void.
That is mostly because the majority in Roe v Wade is a terrible opinion. It didn't recognize a right to an abortion, just a right to privacy. Except that right to privacy is dependant on how advanced medical science becomes, because that effects fetal viability.
Eh, this is really about Casey's "undue burden" rather than anything in Roe.
That vagueness in Roe as you claim has never become an issue though. Viability has remained at the same stage for the last 40 years as well as the ruling itself allowing changes due to explicitly stating the reasoning. That said none of the current cases even involve that as no laws have even attempted to use that as a method for limiting the right.
The current laws are based, in vague terms, on women's health but also establishes a way to functionally ban abortion by popular rule through the admitting privileges caveat. That essentially overturns it without ever overturning it. If a different federal court rules against it and we get a split this creates a very weird and bad set of circumstances for the country.
I somewhat disagree it involves more Casey given the devastating impacts and aggressive nature of the laws in question. Laws very much like these are closing all abortion providers in certain states. It involves Casey in as much as the question is can you use Casey to make Roe irrelevant.
I'm pretty sure that you can't recognize a right to a specific medical procedure. MAYBE sex reassignment surgery, but even that's pushing it.
The only justification for abortion to be forced to be legal in all states is that the government can't make decisions about personal medical care. Even as someone who is strongly anti-abortion, I can respect that logic.
The justifications for maintaining first world status quo for abortions are many, including the fact that anti-abortions laws are incompatible with functional societies. Contrast that with the justifications for making the practice illegal, almost all of which are rooted in superstitious and/or metaphysical arguments rooted in theological tradition.
Hence the rise of TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws, which uses safety regulations to strangle clinics.
Abortion is not (usually) an acute emergency procedure. And even in the case, you're not guaranteed a right to a specific procedure, merely a procedure sufficient to save your life. Otherwise the FDA would not be able to restrict medications.
That's my point. If it makes you feel better, add "constitutional" in front of justification. It was implied due to the context of the thread.
Also don't a lot of these abortion regulations also include language about prosecuting people for leaving the state to have an "illegal" abortion? Usually referring to a later than 20 week one, but without medical records the police wouldn't know that and could start charging women for leaving the state.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Besides, considering what the left is saying about this case, it shouldn't hold up to the rational basis test. Arguing from an undue burden perspective concedes the moral high ground to the right.
I forgot is Moral High Ground in the constitution or used in constitutional arguments? Last I checked it is not.
pleasepaypreacher.net
How is it a weak argument? She's rightfully pointing out that they're saying that they are implementing these regulations to protect the safety of the women, but then are arguing that there's no undue burden...because they can just go across the border to a facility that is, by Texas law, "unsafe".
If they pass rational basis, then the undue burden argument gets into a problem with circularity. The court would be nullifying laws that protect women's health in order to protect women's health. That makes my head hurt.
I see no reference in that article to the New Mexico clinic being "unsafe". Maybe it's poorly written or maybe the clinic qualifies as "safe". Admittedly, since it's Slate, it probably is the former.
Either way, the argument from the Texas side is entirely coherent. "We think that these rules are necessary to ensure the safety of women in Texas. But, if they absolutely can't make it to one of the clinics that passes our tests, they can travel to another state."
But the point is that their very argument shows that the laws aren't about protecting women's health, because they're arguing that there's no undue burden because the women can just go to a clinic that they ruled was unsafe.
She's engaging in a false dichotomy. There's a range between "unsafe" and "safe to Texan standards".
The argument is just a proxy for the rational basis test. No one would be up in arms if Texas passed a law saying that doctors are required to wear masks in surgery, even if that meant that all the hospitals in the state closed down. Because the regulation passes the rational basis test.
This is about a medical procedure, not the right to vote.
If the law is irrational, throw it out. If it's rational, donate some more money to Planned Parenthood so they can retrofit one of the clinics that closed.
A map would be really helpful for this discussion, I think. Considering how the population density is spread, I'd be fairly surprised if more than one of those cities was outside the 100 mile radius to a clinic.
The argument by Texas is that clinics offering abortion have to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical clinics in order to protect the safety of women undergoing procedures there. They then argue that this is not an undue burden, because women can go to clinics across the state border, which are not held to those standards.
The state cannot say "these regulations are necessary to protect the health and safety of these women" and "these regulations are not burdensome because women can go to clinics in other states that are not held to the same standards of safety."
pleasepaypreacher.net
Texas is big. The point is that if all the clinics in El Paso (a decent sized city) closes, it prevents access to not just the women in El Paso but also the women living in smaller cities for quite a distance.
The distances involved between decently populated areas in some parts of Texas is impressive.
"For abortions to be provided safely, they require X, Y, and Z."
"What percentage of women live within 100 miles of the clinics in the state?"
"... 25%, but more if you include ones not actually located in the state!"
"Which would in turn not be required to have the same safety considerations?"
"ummmmmmm."
If these regulations are required for safety, then why the fuck are they suggesting that other clinics are fine even without them!? It's almost like 'safety' isn't remotely the issue at hand, rather than a convenient reason to shut down... y'know what, here, I'll just let John Oliver explain the whole thing.
My apologies, I know "watch 16 minute video" isn't a polite answer, but we're talking about an issue with considerable context surrounding it, and the LWT crew are pretty damned good about thoroughly covering issues while still being entertaining (at least to me).
This is what makes sense to me from her argument. If the New Mexico clinic doesn't meet these standards but Texas argues that it is still safe for women to go to then they are admitting the regulations are just arbitrary at best. At worst they are arguing certain parts of the state don't deserve the same protections though I can't imagine anyone arguing that.
As for how it for last the fifth circuit? They are crazy conservative. They were never going to overturn anything that remotely looked constitutional.
This is because no direct challenge to Roe v Wade will ever be entertained. They can't come out and say they want to legislate it away or they will never even get out of the gate. Undue burden is what they are trying to use to effectively eliminate them piece meal. The most generous interpretation I can think of would be they are seeing how much of a burden they can put on before it becomes undue, but that is still pretty shitty.
The full scope of the safety regulations aren't being understood, perhaps.
The state aims to protect Texas women (and the rest of the population) from being turned into pillars of salt and/or struck by brimstone & fire. Standard OSEA/WHMS stuff.
If access to abortion in other states -at all- is viable criteria for determining if your state is placing an undue burden, then Rhode Island, Massachusetts, or Connecticut could (effectively) ban it entirely without running afoul. But not all of them!
If MA and CT (effectively) banned it, because people can just pop next door, RI would be unable to then do so. This is bs on a states rights premise alone. Ruling that undue burden may consider neighboring states allows Texas to effectively control NM abortion laws.
I think the issue here may be that you don't understand the case law you're talking about and you don't understand the situation you're talking about.
Per Casey, "undue burden" is part of the requirement that must be met for a law regarding abortion to be considered constitutional.
Texas' law will result in one single abortion clinic in the entire state, a state that, if it were placed over the east coast, would stretch from Detroit, MI, to Savannah, GA.