When it comes to abortion, how much restriction is excessive?

[Miller]

@Bricker

Sure!

My comment is: I believe that, at the least, the same method of analysis should be used to assess infringements on the Second Amendment as are used to assess infringement on the “right,” to abortions, a right found in the penumbras and emanations of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

This recent development should be addressed by the Supreme Court as violative of the caselaw in Roe and Casey, in my opinion. But I wouldn’t want them to do that if the only time we apply such standards is when they benefit you.

If Czarcasm agrees that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to individual gun ownership, you seem to have caught him out in an inconsistency.

Do you know if Czarcasm believes that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to individual gun ownership? My impression is that he does not, but I might be misremembering.

[g8rguy]

@Miller

If Czarcasm agrees that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to individual gun ownership, you seem to have caught him out in an inconsistency.

Do you know if Czarcasm believes that the 2nd amendment guarantees a right to individual gun ownership? My impression is that he does not, but I might be misremembering.

Sure, but then you just push the inconsistency up the chain. If one concludes that the Constitution protects abortion rights because SCOTUS says it does, one must also conclude that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership because SCOTUS says it does that, too. And even if the argument for the constitutional right to an abortion doesn’t rely on Supreme Court precedent, it’s I think pretty obvious (however one stands on the 2nd amendment) that the Constitution more explicitly protects some form of gun rights than it does any form of abortion rights.

That being the case, I don’t see how Bricker’s main point isn’t valid; whatever framework one wants to apply to analyzing Constitutional claims, the framework for analyzing explicitly protected rights needs to be at least as strict as that for analyzing implicitly protected rights. It’s not a hijack to ask what that framework should be, because that’s the core of the question! Only once one has a method for doing the analysis can one do the analysis.

[Bryan_Ekers]

Anything beyond conventional medical regulations seems unnecessary to me.

[Bricker]

@g8rguy

Sure, but then you just push the inconsistency up the chain. If one concludes that the Constitution protects abortion rights because SCOTUS says it does, one must also conclude that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership because SCOTUS says it does that, too. And even if the argument for the constitutional right to an abortion doesn’t rely on Supreme Court precedent, it’s I think pretty obvious (however one stands on the 2nd amendment) that the Constitution more explicitly protects some form of gun rights than it does any form of abortion rights.

That being the case, I don’t see how Bricker’s main point isn’t valid; whatever framework one wants to apply to analyzing Constitutional claims, the framework for analyzing explicitly protected rights needs to be at least as strict as that for analyzing implicitly protected rights. It’s not a hijack to ask what that framework should be, because that’s the core of the question! Only once one has a method for doing the analysis can one do the analysis.

Exactly right.

[Iggy]

@Czarcasm

If the state tries it’s best to terminate or restrict as much as possible the type of medical care needed, then there is a good chance his rights have been violated. Is that the case with your brother?
edited to add: This isn’t a case of a certain procedure happening not to be available-This is a case of a procedure that is unduly restricted by the state.

It was entirely the state’s decision to limit where care could be sought. And yet we do not raise the inaccessibility of care as a violation of patient’s rights, unless it is abortion being sought. Faulty logic, IMHO. If abortion is to be regulated as any other medical procedure then abortion rights supporters ought not hold it out for special consideration not giver to other limitations on care.

@SamuelA

…The nearby hospitals said they “didn’t want to get involved in the debate” and refused to grant those privileges, thus forcing the clinics to close. All totally unnecessary - right now we let Walmarts sell guns right there in the store with minimal special requirements. Similarly, there is a combination of pills that can cause an early abortion without much fuss for most women. (especially if they can get the pills promptly early in the pregnancy when the fetus is invisible). All the clinic needs to be is a basic doctor’s office to perform the needed exams prior to prescribing.

So hospitals should not be able to refuse involvement with abortion providers? Yet left leaning organizations seem to wildly support the commercial veto when it comes to the sale of drugs for the implementation of the death penalty.

It seems rather inconsistent to require a business involvement in the case of abortion but not require another business to involve itself with selling its product in the case of the death penalty.

[UltraVires]

@SamuelA

Consider this.

Suppose that the same number of people in your state wanted to buy guns that want to buy them now. But, for ‘public safety’ reasons, the only gun store in the state must

(a) be built within 1 mile of an emergency room in case an accidental shooting occurrs
(b) require a waiting period and mandatory firearm safety courses
(c) require you to be shown photos of small children killed by family guns
(d) given a lecture about responsibility and require you to buy a gun safe if you have any children in the house
(e) have all the staff trained as full Paramedics and with trauma gear available at the store
(f) allow hospitals to refuse you to be within 1 mile
(g) private gun sales are banned
(h) the police want a bullet fired from your gun so they can investigate you if a bullet fired from your gun is similar to one found at a crime scene
All told, there is just 1 gun store remaining in the state. And it requires a 300 mile drive for many residents.

One might argue that instead of “public safety”, this is just a backdoor infringement on your constitutional right to have a gun at all.

You can craft any unnecessary set of rules you like and eventually all gun stores will close.

Assuming you are ok with private ownership of guns, how would you feel if you had the “right” to own a gun but there were no gun stores and private sales were illegal. This is basically what has happened with abortion. None of these laws or restrictions are medically necessary.

I disagree that this is an apt analogy. Casey held that states may favor life over abortion and may as a matter of public policy discourage abortions so long as the state does not put an “undue burden” on a woman who is seeking an abortion.

Is having to drive 300 miles to get an abortion an undue burden? Beats the hell out of me because, as Scalia points out, the majority is not clear on how much of a burden is “due.” All of these cases come down to judges pointing out how a particular abortion regulation acts and then baldly declaring that the regulation does or does not present an undue burden.

This is all a dress rehearsal anyways until one more conservative justice is on the Court and would overrule Roe and Casey 5-4.

[xcalibre]

Now this is a good post.

@Bone

There is no decision. This is a denial of cert.

From SCOTUSBLog (my bold):

8th Circuit decision stands. Here is abreakdown of the case progress.

[xcalibre]

Mifiprestone is not plan b, not even close. Mifepristone - Wikipedia

You should fix your post. Even your linked article makes this clear.

@Czarcasm

SCOTUS decided not to take up the challange to Arkansa’s very restrictive abortion law, which outlaws morning-after pills and effective closes two of the last three clinics left in the state. In what possible way does this not put an undue burden on a woman’s right to choose in that state?

[xcalibre]

I don’t think an appendectomy can be performed in a clinic without oversight from a hospital surgeon. I’m willing to be wrong, of course

@Buck_Godot

And an appendectomy is quite a barbaric procedure for the appendix. If I don’t believe that the fetus in question has any sense of self and so lacks the ability to experience anything, barbaric or not, why should I care?

[Translucent_Daydream]

What is the state going to do to ensure the health, education, and safety of all these newly saved babies? Seems to me an important question. I can understand the desire to want to limit the amount of abortions that happen on principal, but what are they doing to ensure that they don’t happen in the first place?

Free access to birth control? State mandiated chastity belts?

I’m just curious what the plan is here. Not trying to be snarky.