# Is "The right to Choose" real without reasonable access? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 2, 2017, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722 "2017-05-02T15:45:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/61 "2017-05-02T22:59:08Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Are you saying there are no places in Alameda County that sell guns? No. Plaintiffs allegations are documented in the opinion. [From the opinion:](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12576855593474323061&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr) > [@](#): > > In preparation for the suit, Teixeira commissioned a study, which determined that, as a result of the 500-foot rule,\*\* “there are no parcels in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County which would be available for firearm retail sales.”\*\* He argued that the zoning ordinance “is not reasonably related to any possible public safety concerns” and effectively “red-lin[es]… gun stores out of existence.” > > … > > Teixeira’s First Amended Complaint, however, alleges that Alameda County has enacted something beyond a mere regulation — Teixeira alleges that the Conditional Use Permit’s 500-foot rule, as applied, amounts to a complete ban on gun stores: “according to the plaintiffs’ research, which is based primarily on government agency data, there are no parcels in the unincorporated areas of Alameda County which would be available for firearm retail sales.” The district court disregarded such assertion, observing that other retail establishments selling guns exist in Alameda County and “plaintiffs [fail to] allege that the `existing retail establishments’ that sell guns are unable to comply with the Ordinance.” Perhaps anticipating the district court’s skepticism, \*\*Teixeira’s complaint alleged that other Federal Firearm Licensees located within the County were either not in fact retailers, or for whatever reason were not required to comply with the restrictions mandated by the Ordinance. \*\*Though such an assertion may yet prove false, there is no way to tell that from the face of the complaint. While there are stores that sell guns within Alameda County, plaintiff alleges that based on criteria, there are no parcels that would meet the criteria today and that the existing sellers would not be able to do so now. As it relates to the abortion issue, here is the analysis performed by the county prior to granting a conditional use permit: > [@](#): > > The County reviews applications to determine whether there is a “public need” for a proposed business, whether the business will “affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity,” and whether the business would be detrimental to the public welfare or property. Id. § 17.54.130. The County will not issue a permit to a prospective gun retailer until the applicant proves, among other things, that it (1) possesses the requisite state and federal licenses, (2) will store firearms and ammunition lawfully, and (3) the proposed location of the business is not within five hundred feet of a “[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served.” Id. §§ 17.54.130-131. Finally, firearms sellers must obtain a county firearms dealer license. Id. § 17.54.131. I wouldn’t want that criteria applied to a gun store, nor would I want it applied to an women’s health clinic that performed abortions. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/62 "2017-05-02T23:13:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > I wouldn’t want that criteria applied to a gun store, nor would I want it applied to an women’s health clinic that performed abortions. That criterion is also restraint of trade. Note how it contains **other firearm sales business**. So conveniently for the county, if someone does find a valid spot and open up a gun store, nobody else can possibly open one within 500 feet, giving incumbent retailers a big advantage and de facto capping the number of gun stores to either zero or very close to zero. What if there was a similar law that says no abortion clinic can be within 500 miles of another abortion clinic? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/63 "2017-05-02T23:41:29Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > I would consider _any law_ that is _specific_ to abortion clinics that doesn’t apply to other private clinics performing medical procedures of comparable scope and risk is de facto a violation of that right. Everything is is just a sneaky infringement. That’s not what the Supreme Court says. _Casey_ held that states have an interest in protecting fetal life, and may do so as long as the laws do not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions. So what is an undue burden? Hell if I know. As Scalia said in dissent, the Court doesn’t really define it. It just points to a restriction, talks about it, and then decrees that the law either does or does not impose an undue burden. But, back to your point, a state may impose a special restriction on an abortion clinic to further its interest in fetal life so long as the restriction is not too successful in protecting fetal life and thereby imposing this undue burden on women. ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2017, 11:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/64 "2017-05-02T23:48:41Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > That’s not what the Supreme Court says. _Casey_ held that states have an interest in protecting fetal life, and may do so as long as the laws do not impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions. > > So what is an undue burden? Hell if I know. As Scalia said in dissent, the Court doesn’t really define it. It just points to a restriction, talks about it, and then decrees that the law either does or does not impose an undue burden. > > But, back to your point, a state may impose a special restriction on an abortion clinic to further its interest in fetal life so long as the restriction is not too successful in protecting fetal life and thereby imposing this undue burden on women. Well, that’s ridiculous. If the states are allowed to have an interest in fetal life, they should be allowed to just ban abortions. This position the Supreme Court has taken is logically untenable. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/65 "2017-05-03T00:01:18Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > While there are stores that sell guns within Alameda County, plaintiff alleges that based on criteria, there are no parcels that would meet the criteria today and that the existing sellers would not be able to do so now I notice they use the term “Unincorporated areas of Alameda County” Does that mean there are 1000s of gun shops in the “Incorporated area of Alameda County”? My point being, if there are places that are available to buy guns in the same county, I wouldn’t consider that an infringement on the 2nd Amendment. Similarly, if there are places in the state that offer abortion, I wouldn’t necessarily consider that a limit to abortion access. However, laws that require non-medically relevant actions are something I’m against, and I am open to laws that cover ALL clinics and not just abortion clinics. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/66 "2017-05-03T00:02:35Z")
So, what’s Czarcasm’s proposal? That women have yet another unwritten Constitutional right? This time, not only to abortion but to a free abortion from a local abortionist? How are you planning to get that right established? Through Congress? Or will the Wise Latina find that right hidden somewhere in the 9th Amendment? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/67 "2017-05-03T00:17:23Z")
So many bad questions… where to start? Probably nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/68 "2017-05-03T00:55:44Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Well, that’s ridiculous. If the states are allowed to have an interest in fetal life, they should be allowed to just ban abortions. This position the Supreme Court has taken is logically untenable. We’re working on fixing that. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/69 "2017-05-03T03:40:23Z")
Many women would have to travel anyway, because they live in an area that’s too sparsely populated to support a clinic in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/70 "2017-05-03T03:54:32Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > So, what’s Czarcasm’s proposal? That women have yet another unwritten Constitutional right? This time, not only to abortion but to a free abortion from a local abortionist? > > How are you planning to get that right established? Through Congress? Or will the Wise Latina find that right hidden somewhere in the 9th Amendment? Is this a response to another thread? It doesn’t seem to represent _anything_ I’ve posted here ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/71 "2017-05-03T11:33:13Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Is this a response to another thread? It doesn’t seem to represent _anything_ I’ve posted here You can’t be writing that with a straight face. YOU are the one arguing that women don’t really have a right to an abortion if there’s no abortionist close by or if they can’t afford one. That IS your argument- I’m not distorting it in the least. All I’m doing is asking what you propose to DO about it. And since liberals have a long, proven history of finding nonexistent rights in the Constitution, I suspect (with good reason) that what you really want is for the Supreme Court to rule that women have not just an abstract right to abortion but a right to a lot of assistance from the government in obtaining one. I could be wrong, of course. Maybe you’re planning to go back to school, become a doctor, and start an abortion clinic of your own in rural Kentucky. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/72 "2017-05-03T11:47:28Z")
If a state shuts down and prevents the establishment of all the abortion clinics, forcing people to seek help in other states(which is what this thread is _actually_ about, btw), then I _can’t_ open any clinics there, can I? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/73 "2017-05-03T12:42:58Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > 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). You can _buy_ a handgun out of state; you have to _take possession of it_ in state. Heck, you could buy a gun right now over the Internet; it has to be shipped to your state to an agent with an FFL in your state to be given to you, though. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/74 "2017-05-03T12:48:05Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > If a state shuts down and prevents the establishment of all the abortion clinics, forcing people to seek help in other states(which is what this thread is _actually_ about, btw), then I _can’t_ open any clinics there, can I? :rolleyes: If a woman has to travel 150 hours within a state to get an abortion, is that different from traveling 150 miles and crossing a state line to get an abortion? Suppose there are two states, State A and State B. State A and 10 abortion clinics and State B has 2. They both pass an identical law, causing 2 abortion clinics to close. Is the law automatically unconstitutional in State B, but not in State A? ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/75 "2017-05-03T13:11:09Z")
I have to ask, what are the parameters we are talking about? 1. How many abortion providers are needed? Most major cities seem to have them. Do you need say one provider for say 10,000 residents or what? 2. What abortion services should be required? For example are we talking just giving out plan B? Are we talking late term abortions which require specialized doctors? Are we just talking up to 12 weeks which I believe is D and C? 3. Going back to #1, how many abortions does a clinic need to do to stay profitable? As I understand it most Planned Parenthood clinics also make money off giving out birth control and offering gynecological services. 4. Where do you get abortion doctors and how much should they be paid? As for cost, does insurance cover it? How much? Is it a flat fee? What if their are complications and the procedure goes into other areas or requires the need of a regular hospital? Sometimes abortionists are sued for malpractice. Who pays for that insurance? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/76 "2017-05-03T13:30:48Z")
How does one make money by giving something away? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/77 "2017-05-03T13:34:29Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > What abortion services should be required? For example are we talking just giving out plan B? Just a factual point I want to clear up – you know that Plan B has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with abortions, right? You know that it is just a high dose of birth control that acts the same as the regular pill, by preventing ovulation? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/78 "2017-05-03T13:53:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Just a factual point I want to clear up – you know that Plan B has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with abortions, right? You know that it is just a high dose of birth control that acts the same as the regular pill, by preventing ovulation? I think it depends on how you define “abortion”. If Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from implanting, some would consider that to be an abortion. It is my understanding that whether or not Plan B can do that is not convincingly documented by either side, and is still open to interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/79 "2017-05-03T14:00:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It is my understanding that whether or not Plan B can do that is not convincingly documented by either side, and is still open to interpretation. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html) There’s really only one side arguing that it does prevent implantation. Just like there’s one side that argues that human activity doesn’t have anything to do with climate change. It’s just a total coincidence that such opinions are held by those who benefit from holding such opinions! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/80 "2017-05-03T14:03:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > 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. Its not just jumping through a couple of hoops. Its about as simple to apply for citizenship as it is to apply for a gun license/registration. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722.md?page=5)