No. Plaintiffs allegations are documented in the opinion. From the opinion:
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:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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?
I have to ask, what are the parameters we are talking about?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
