Link. At this time there are seven states that have only one abortion provider each: Both Dakotas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, West Virginia and Wyoming. If Republican Governor Matt Bevin gets his way, Kentucky will soon have no abortion providers.
In my personal opinion this, along with other actions mentioned in the article, is effectively an abortion ban.
Agreed. And in all cases, the lack of access is due to excessive and non-medically-necessary or useful regulations designed solely to reduce access rather than an unwillingness for providers to offer abortion services.
Is it reasonable to call it a “right” if you have to travel out-of-state to exercise it?
What if the governor of a state managed through legal harassment to cut off all means of acquiring a firearm in that state. Do you still have the right to keep and bear arms if you have to travel until you find a state that will sell you a gun?
This doesn’t sound much different than the way things were pre-Roe v. Wade. Back when abortion was decided by the states if you wanted an abortion you could always travel to Washington or New York where it was legal
Yes but the vast majority of people who will need an abortion aren’t able to just travel to another state to get one. Saying it’s as simple as driving somewhere where it’s legal ignores so many underlying factors that make such a thing impossible for many women. The same factors that make it nearly impossible to ‘just wait’ 24-48 hours before the procedure. Or to visit the clinic multiple times just to take a pill. None of these requirements have any medical basis and are there to make the procedure inaccessible for the poor and middle class.
It’s a bit worse for guns because you can’t purchase a pistol out-of-state. That’s a big federal no-no (10 years in prison).
And you can’t do an abortion via mail, either. Both situations involve traveling long distances and jumping through ridiculous hoops to exercise what is supposedly your right.
edited to add: My analogy depends on your being able to buy outside-of-state, of course…but no analogy is perfect. Sorry.
What proportion of abortion seekers are not capable of interstate travel?
Regards,
Shodan
I don’t think that was HurricaneDitka’s point.
You can legally get an abortion by going to another state, however troublesome that may be. You cannot get a gun by going out of state, even if you are wiling to undergo the trouble of doing so. (his point)
ETA: OK post edited
In Washington, DC, there is a single firearms dealer to handle purchases of guns by DC residents. The general idea is that a DC resident goes to a gun store in Maryland or Virginia, pays for the gun, it is transferred to the DC dealer, and you jump through a couple hoops and pick it up from him.
The issue is that there really are very few gun sales in DC. (Legal ones, anyway – hardy-har-har.) Between 2008 and 2015, there were about 500-600 transactions per year, for which the dealer charged $125. Long story short, the guy wasn’t making enough money to keep up with his rent, so in 2011 he vacated his office.
DC basically said, well, we can’t have that, so they worked out a deal to give him office space in the police headquarters. The outlines of the deal aren’t clear, but it sounds like he is getting a very substantial discount on rent just so he stays in business.
Seems like the government of DC is far more accepting of civil rights than the governments of several states. Maybe we should ask again for statehood, and just take it away from those other states mentioned upthread.
Pre-Miller, what proportion of DC residents were not capable of moving out of state if they wished to own a handgun?
I’d hazard a guess at ZERO.
Who can tell? The various problems involved with this “solution” are:
I am sure other posters can come up with other good reasons-these are just three that spring to mind right now.
What difference does that make?
Definitely those. Also the inability to get time off work. Either they have no sick/vacation days or they can’t afford to lose the income from missed days of work.
Serious? The entity that fought tooth and nail (all the way to the Supreme Court) to make sure their handgun ban stayed in place? Here is what the mayor of DC said after that historic ruling:
He’s laying out his plans to create exactly the sort of pointless, rights-infringing laws against DC gun owners, or would-be gun owners, that Czarcasm decried in the OP. They did. You can read all about their shenanigans here or here.
Specifically dealing with the single FFL dealer willing to do transfers, I suspect that DC preferred having one part-time guy doing it in their police station rather than having Congress forcing them to open it up to any FFL dealer in Virginia or Maryland, which was a proposal floated around back then.
The new mayor declared this herself:
Yeah, they’re really accomodating to the 2nd Amendment there in DC :rolleyes:
You should go back to being part of Maryland if you want statehood.
I knew I shouldn’t have used a gun analogy. :smack:
If we could please not hijack this, and get back on topic…Do you still have a right to an abortion, if you cannot exercise that right within reasonable means and/or have to travel out-of-state?
—already discussed—
“Access” is barely helpful after the Republican’s word juggling during the healthcare debacles. Both a hobo and Bill Gates have “access” to buying a yacht. All these women have “access” to an abortion, if they have the time and resources. For me this recalls old lexical alchemy about how anti-gay marriage laws aren’t discrimination against gay people because they can still marry the opposite sex like anyone else, or anti-miscegenation laws didn’t violate equality because both blacks and whites were punished.
It’s not a hijack, because the same analysis should apply.
I think the differentiating factor here is motivation.
If you had a state that had only 100 total residents (a Moon base or something), one could reasonably argue that while the residents of the state have the right to choose, there is not sufficient resources to reasonably set up an abortion clinic that meets accepted medical standards.
Though, right off the bat, I see a massive gaping hole in this argument. A Moon base cannot afford a clinic able to bring a woman to term, either. If a state is licensing birthing clinics, and is subjecting abortion clinics to higher standards than the riskier (to the woman’s life) procedure of giving birth, that’s just a law designed to take away a woman’s right to choose.
And that’s the core of these laws. As long as the Supreme Court agrees that women have a right to choose, unless the state can cite a panel of credible medical doctors stating that a particular requirement is medically necessary, all these laws should be unconstitutional.
The problem here is that legislators should have some skin in the game. It should be possible to civilly or criminally prosecute the lawmakers of a state who knowingly pass an unconstitutional law. Otherwise, it’s just a merry go round. Our civil rights are toilet paper. A state legislator can pass an unconstitutional law, and then it stays on the books in force until someone comes up with a buncha money to challenge it and gets it past years of court proceedings. A state can just deny any right they want, whenever they want, and do so basically indefinitely.