Abortion

Texas Abortion Providers Ask Supreme Court to Stop Clinic Closures

|

Ann Harkness/Flickr

The fight over abortion access in Texas continues, now with a nudge from the U.S. Supreme Court. On Tuesday, the Court told Texas it has until Thursday at noon to respond to an emergency application filed Monday on behalf of Texas abortion providers. They're seeking to halt House Bill 2, a law which would force most of the state's abortion clinics to shut down by setting up unnecessary yet costly regulatory requirements. 

Last week the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily upheld the law, which stipulates that all abortion clinics must meet standards set up for major surgical centers, even if the clinic does not perform surgical abortions. Once Texas responds this week, the Supreme Court will decide whether to vacate the 5th Circuit's decision. 

That decision "is expected to mean that only seven or eight clinics located in the largest cities in Texas will remain open," notes SCOTUS blogger Lyle Denniston. "Not long ago, Texas had more than forty clinics operating throughout the state."

Another facet of HB2 contributed to many of the closures. Under this requirement—upheld by the 5th Circuit last year—all abortion clinc doctors must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. The ostensible point of the admitting privileges requirement is to ensure women's safety in case of an emergency, but considering a) major complications from abortion are rare, b) women experiencing major complications wouldn't be turned away from a hospital simply because their abortion doctor lacked admitting privileges, c) many clinics in rural Texas were not located within 30 miles of a hospital, and d) hospitals routinely refuse to grant admitting privileges to abortion clinic doctors, the more realistic reason behind the law is to shut down abortion clinics in the state. 

But the 5th Circuit held that the requirement was valid—that is, it didn't pose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion, the prevailing legal standard for determining whether an abortion restriction passes constitutional muster. The court didn't issue a final decision on the constitutionality of the requirement that all clinics be remodeled to meet surgical-center standards—upgrades projected to cost as much as $1 million per clinic—but it does allow the regulation to be enforced while the matter of constitutionality is being resolved. 

In its appeal to the Supreme Court yesterday, the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is leading the clinics' legal challenge, assert that the Fifth Circuit's order "was based on a demonstrably wrong application of the undue burden standard." More than 900,000 Texas women "now reside more than 150 miles from the nearest Texas abortion provider, up from 86,000 prior to the enactment of the challenged Act," it points out. 

"Defendants… contend 'rational speculation that the regulations might provide a health benefit is sufficient to deprive millions of Texas women of meaningful access to abortion services," it continues.

Ignoring foundational principles of constitutional law, the Fifth Circuit adopted Defendants' argument, holding that the challenged requirements may be enforced without any inquiry into whether the requirements further the State's aims. But this Court's precedents make clear that the government may not restrict a fundamental liberty based on rational speculation alone. Rather, there must be a closer fit between the ends sought to be achieved and the means selected to do so.

During last year's challenge, the Supreme Ccourt declined to do vacate the 5th Circuit's ruling. However, the law's impact on abortion access in Texas has become more profound since then. A spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights speculated that this could alter the Court's thinking, though she said the organization has no expectations one way or the other.

NEXT: Journalist Enters Closed Public Park, Finds Self in Federal Court, Ends Up Scrubbing Toilets

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “That decision “is expected to mean that only seven or eight clinics located in the largest cities in Texas will remain open,” notes SCOTUS blogger Lyle Denniston. “Not long ago, Texas had more than forty clinics operating throughout the state.””

    Here, let me play a sad song on the world’s smallest violin:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdofmoYcJNE

    1. “the world’s smallest violin:”

      Perfect for microscopic ‘persons!’

      1. Bo and Dunphy relaxing together:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu9IqL2YqWk

        1. Man those barricades Eddie, man them well. The fate of millions of tiny persons rests in the hands of soldiers like yourself.

        2. He nailed you, Eddie. And all you have is a petulant response.

          1. Tell it to this woman’s face:

            http://liveactionnews.org/from…..aby-blake/

            1. And appeal to emotion!

                1. Bo by knockout.

  2. I predict a productive thread.

    1. “My God, it’s full of white spaces.”

      1. I can’t see it. What does it say above my comment?

        1. “Ask again later”

  3. Maybe those clinics are just hiding in the deep ocean.

    1. They must have joined your “wit” there if this is what you call a joke. I’m disappointed in you, NutraSweet. You and your mom.

      1. If you had a time machine, would you go back and kill the inventor of deep dish pizza while he was still a fetus?

        1. I’d kill his mom when she was a fetus. Only way to be sure.

          1. The “nuke it from orbit” of time travel solutions.

          2. I thought you liked to do something else to moms. You’ve changed, man.

            1. Hey, man, this is about eliminating deep dish. Violating your mom takes second place after that. I’d have thought you would understand that.

            2. He didn’t say *how* he’d kill her….

      2. YOU’RE what I call a joke!

    2. In the lost sunken city of R’lyeh, Cliniculhu sleeps, ready to eat the fetuses of the world.

      1. The Fungi from Yuggoth was really just a yeast infection all along.

        1. So wait, does that mean shoggoths are actually huge deformed aborted fetuses?!?

          1. Aborted star spawn of the Elder Gods, left to roam the cosmos.

    3. +1 internets for that one….

  4. When the Supreme Court handed down Roe v. Wade, Justice Stewart, concurring in the opinion, issued these soothing assurances:

    “The asserted state interests are protection of the health and safety of the pregnant woman, and protection of the potential future human life within her. These are legitimate objectives, amply sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions as it does other surgical procedures, and perhaps sufficient to permit a State to regulate abortions more stringently or even to prohibit them in the late stages of pregnancy.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..&invol=113

    So it seems that these reassurances were strictly for the rubes, and that abortion, far from being subject to the same or more stringent regulations, should be exempt from rules which *real* medical services have to abide by.

    1. A concurring opinion joined by no other justice in a 7-2 ruling.

      Is there no end to your dishonesty on this subject?

      1. OK, I’ll play:

        What part of “Justice Stewart, concurring in the opinion,” is dishonest?

        I can’t wait until you try and make such an accusation in court and get shot down even quicker than when you try and pick up women at the gym.

        1. Your dishonest conflation of the SCOTUS opinion with one of the concurring opinions. Weren’t you a lawyer? If so you surely know that in a 7-2 decision a lone concurrence has little to no precedential guidance.

          1. Wow, I’d love to see you get up in court and say “OMG,my opponent cited what he acknowledged was a concurring opinion!”

            You know what, why not try it?

            1. After any justice got laughing over the transparent ploy of going from the opinion of the court to a lone concurrence I’d not have to say a thing.

              1. I wish you’d observe that “not say a thing” rule more often.

                But courts tend to frown on false accusations like yours.

                1. The projection is great with this one.

                  But hey, it’s all in the service of averting baby holocaust, so everything’s fine.

                  1. I hope you persist in your practice of making false accusations until one day you include such accusations in court papers.

      2. Is there no end to your dishonesty on this subject?

        No, of course not.

      3. I don’t see him making any claims that the opinion was joined by any other Justice, so where’s the dishonesty?

        1. The dishonesty is that there is any ‘assurances’ made to any ‘rubes’ by a lone concurrence. Anyone with any legal training (or without frankly) recognizes that a lone concurrence in that line up is meaningless. At most it might mean that 3 of the 9 justices would back what the concurrence says.

        2. Loki, anyone who disagrees with Bo is by definition dishonest. That’s why he’s called “esquire!” Because he’s totally justified in addressing himself by that title.

          1. “The title Esquire is not allocated by the law of any state to any profession, class, or station in society. Because it is commonly employed by lawyers, however, use by an unlicensed person may be evidence of the unauthorized practice of law.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E…..profession

            1. It’s an internet handle that I’ve explained before. Are you justified in calling yourself Chesteron? Get over your pearl clutching self.

              1. Evidence of dishonesty.

                1. Fragment of projection

                  1. It’s not a crime to call myself a Chesterton. It’s a crime for you to call yourself a lawyer.

                    1. Since you ignore the word May, do you just go right from April to June on your calendars?

                    2. To be fair, nobody who reads your retarded and ignorant rantings would confuse you with a lawyer.

                    3. I would rather rely on the guy who talks about admiralty jurisdiction and the tassels on the U.S. flag, than on you.

                    4. Eddie, I’m just curious where your Christian ethics go when you insult people like that? Is it more of your double standards?

                    5. You lie about me, I tell the truth about you. Who is committing the ethical violation?

                    6. But I’m sorry if I hurt your feewings.

                      Perhaps a soothing video will calm your nerves.

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtQLIU4ze0g

                    7. I wonder if you asked your Priest if referring to someone you disagreed with’s writings as ‘retarded’ if he’d approve.

                      I guess in the service of combating the baby holocaust anything might go, but I doubt it.

                    8. When I called you “retarded,” I was being *charitable.*

                    9. Again, anything for the cause I guess.

                    10. You’re running out of steam.

                      The quality of your invective is declining.

                      You started well, with “liar” and “projection,” and so on, but now you’ve pretty much shot your wad. Just wipe yourself off and go off to recharge yourself.

                    11. Again, your standards laid bare in fighting ‘the enemy’ are enough. Why would I add to that?

                    12. Are you promising to shut up?

                    13. “Evidence of dishonesty.

                      It’s not a crime to call myself a Chesterton. It’s a crime for you to call yourself a lawyer.”

                      OMFG please don’t be serious.

                    14. Baby holocausts are a very serious thing, so yes he’s serious.

                      Comically so.

          2. No, lots of people disagree with me on lots of things in a non-dishonest way. One of the things I find so tedious about you is that I know so many pro-life people who are very thoughtful, honest people I happen to disagree with. I go to a church full of such people, for example.

            1. Wow, I feel so bad I failed to earn the respect of such a towering figure of integrity as yourself!

            2. “lots of people disagree with me on lots of things in a non-dishonest way.”

              So lots of people are more honest than you are?

              1. Eddie, if I wanted to stoop to your level I’d say things like ‘Eddie and his pro-life friends don’t care about the sanctity of human life, they just want to control female sexuality like the Church strove to do for centuries! blah blah blah.’

                But you know what? I think you actually think that microscopic embryos are equivalent to one of the kids in your family that you no doubt play with at gatherings. I understand thinking that way makes you really emotionally invested in this issue, so that you feel you must man the barricades, get the last word in, and other less than ideal behaviors. But I’m not going to stoop to the same level of dishonesty.

                1. Where did I deny your sincerity?

                  I never denied that you sincerely believe that the right to abortion is necessary to women’s autonomy.

                  I never said that you only support abortion rights so that you could have extramarital sex with girls without worrying about paying child support for any offspring conceived in your encounters.

                  1. For starters, when you link to a person whose mother considered abortion and did not, as if pro-choicers wanted that person killed rather than they would consider that person to be in the same position as someone who was never conceived would be to you.

                    1. Wait, in some way you considered that link as an accusation against yourself?

                      Why did you think that?

                    2. I didn’t click on the link, I just know how you like to do that sort of thing.

                      In this thread your dishonesty was already explained.

                    3. Try that with a judge – “I didn’t read the document, Your Honor, but I *just know* that it insults me!”

                    4. “In this thread your dishonesty was already explained.”

                      You just admitted to yours.

    1. This might be a better soundtrack.

      1. Pon Farr, nice, I bow to your superior dumb music choices.

      2. *Tugs forelocks at Epi, acknowledging his lordship in appropriate soundtracking.*

    2. RELEASE THE KRAKEN!

      (tell me that wasn’t the link, cause I ain’t clickin’ on it…)

  5. must meet standards set up for major surgical centers, even if the clinic does not perform surgical abortions.

    Really, shouldn’t all places of business, and even residences, meet standards for major surgical centers?

    1. One does wonder what restrictions Texas places on home births.

  6. why should a medical procedure be less regulated than other purchases?

    1. I’d like to see less regulation for all purchases, but your answer is because it involves a fundamental right. Likewise the City of Chicago could ban the sale of many products tomorrow, but couldn’t do so for newspapers or handguns because fundamental rights are involved.

      1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

        I’d like to see less regulation for all purchases, but your answer is because it involves a fundamental right.

        A right to what? You can only have as a matter of right things you already HAVE, like your life, your liberty and your property; not things you don’t have yet. If all abortion doctors decided to leave the practice, would you say that they’re depriving women of a “fundamental” right? Yes? No?

        1. “If all abortion doctors decided to leave the practice, would you say that they’re depriving women of a “fundamental” right? ”

          That would be quite different than the government putting them out of business, right?

          For example, if you live in an area where no one takes up the business of selling handguns, no 2nd Amendment violation has occurred. But if someone in that area tried to take up that business and the government prohibited or regulated it unduly there would be a constitutional question.

          1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

            That would be quite different than the government putting them out of business, right?

            Not from the point of view of customers, it would NOT. Don’t obfuscate. The question was clear.

            But if someone in that area tried to take up that business and the government prohibited or regulated it unduly there would be a constitutional question.

            No, it would not, Bo, you’re wrong on that side. Indeed, the rights being violated are those of the SELLERS, but as long as I am not forbidden to do so, I can still get a gun somewhere else or make my own. Instead, if I was prohibited from OWNING a gun, then that’s a direct violation on my 2nd Amendment rights.

            My question goes beyond the discussion if women have a right to kill their unborn babies. You’re asserting that women have a fundamental right to an abortion. NO, they DON’T. An abortion is a SERVICE, subject to scarcity and thus trade and exchange of title. You CAN”T have it as a matter of RIGHT.

            1. You can’t be that semantically silly.

              Of course they don’t have a positive right to abortion. Some pro-choicers may believe that, but I certainly don’t.

              When people say that a woman has the right to an abortion they mean the government can not place an undue burden on providers, just as placing burdens on providers of speech or handguns would be suspect.

              1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

                When people say that a woman has the right to an abortion they mean the government can not place an undue burden on providers

                Look at it again, Bo. It is the SAME ARGUMENT: I want unrestricted access [supply] because I am entitled.

                I DON”T agree with the Texas law. I DON’T. I think the Market should decide if a doctor wants to be a pariah on his own dime. But the fact is, there’s a lot of FEDERAL MONEY at play here. These guys don’t have clean hands, Bo. Think about it.

                1. This lawsuit is not about providers being forced to give unrestricted access to abortions, it is about alleged undue burdens on providers. That’s clearly not ‘the same thing.’

                  It’s the difference between fighting a tax or regulation on booksellers and saying the government has to build a library near my house where I can read books for free.

            2. The rest of the topic notwithstanding, it is a little odd to see you arguing that ownership and right of sale are disjoint. If I can’t sell a thing, I don’t really own it, I just possess it.

              1. Re: kbolino,

                it is a little odd to see you arguing that ownership and right of sale are disjoint.

                We’re not talking about the right to trade per se but how it relates to the 2nd amendment because Bo brought up the analogy; I am explaining that it is one thing to impose burdens on trade vis a vis the 2nd Amendment compared to ownership. The 2nd Amendment protects OWNERSHIP, not trade.

                The 2nd Amendment analogy does not really compare well to abortion because you cannot really possess an abortion. If restrictions are imposed, then they affect the seller, not the buyer. You can say inventors can come up with self-abortion kits and thus get rid of the problem. Then we can talk. But right now, an abortion is a dcotor’s LABOR, not something the buyer can own as a matter of right.

                1. “The 2nd Amendment protects OWNERSHIP, not trade.”

                  So you’re OK with, say, Chicago’s attempted bans on handgun sales, gun ranges, etc? After all, you can still go buy or shoot elsewhere.

                2. I suppose that we are both begging the question a bit here. What is ownership, is it distinguished from possession, and if so how?

                  Of course an abortion is not a possession and so that is a distinct matter; however, if ownership confers right of sale, then trade for labor is an expression of the ownership of one’s self, the status of the consumer (and potential abortee/victim) notwithstanding.

      2. Fine then. If the libs back off on regulation for everything else, then I will cheer them attempting to back off on abortion regulation.

        But for now I’ll classify this as hoisted on your own petard and laugh at their oh so righteous anger.

        1. Liberals have certainly asked for this, but I don’t choose my political stances based on what makes liberals look bad. I ask if there’s an NAP violation.

  7. Gee, first a global warming thread, now an abortion thread.

    Deep-dish pizza is the best pizza!

    Circumcisions for all!

    There, now the internet will likely implode in on itself, forming a singularity of DERP from which no logic can escape. MWA-HA-HA.

    1. Where’s a Dalmia Immigration thread to complete the Triumvirate of DERP?

      1. 1. Global warming
        2. Abortion
        3. Deep-dish pizza
        4. Circumcisions
        5. Dalmia immigration thread

        More like a pentavirate of DERP. And as we all know, The Pentavirate runs everything in the worlk inlcuding the newspapers…

    2. What will millennials think about that?

      1. Call for a globally warmed and circumsized, deep dish aborto-poll of immigrant Millenials?

  8. d) hospitals routinely refuse to grant admitting privileges to abortion clinic doctors,

    Why would you think that is? Aren’t you at least a bit curious as to why wouldn’t they? Abortion doctors are still doctors, aren’t they?

    A spokeswoman for the Center for Reproductive Rights

    I got to give it to Proggies, they’re good at making up euphemisms to hide the true nature of their organizations.

    1. “Why would you think that is?”

      They don’t want to be targeted for protests which have some history of violence?

      “making up euphemisms to hide the true nature of their organizations.”

      Because their real mission, in their minds, has nothing to do with reproductive choice and rights but BABY HOLOCAUST!!!, right?

      Is the pro-life side required to be this tedious?

      1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.

        They don’t want to be targeted for protests which have some history of violence?

        Are we now into issuing innuendo, Bo? “Some” violence? Violence against abortion clinics and abortion providers has been exceedingly rare if you count the instances.

        Because their real mission, in their minds, has nothing to do with reproductive choice and rights but BABY HOLOCAUST!!!, right?

        Considering the great and copious availability of contraception, my take is that their raison d’?tre is something else besides talking about contraception, Bo.

        1. “Violence against abortion clinics and abortion providers has been exceedingly rare if you count the instances.”

          That depends on what you mean by exceedingly rare, and that’s a rather tedious internet argument to get into. Suffice it to say that for whatever reason many people are afraid to attract pro-life protests because they fear violence.

          “Considering the great and copious availability of contraception”

          That’s like saying that the NRA shouldn’t fight regulations on long guns because there are lots of handguns available.

          1. Re: Bo Cara Esq.,

            That depends on what you mean by exceedingly rare

            As in enough times that you cannot even remember when it was the last time you heard about one act of violence without googling it. That kind of standard.

            Suffice it to say that for whatever reason many people are afraid to attract pro-life protests because they fear violence

            I don’t think that’s the reason. Occam’s razor tells me it has to do with reputation, which is a precious commodity.

            That’s like saying that the NRA shouldn’t fight regulations […]

            Honestly, Bo. My wife does not need to fill a background check card every time she buys the pill. Please, enough with your exaggerations.

            1. Buying contraceptive and handguns are not exactly the same thing so of course no analogies can be drawn.

              Again, are you required to be so tedious?

              1. Tedious? Like how tedious it is when pro-choicers always act like the pro-life group is arguing their position in bad faith because no one can have moral issues with capriciously destroying human life?

                1. I don’t think pro-life people are tedious for thinking there is a human life involved and it’s deeply immoral to destroy it. I understand that’s their position. What I think is tedious is that when they talk to or about pro-choice people they assume the very argument about that issue. It’s the same when pro-choice people say ‘oh, all pro-lifers want is to repress women, keeping them bare-foot and pregnant mothers of huge families!’ Of course that’s not what motivates most pro-life people, and ‘killing babies’ is not what motivates pro-choice people.

              2. Again, are you required to be so tedious?

                And you claim other people project?

  9. I’m really trying to behave. I don’t know how much longer I can restrain myself.

    1. Let the hate flow through you!

    2. Why would you ever restrain yourself? THIS IS THE INTERNET.

      1. I’m trying to maintain a little decorum for ENB.

        1. *tries to determine if Playa has a fever or not*

  10. This destruction by regulation… I oppose it, but I am glad to have an instructive example of the Progressives being hoist by their own petard.

    1. Hoisted by their own retard. I like that.

      1. Shakespeare wept. Or you misread.

        1. I dunno, Wild Bill sure liked puns…

  11. I’m just going to continue to indulge in some more schadenfreude at the sight of liberals complaining about how government regulation restricts consumer choice some more.

    Oh, the delicious irony.

    1. Don’t you love it when they act so outraged at the same thing they love so dearly?

      1. And how dense they are when they see that the juggernaut that they set into motion is about to run them down, and they still don’t get it.

        1. You know where they are really going to ‘get’ this? The ACA. When eventually a GOP President from Texas or somewhere really Red gets into office and starts to use regulatory rulemaking powers over health care and insurance re: contraception, abortion, and related things there’s going to be a big self administered gnashing of teeth in the Blue States.

          1. They are never going to get it. They are always going to blame everything they don’t like on Republicans and greedy people instead of on the system or the incentives built into it. Always. They are incapable of understanding economics or human behavior. All problems are due to bad people, never due to bad rules made up by well-intentioned but stupid people.

      2. I mean, no liberal anywhere has EVER used excessive regulation to persecute an industry they don’t like (*cough* nuclear power *cough*).

  12. So, kind of off-topic, but I was watching Doctor Who with my younger brother this weekend, who’s a bit of a fan (I find the series kind of meh but I like Peter Capaldi, mostly for his other work).

    Anyway, the episode was called Kill the Moon, and was basically about how the moon was actually a giant egg that was going to hatch some massive alien creature thingy, and the human race had sent up some astronauts with a bunch of atomic weapons to nuke-abort it. Then it got really weird, because the entire episode basically turned into a microcosm of the abortion fight, with the ‘obvious’ moral answer being to allow the giant alien to be born. So I checked a couple Who forums awhile later and found a lot of people agreeing with the episode premise. And I doubted that those people held the same opinion towards abortion in reality. I don’t know if that was the writers’ intentions or if they were even aware of it, I just found it odd that people would flip to a ‘life is sacred’ position so quickly when given a hypothetical (for the record, I’m pro-nuke-abort the moon if it ever turns out to be an Elder God).

    1. That’s a pretty bad analogy for abortion, but what do you expect from Dr. Who?

      1. That it will go on forever? OH GOD

        1. Please keep your emotions out of this.

      2. I don’t really expect anything or watch enough of it to care, I just found the subject matter odd.

        Although the series does seem to contain an elusive attractive British woman.

        1. She is a cutie. But the show did feature Billie Piper, so it should burn in hell for making her more popular.

    2. I’m also thinking of *Genesis of the Daleks,* where Tom Baker agonizes over whether to kill the Dalek babies.

      1. Oh, on Episode 2 of the new season, a Dalek delivers the most jaw-dropping insult to the Doctor ever.

        It’s like “Oh, snap!!!”

        1. What was it?

          1. “I. KNOW. YOU. ARE. BUT. WHAT. AM. I?”

          2. Uhhh, you have to watch the episode. Would take too long to explain the context.

            1. “YO. MAMA. SO. FAT. WHEN. SHE. GOES. AROUND. THE U-NI-VERSE. SHE. GOES. AROUND. THE. UNIVERSE.”

    3. I wouldn’t pay that episode much attention. It’s chock full of things that the writers plainly didn’t think through.

      1. “So what happens when the moon goes away? Just no tides, right?”

        “Oh look, the creature who has just been born somehow asexually reproduced right after.”

        You might be onto something.

        1. That’s a huge problem with the show.

          It’s full of absurd plot holes and they cover it up by keeping the pace moving at such a frentic speed that you don’t have time stop and think about it long enough to notice.

      2. Dr. Who has writers? It thought they just brought in a couple of dozen shut-in and had them ejaculate words all over the floor.

    4. There is, perhaps, a contempt for humanity hidden in their support for the right to life of some magnificent celestial being (or even just ordinary Earth animals) and their cavalier attitude about aborting human fetuses.

      We know the watermelons could care less if humans suffer in the name of preserving Mother Gaia.

      1. Well, right. Mother Gaia is a superior being. We humans are filth that are destroying her, and the fewer babies we have the less destruction we will do.

    5. Was it an abortion analogy or an endangered species analogy?

      1. Both maybe?

    6. Taht video….Man, Dr. Who has gotten really dark.

      I like it.

      1. The Thick of It is brilliant, pure cynicism directed at the incompetence and uselessness of the British bureaucratic state.

        1. It’s not Dr. Who? Disappointed!

  13. So, in a state of 26.5 million (give or take a couple thousand illegals) the fact that 900,000 women have to drive more than 30 miles is an undue burden? I’m guessing, knowing Texas as I do, that if those women want much beyond groceries they have to drive somewhere to get it. Hell, some probably have to drive more than 30 miles to get groceries.

    1. And people in Chicago could just drive the same distance for shooting practice, right?

      1. “Undue burden” is bullshit both ways. Either something is legal, and you can do it where and when you please (within the framework of respecting the rights of others), or it is not legal, and so your hardships in obtaining it is irrelevant.

      2. And that has what to do with this discussion? Either the state gets to regulate medical providers in the fashion it sees fit or it doesn’t. I don’t give a fuck one way or the other, but claiming that something is inconvenient for

        1. HTML bit me. Continued below…

          less than 4% of the population therefore no regulation is a bit much. More people than that are unemployed. Is that an undue burden?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.