# 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:** 5
**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, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/81 "2017-05-03T14:11:07Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > 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. That is not what the supreme court has said, is it? BTW, I don’t know if “credible” means pro-choice but in many of these states, pretty much all the doctors are pro-life so unless you are going to require Kansas to use California doctors, they will pretty much rubber stamp the notion that abortion clinics need to have admitting privileges at hospitals (that will have nothing to do with an abortion clinic, because the hospitals are pro-life too). > [@](#): > > 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. Can we do the same in Chi8cag and DC re: gun rights? > [@](#): > > 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. You realize that almost every state is a democracy, right? You can vote the bums out ---
**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, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/82 "2017-05-03T14:12:27Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Compared to states who want to drive doctors out of their borders; the facts say, yes, DC is more accepting of constitutional rights. > > It’s ironic that we have these constitutional debates, and you routinely overlook important parts of the history of various constitutional provisions. Such as that Maryland would want to have DC back, just as Virginia voted several times for retrocession, and it is crystal clear that Maryland will not do the same. I would offer that your debating points are stronger when you stick to “yay guns!” as opposed to one-liners like that. > > On edit, I see **Czarcasm** ’s plea to restrain the debate to abortion… or at least, just not guns. But I think the unequivocal answer is that yes, states should not pursue policies to harass Americans such that they cannot exercise their rights within that state. DC has yet to permit an FFL to get licensed to sell guns within its borders. ---
**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, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/83 "2017-05-03T14:13:49Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How does one make money by giving something away? 🙂 Volume ---
**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, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/84 "2017-05-03T14:18:56Z")
> [@SamuelA](#): > > Shodan, can you demonstrate for me that the vast majority of women can’t simply buy a plane ticket to Canada and receive an abortion there? As long as you are totally fine with your civil rights only technically having meaning, are you ok with : > > a. All guns and ammo can only be bought from stores on military bases. > b. Those stores are only open on Tuesdays, from 11am to 3pm. > > Free speech only applies if you buy a speech license. They are $1000, and can only be bought from a ticket counter in Washington DC. > > You have the right to not be held without a trial. But only if you can afford a private attorney to challenge your detention in Federal court. > > And so on and so forth. You know what? It just dawned on me that in the interests of preserving the integrity/credibility (or whatever) of our elections. We should have one polling station outside the capital building in Washington DC where all the congressmen and senators and electors would be elected, we can have ICE checking the citizenship status of everyone on line before they vote. People can just fly in and place their vote there. I’m starting to see a silver lining to the line of reasoning behind the voter ID laws. ---
**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, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/85 "2017-05-03T14:20:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > You realize that almost every state is a democracy, right? You can vote the bums out But every state is _not_ an independent country. If your “solution” to a state acting unconstitutionally is to “vote the bums out”, then you are saying that it is o.k. to act unconstitutionally as long as you’ve got the votes. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/86 "2017-05-03T14:20:40Z")
A right exists whether or not it can be exercised as a practical matter. As long as the government isn’t interfering, the right is not being violated. I’d add to that that as long as civil society isn’t also conspiring to violate the right, it’s not being violated, since I do recall that even when governments didn’t censor local communities often did through mob violence. But as long as abortion is limited by providers willing to provide the service, the right is in fine shape. In practice of course, abortion clinics do not meet demand due to threats of violence and pro-life states imposing regulations intended to shut them down. But there is also the unwillingness factor. Doctors have conscience rights, so there will always be somewhat less availability than desired. ---
**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, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/87 "2017-05-03T14:21:54Z")
> [@OldGuy](#): > > Yes under the same conditions that parents may be overruled by medical necessity for things like life sustaining treatments. > > So now do you agree to the basic idea that the states cannot be more restrictive on abortions than other abdominal surgery or more restrictive on things like a morning after pill than similar medications? If you don’t, it seems moot. Doesn’t the state still have some interest in the nascent life of the fetus? Something about trimesters. ---
**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, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/88 "2017-05-03T14:23:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A right exists whether or not it can be exercised as a practical matter. As long as the government isn’t interfering, the right is not being violated. I’d add to that that as long as civil society isn’t also conspiring to violate the right, it’s not being violated, since I do recall that even when governments didn’t censor local communities often did through mob violence. > > But as long as abortion is limited by providers willing to provide the service, the right is in fine shape. In practice of course, abortion clinics do not meet demand due to threats of violence and pro-life states imposing regulations intended to shut them down. But there is also the unwillingness factor. Doctors have conscience rights, so there will always be somewhat less availability than desired. Yeah…but _this_ thread is about direct interference/prevention of a constitutional right by the State. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/89 "2017-05-03T14:27:21Z")
Yeah, that’s not kosher, although I think we need to articulate broader principles rather than treating abortion as a special case. For example, if minors can get abortions without parental consent, logically they should be able to get a dental cleaning without parental consent. And if the rationale behind legal abortion is that medical decisions are between a person and their doctor, then that applies to all medical decisions that are FDA approved. So the government should stop getting in between patients and doctors prescribing opioids. There’s also the opposite issue from states trying to shut down clinics, states being unwilling to shut down clinics, as happened in the case of Kermit Gosnell. No safety inspections for years? Complaints ignored? They pretty much admitted that they didn’t want to know because they didn’t want to make access to abortion more difficult. But then there goes the rationale that legal abortion is safe abortion. I’d sooner trust a dude in a back alley with a coat hanger than a guy like Kermit Gosnell. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/90 "2017-05-03T14:30:37Z")
It is naive, to say the least, to assume that drastically reducing access to health care has no effect on people’s health. According to that logic, we should cease efforts to bring health care professionals to remote locations, since people living there can just drive or find other transportation to see the doctor. As for legislation purportedly aimed at improving patient safety at clinics that offer abortion services, I saw recently that Ohio lawmakers were considering a law to ramp up facility requirements that would put such clinics on a footing with those that do major surgery. Well, who could argue with such a safety measure? Ohio also requires clinics to have transfer agreements with hospitals in case of complications, but banned patient transfers to public hospitals. Sure, that’s for women’s safety too. :dubious: ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/91 "2017-05-03T14:35:11Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > But every state is _not_ an independent country. If your “solution” to a state acting unconstitutionally is to “vote the bums out”, then you are saying that it is o.k. to act unconstitutionally as long as you’ve got the votes. No, but mostly that show our country prevents localities from passing the same bad law over and over again. We have not sent in troops to uphold a court order since desegregation. The gun rights folks have to keep coming up with money to battle DC an Chicago in court on a repeated basis as they pretend to toe the line of the court order but keep trying to ban guns. ---
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/92 "2017-05-03T14:35:23Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Ohio also requires clinics to have transfer agreements with hospitals in case of complications, but banned patient transfers to public hospitals. Sure, that’s for women’s safety too. :dubious: As was shown in the article, this is a definitely a deal-breaker if the near-by hospital is a Catholic institution. ---
**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, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/93 "2017-05-03T14:36:39Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A right exists whether or not it can be exercised as a practical matter. As long as the government isn’t interfering, the right is not being violated. I’d add to that that as long as civil society isn’t also conspiring to violate the right, it’s not being violated, since I do recall that even when governments didn’t censor local communities often did through mob violence. > > But as long as abortion is limited by providers willing to provide the service, the right is in fine shape. In practice of course, abortion clinics do not meet demand due to threats of violence and pro-life states imposing regulations intended to shut them down. But there is also the unwillingness factor. Doctors have conscience rights, so there will always be somewhat less availability than desired. Does this also apply to the abortion pill? Can private citizens decide not to carry or sell the abortion pill? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/94 "2017-05-03T14:38:13Z")
That reminds me of another point. If it is bad in principle to attempt to use regulation to put companies out of business that you don’t like, then that principle applies to payday lenders as well as abortion clinics. For me, that’s the primary weakness in the pro-choice arguments. The fact that abortion is treated as uniquely special and thus there are no broad principles that apply to anything else. “My body, my choice!” but only for abortion. Pain pills, not so much. “This decision is between a woman and her doctor.” unless the doctor has moral objections in which case he should be forced to perform an abortion. For pro-lifers the main weakness is an unwillingness to treat their arguments with the seriousness that they deserve. If abortion is indeed murder, then someone should be spending life in prison for performing or seeking one. Seems that Europe gets it. Abortion is a medical procedure, like any other, and is thus subject to whatever limitations and requirements governments deem necessary. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/95 "2017-05-03T14:40:40Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Does this also apply to the abortion pill? Can private citizens decide not to carry or sell the abortion pill? Once again, this thread is about _State_ interference/prevention of the constitutional right to an abortion. What is your opinion about that? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/96 "2017-05-03T14:44:21Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Does this also apply to the abortion pill? Can private citizens decide not to carry or sell the abortion pill? The pharmacist has no moral agency in any decision to dispense drugs. The doctor is the one responsible, and doctors can and should make that decision. That would be like the bagger objecting to bagging the drugs or the cashier to cashing them out. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/97 "2017-05-03T15:07:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How does one make money by giving something away? 🙂 Volume! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SamuelA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@SamuelA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SamuelA)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/98 "2017-05-03T15:29:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Seems that Europe gets it. Abortion is a medical procedure, like any other, and is thus subject to whatever limitations and requirements governments deem necessary. You realize that’s not what we’re talking about, right? I want to open up an outpatient liposuction clinic. I am subject to a certain reasonable set of laws. I decide to use my medical license to perform abortions instead (or on the side in the same clinic - imagine the advertising potential!). Suddenly, the clinic I already own doesn’t cut it, even though the 2 procedures are of similar scope and risk. And the extra things the clinic needs have nothing to do with any medical necessity. ---
**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2017, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/99 "2017-05-03T15:32:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Seems that Europe gets it. Abortion is a medical procedure, like any other, and is thus subject to whatever limitations and requirements governments deem necessary. Most European countries have far stricter restrictions on abortion than the US does. I think only former Soviet and communist nations have more easy abortion practices and some S Asian countries also. ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722/100 "2017-05-03T18:21:36Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > 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. Yes, you are correct. The hypothetical situation I was responding to was “What if the governor of a state managed through legal harassment to cut off all means of acquiring a firearm in that state.” Presumably, that means there are no FFLs in the hypothetical state, so no interstate transfers. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-right-to-choose-real-without-reasonable-access/785722.md?page=6)