I agree with you, but that’s not the right question. If a state or city or whatever had no gun stores for no apparent reason would it be prima facia it were violating the second amendment?
It is pretty clear that some states have passed laws specifically to try shut down abortion clinics. Legislators have even said so. Courts have ruled in many cases that the underlying purpose of a law and whether it accomplishes this purpose without avoidable consequences can be considered in its Constitutionality.
It’s the right question for this thread, since that is what the OP presents. And others have chimed in to agree. Plus, I already said the part that I underlined in your post, so I’m not sure what your point is unless you are agreeing with me. IOW, if a law’s purpose is to shut down clinics, it’s not constitutional. But just because law’s consequence is to shut down clinics, is not proof that it is unconstitutional.
Anyone can see through some of the arguments presented just like courts saw through Trump’s “It’s not a Muslim ban… but it is, just as I promised!” line of arguments on his EOs.
When a government enacts laws that regulate protected activities – whatever they may be – and you have government officials (especially in a substantial number of these cases) saying that the laws are intended to limit that protected activity, then those laws are on very shaky ground as far as I am concerned.
Notwithstanding that we know that various politicians have actually been candid about these laws trying to restrict abortions, most times they are dressed up as “we’re trying to protect women’s health.” But it’s pretty clear that the vast majority of these restrictions, ostensibly to protect health, are not required for other, similar clinics, and generally have no basis in medical science.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that states not be allowed to legislate on the topic of abortions. I think the rational course is that if states do enact restrictions on abortion (or any other right), that courts should step in expeditiously and consider things like the intent of the legislation and whether science supports the arguments made for trying to limit or eliminate a medical procedure.
As stated, I would agree with you, but I believe the OP is asking specifically about state laws that are so stringent, they force existing providers out. We could postulate factors such as low demand, demographics etc. for why no clinics exist, but the example given doesn’t follow that logic.
Totally serious question here: what other medical procedures are guaranteed constitutional rights?
Seems like two thoughts are being mixed up here: on one hand, if a clinic provides abortions or any other outpatient medical services, they should both operate to the similar medical standards for things like cleanliness, necessary equipment, and emergency access to hospitals. Just because the prudes down in Hicktown think breast augmentation is a sin, I think it is unreasonable to require Dr. Nick’s U Look Good! Clinic to meet the standards of a Level 9 Trauma Center.
On the other hand, the legal issues surrounding availability of medical procedures seems more complex. I can see the reasonableness of not wanting a 17 year old boy to undergo calf implant surgery without his parent’s permission. But calf implants aren’t a constitutionally protected right, so I’m not sure that such a requirement necessarily applies to an abortion.
What example? You seem to want to have it both ways. Either “no clinics” is prima facia evidence or it is not. I already said multiple times that if the law is not compliant with SCOTUS jurisprudence, it gets thrown out. But you need more than “this law caused clinics to close” to prove that it is unconstitutional.
Allowing those under 18 to have an abortion without parental consent would be considered by me as a “special rule”. I simply wondered whether or not the poster was agreeable or not to the “special rule” of underage abortions without parental consent.
Just because it’s related to the gun issue, Teixeira v. Alameda County was similar in that the county zoning precluded all gun stores. It went to court and a panel of the 9th circuit held it was unconstitutional basically. The decision was vacated when the en banc petition was granted and based on the en banc panel as well as oral arguments the prohibition is almost certainly going to be upheld and there will be no gun stores allowed in Alameda County. Yes, differences are county vs. state, and zoning levers vs. medical levers, but there are some similarities that I thought it an interesting counter point.
Also relevant was Ezell and Ezell II in Chicago. Basically they enacted rules requiring live fire training in the city but prohibited all methods of obtaining live fire training in the city saying residents could obtain it elsewhere. Ruled unconstitutional at the 7th circuit.
I understand what you’re saying, but to repeat myself, there’s two general concepts that are intertwined in your exchange that ought to be de-intertwined. The regulation of clinics for medical safety, and the business and legal aspects of elective surgery.
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.
If you can’t get regular abdominal surgery without parental consent, then sure, you can’t get an abortion without consent. If you can get that surgery through some legal mechanism of showing it is necessary, then you should be able to get the abortion the same way.
For gun rights or free speech, we have long ago decided that those under 18 are restricted in some ways. (no free speech in your parent’s house or at school, no gun rights unless a state grants them)
18 is kind of arbitrary (why not 15? Why not 26? ) but this is a settled issue.
So yeah, no special rules. That’s really what the Federal judges should just settle on, so they can strike all these laws from the books efficiently and quickly.
I was trying to summarize your argument to the logical endpoint. Since you seem to be ok with states passing special rules regulating abortion specifically, as a sneaky infringement on the basic right to have one, so long as a median woman with means can still get an abortion, I just followed it to the end. A “median” woman can just go to the father and say “either help me pay a few thousand bucks so I get an abortion in Canada, or it’s going to cost you child support for the next 18 years”. While plenty of couples can’t put together a few thousand bucks, even with borrowing from friends and relatives, I would say the majority of Americans can. Therefore, taking your argument to the endpoint, we need not worry about state infringements on abortion right at all.
Doesn’t matter if every Southern state bans all clinics, you could just drive halfway across the country, right?
That’s not a very productive or useful retort. Translation : “your comment sucks and I’m not going to go into why because”
I’m not particularly a rabble rouser about abortion, even, but if the law of the land says one thing, Federalism does not give states the rights to stealthily evade it. So that thoroughly answers your implied question - the line on what states can do starts at “any law that hinders or restricts abortion (beyond federal guidelines) more than a medical procedure that is regulated in that state is hindered or restricted”. It’s not about whether or not a specific person can get access to abortion given a set of guidelines, it’s about whether a state can flaunt Federal authority like this.
Starbucks should go into the abortion business. There’s one of them on every corner! Access problem solved! But the lines, the hipster doctors with handlebar mustaches, that filthy condiment counter…