5th Circuit upholds Texas abortion restrictions

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

http://huff.to/1Qm28yN

Yes!!!!

[The Dowager Mod]

YES!
Let's celebrate the impending deaths of victims of rape in back alley hellholes!

[Hifly]

I'm generally pro-choice (with stricter limits), but I have to say that pro-choice activists are really dumb about politics.
All health and social care should have regulatory standards, and it is not unconstitutional to legislate for these standards when it comes to abortion clinics.

A lot of the naïvety from those who declare that regulations result in "impending deaths of victims of rape in back alley hellholes" is no more sensible than religious fundamentalists declaring that same-sex marriage results in polygamy.

[The Dowager Mod]

I'm generally pro-choice (with stricter limits), but I have to say that pro-choice activists are really dumb about politics.
All health and social care should have regulatory standards, and it is not unconstitutional to legislate for these standards when it comes to abortion clinics.

A lot of the naïvety from those who declare that regulations result in "impending deaths of victims of rape in back alley hellholes" is no more sensible than religious fundamentalists declaring that same-sex marriage results in polygamy.

If the clinics can't afford the expensive "upgrades" then they close, women have nowhere within 500 miles that is safe to get it done.
I really do not see how that is hard to understand.

[CountryClassSF]

http://huff.to/1Qm28yN

Yes!!!!

Saw this. Thrilling news.  One step at a time the pro-life movement is winning victories!

The American public is on the side of science -- overwhelmingly support protecting life in viability stage. And I believe technology is advancing that that viability stage will come earlier and earlier

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm generally pro-choice (with stricter limits), but I have to say that pro-choice activists are really dumb about politics.
All health and social care should have regulatory standards, and it is not unconstitutional to legislate for these standards when it comes to abortion clinics.

A lot of the naïvety from those who declare that regulations result in "impending deaths of victims of rape in back alley hellholes" is no more sensible than religious fundamentalists declaring that same-sex marriage results in polygamy.

I have no problem with regulations aimed at abortion clinics, but I do have a problem when they are transparently being used as a means to shut as many of them down as possible.

[Pandaguineapig]

I'm generally pro-choice (with stricter limits), but I have to say that pro-choice activists are really dumb about politics.
All health and social care should have regulatory standards, and it is not unconstitutional to legislate for these standards when it comes to abortion clinics.

A lot of the naïvety from those who declare that regulations result in "impending deaths of victims of rape in back alley hellholes" is no more sensible than religious fundamentalists declaring that same-sex marriage results in polygamy.

I have no problem with regulations aimed at abortion clinics, but I do have a problem when they are transparently being used as a means to shut as many of them down as possible.

Is it really the state's problem if the clinics can't maintain basic sanitation standards?

[DemPGH]

Yeah, so I guess it's better if some creep down a back alley or a side street performs abortions his own way. Pathetic. But, 5th circuit - lol.

[Torie]

Are these Texas restrictions reasonably necessary for medical safety? Somehow I doubt it. It seems more aimed towards reducing the access to abortions, including those that SCOTUS has held women have a Constitutional right to have. It will be interesting to read the opinion. My tentative reaction is that these three 5th circuit judges went off the rails.

As a policy matter, I tend to be hostile to late term abortions, absent the physical safety of the mother being at risk. But I am also hostile to making first trimester abortions more difficult to secure. On the abortion issue, I plead guilty to being a moderate hero or something. I think there is solid middle ground, which is way under-represented by elected officials who tend towards the extremes as opposed to where the public is on this issue, which is more centrist.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While these restrictions don't really act to improve the health or safety of the mother, they also aren't going to appreciably increase travel time as none of the metro areas^* where abortion providers currently operate would see all of their providers close.  That's likely the key reason the 5th Circuit reversed.  While they adversely affect some abortion providers, they don't appear to seriously impact their clients, and that's what would need to be shown to argue that there is an undue impact.

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

[Brittain33]

Is it really the state's problem if the clinics can't maintain basic sanitation standards?

Read the case and familiarize yourself with the new regulations being passed.

[Brittain33]

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

In the Mississippi case, the court ruled that availability in cities in neighboring states (I think they cited Memphis, New Orleans, and Mobile) did not represent meeting a state's need to permit access because a state can not offload its constitutional obligations to another state.

It's easy to see the problem here. Alabama surely wants to close its clinics, and it can't be the sole provider for both it and neighboring states that banned abortion first. What happens if New Mexico passes a law like Texas?

[Torie]

While these restrictions don't really act to improve the health or safety of the mother, they also aren't going to appreciably increase travel time as none of the metro areas^* where abortion providers currently operate would see all of their providers close.  That's likely the key reason the 5th Circuit reversed.  While they adversely affect some abortion providers, they don't appear to seriously impact their clients, and that's what would need to be shown to argue that there is an undue impact.

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

If that is the case, then  what is the reasonable basis for these requirements that do not facilitate health or safety issues? I see none myself so I don't see how it meets the reasonable basis standard, much less a heightened scrutiny standard. The effect and certainly the motivation of the law, is to make securing a Constitutionally protected right to an abortion, more difficult, even if perhaps not that much more difficult. I don't see how that can stand. I'm sure Texas was claiming it was reasonably necessary for health and safety, and I wonder what evidence it offered to support that disingenuous assertion.

[Pandaguineapig]

Is it really the state's problem if the clinics can't maintain basic sanitation standards?

Read the case and familiarize yourself with the new regulations being passed.

I did none of the regulations are so extreme that a semi-competent, or semi-clean clinic can't meet them

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

In the Mississippi case, the court ruled that availability in cities in neighboring states (I think they cited Memphis, New Orleans, and Mobile) did not represent meeting a state's need to permit access because a state can not offload its constitutional obligations to another state.

It's easy to see the problem here. Alabama surely wants to close its clinics, and it can't be the sole provider for both it and neighboring states that banned abortion first. What happens if New Mexico passes a law like Texas?

The difference here is that Jackson, Mississippi is not in the same metro area. In the case of El Paso it's not only in the same metro, it's a clinic operated by the same owner as the one that will be closing. No one is disputing that these regulations increase the costs to abortion providers. Clearly the owner here has come to the reasonable conclusion that it makes economic sense to consolidate operations in New Mexico. However, that doesn't mean that if New Mexico were to adopt similar regulations that an upgraded facility would not be built in El Paso. Frankly the provisions in HB 2 that already went into effect that ended up closing the clinics in the Texas panhandle would seem to be far more ripe for a challenge based on excessive distance for those seeking abortion services.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While these restrictions don't really act to improve the health or safety of the mother, they also aren't going to appreciably increase travel time as none of the metro areas^* where abortion providers currently operate would see all of their providers close.  That's likely the key reason the 5th Circuit reversed.  While they adversely affect some abortion providers, they don't appear to seriously impact their clients, and that's what would need to be shown to argue that there is an undue impact.

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

If that is the case, then  what is the reasonable basis for these requirements that do not facilitate health or safety issues? I see none myself so I don't see how it meets the reasonable basis standard, much less a heightened scrutiny standard. The effect and certainly the motivation of the law, is to make securing a Constitutionally protected right to an abortion, more difficult, even if perhaps not that much more difficult. I don't see how that can stand. I'm sure Texas was claiming it was reasonably necessary for health and safety, and I wonder what evidence it offered to support that disingenuous assertion.

The point is that SCOTUS has only found a right to get an abortion, not a right to be an abortion provider. Unless the regulations in question impede the ability to get an abortion, then any impingement of the ability to be an abortionist is no more constitutionally repugnant than impingements of other professions. The Constitution does not prohibit silly or unneeded laws such as HB 2.

[DrScholl]

I think some people are failing to understand what the intent of the bill is. No state can pass an abortion ban outright and have it hold up, so you have bills like this that impose regulations that can close clinics. A lot of these clinics provide more than abortion services, such as testing and treatment of STDs. You can potentially end up having an outbreak of STDs that overwhelms certain areas of the state.

[Torie]

While these restrictions don't really act to improve the health or safety of the mother, they also aren't going to appreciably increase travel time as none of the metro areas^* where abortion providers currently operate would see all of their providers close.  That's likely the key reason the 5th Circuit reversed.  While they adversely affect some abortion providers, they don't appear to seriously impact their clients, and that's what would need to be shown to argue that there is an undue impact.

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

If that is the case, then  what is the reasonable basis for these requirements that do not facilitate health or safety issues? I see none myself so I don't see how it meets the reasonable basis standard, much less a heightened scrutiny standard. The effect and certainly the motivation of the law, is to make securing a Constitutionally protected right to an abortion, more difficult, even if perhaps not that much more difficult. I don't see how that can stand. I'm sure Texas was claiming it was reasonably necessary for health and safety, and I wonder what evidence it offered to support that disingenuous assertion.

The point is that SCOTUS has only found a right to get an abortion, not a right to be an abortion provider. Unless the regulations in question impede the ability to get an abortion, then any impingement of the ability to be an abortionist is no more constitutionally repugnant than impingements of other professions. The Constitution does not prohibit silly or unneeded laws such as HB 2.

It seems that the regulations are designed to so impede.

[Hifly]

You can potentially end up having an outbreak of STDs that overwhelms certain areas of the state.

Like the outbreak of polygamy that's going to happen if SCOTUS legalises gay marriage?

[publicunofficial]

You can potentially end up having an outbreak of STDs that overwhelms certain areas of the state.

Like the outbreak of polygamy that's going to happen if SCOTUS legalises gay marriage?

lol hifly

[DrScholl]

You can potentially end up having an outbreak of STDs that overwhelms certain areas of the state.

Like the outbreak of polygamy that's going to happen if SCOTUS legalises gay marriage?

Indiana ran Planned Parenthood out of the state and now one area of the state has an out of control HIV epidemic. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-rutter-on-scott-county-st-0607-20150606-story.html

[Hifly]

You can potentially end up having an outbreak of STDs that overwhelms certain areas of the state.

Like the outbreak of polygamy that's going to happen if SCOTUS legalises gay marriage?

Indiana ran Planned Parenthood out of the state and now one area of the state has an out of control HIV epidemic. http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/post-tribune/opinion/ct-ptb-rutter-on-scott-county-st-0607-20150606-story.html

Correlation does not imply causation. Is there even a correlation? No.

The underlying issue is the availability of drugs; HIV-testing centres do not stop the needle.

[Brittain33]

^* Tho in the case of El Paso, the only Texas clinic will close, there's one right across the border in New Mexico, operated by the same owner as the Texas clinic that'll have to close unless there is a stay.

In the Mississippi case, the court ruled that availability in cities in neighboring states (I think they cited Memphis, New Orleans, and Mobile) did not represent meeting a state's need to permit access because a state can not offload its constitutional obligations to another state.

It's easy to see the problem here. Alabama surely wants to close its clinics, and it can't be the sole provider for both it and neighboring states that banned abortion first. What happens if New Mexico passes a law like Texas?

The difference here is that Jackson, Mississippi is not in the same metro area.

The Supreme Court said specifically that a state can not offload its constitutional responsibilities onto another state.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The difference here is that Jackson, Mississippi is not in the same metro area.

The Supreme Court said specifically that a state can not offload its constitutional responsibilities onto another state.

But is it actually doing so?  You'd have to show that if there were no clinic just across the border in Las Cruces (which was already getting significant business from Texas) then El Paso wouldn't have one that did meet the Texan standards to argue that it is offloading its responsibilities.  Equating the situation in El Paso with Jackson's is ridiculous.  Since the El Paso metro is larger than McAllen, which is going to continue having a clinic, I fail to see how any reasonable person would conclude that El Paso is going to be deprived local access to abortion services.

[CapoteMonster]

The difference here is that Jackson, Mississippi is not in the same metro area.

The Supreme Court said specifically that a state can not offload its constitutional responsibilities onto another state.

But is it actually doing so?  You'd have to show that if there were no clinic just across the border in Las Cruces (which was already getting significant business from Texas) then El Paso wouldn't have one that did meet the Texan standards to argue that it is offloading its responsibilities.  Equating the situation in El Paso with Jackson's is ridiculous.  Since the El Paso metro is larger than McAllen, which is going to continue having a clinic, I fail to see how any reasonable person would conclude that El Paso is going to be deprived local access to abortion services.

Wouldn't it deny access to El Paso patients without a passport?