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.
“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
I personally think that laws requiring speech and/or video, etc. that is not medically necessary should be considered a 1st amendment violation. I’m not so sanguine about the undue burden argument. If the business cannot operate due to lack of utilization that is one thing, but creating an environment where they cannot operate due to bureaucratic red tape which is really thinly veiled attempts to limit the procedures is bad. Some of those bad ways could be unconstitutional, but not all necessarily.
OK, that’s progress. Can you demonstrate that the vast majority of women seeking abortion can’t get time off work, can’t afford to travel out of state, and believe that it is more private to visit a clinic in town rather than one in a different state?
I agree with Czarcasm that it would be better if government officials did not use the levers of government to harass people trying to exercise rights that they disfavor, but It’s the nature of things. Places like DC, Chicago, New York, and California will push the envelope and go as far as they can to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, and places like red southern states will push the envelope as far as they can to restrict and limit abortions. I can think of lots of examples beyond things that we might think of as traditional Constitutional rights. Utah harasses the he’ll out of polygamists, and seems to take special interest in making smokers’ hobby as miserable as possible
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.
I don’t think the right to choose necessarily requires reasonable access. I don’t feel it’s a positive right where the government has to assist people in acquiring access.
But that’s a moot argument because that’s not the issue we’re facing. The problem we have in this country is the government creating barriers to access. That’s a clear violation of the right to choose even by the standards of negative rights.
This is exactly what happens in DC. Of course you don’t have a right to bear arms and the registration process takes a pretty long time. Getting a gun might not seem as exigent as getting an abortion, but it might be if your ex-boyfriend is stalking you or if there have been a rash of robberies in your neighborhood.
There are a lot of similarities between the abortion debate and the gun debate.
I don’t usually try to prove things unless I say them.
If you or Czarcasm want to try and prove what AngelSoft said, feel free. If you don’t, no one can blame you, if for no other reason than it is more than mildly overstated.
Because manson1972 is correct - it starts off with sweeping statements about vast majorities, and then rapidly develops into “but what if she can’t find a babysitter for her nine children? What if she is working 26 hours a day and can’t get the time off? What if she is in a wheelchair and the abortion clinic isn’t handicapped-accessible? Huh? Huh? What about THAT!”
I lived in Rhode Island for quite some time. We drove up to MA for everything (except beaches).
I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to the OP, if you’re going to argue from convenience. Rather, I’d argue that each state has the responsibility to ensure that Roe is enforced, as per the current jurisprudence. The problem is, the only remedy you have is a constant stream of court cased every time a new law is passed.
Do you see a qualitative difference between “abortion clinics can exist anywhere a medical clinic is permitted in a state, with no differing laws restricting them from medical clinics performing the same type of procedures” and “free abortions for everyone, everywhere!”
The former is not what these Southern states are doing. If they had a law saying “surgical abortions shall be regulated by the same laws governing clinics that perform outpatient abdominal surgery”, that’s fine. No special rules otherwise. Ditto the chemical ones. So sure, that woman in a wheelchair, if she can’t get access to outpatient abdominal surgery for other issues, she probably can’t get access to an abortion. That’s fine, it’s not like the state has a duty to carve out a special exception for abortion to it’s laws.
Where you seem to be going is the route of “the states can pass any special laws they want, and it’s ok with me if you can’t show that there isn’t still an affordable route to an abortion for most women”. And in reality, that semi-affordable route is flying to Canada. Most women with a few thousand bucks to their name can do it.
For those who think the OP is correct, how many abortion clinics does a state have to have before it is no longer violating a woman’s right to choose? Personally, I don’t think that “state X has no abortion clinics” is prima facia evidence that the abortion laws are too stringent. But even if it were, how would you figure out which one(s) was/were the straw that broke the camel’s back? I think you have to look at each law individually and see if passes muster per the latest SCOTUS jurisprudence.
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.
The only evidence you offered in your OP as to why this is “effectively an abortion ban” is the lack of clinics. Did you mean to add some other evidence as well?
