Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

When Conservatives Love Overregulation

Abortion opponents embrace the smothering power of pointless, picayune rules.

Conservatives usually are not fans of arbitrary, heavy-handed, anti-competitive, counterproductive regulations. But as a case the Supreme Court will hear today shows, they make an exception for abortion.

That's because these regulations, ostensibly aimed at making abortion safer, are actually aimed at making abortion rarer. While suppressing economic activity is an unwanted side effect of the regulations conservatives tend to criticize, it is the whole point of the Texas law they are defending.

That law, H.B. 2, requires every doctor who works at an abortion clinic to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles away and requires every abortion clinic to meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). Neither mandate makes sense as a health regulation, but together they should be pretty effective at discouraging abortions.

Before H.B. 2 was enacted in 2013, Texas had more than 40 abortion clinics. Almost half of them closed as the admitting-privileges requirement was implemented, and that number will be cut in half again if the ASC rules take effect.

The supposed health benefits of that shakeout are illusory, since abortion was already a very safe procedure and there is no reason to think the new mandates will make it safer. "Studies consistently report the rate of major complications during or after an abortion as less than one-half of one percent," the clinics challenging H.B. 2 note. The mortality rate in Texas before H.B. 2 was 0.27 per 100,000 abortions, making abortion 100 times safer than giving birth by that measure.

In the unlikely event of serious complications, the patient will be treated at the nearest hospital, regardless of whether the doctor who performed the abortion has admitting privileges there. Furthermore, as the appeals court that upheld H.B. 2 conceded, the ability to obtain admitting privileges may depend on various factors that have nothing to do with the doctor's competence.

Requiring abortion clinics to spend millions of dollars so they can qualify as surgical centers likewise is hard to justify as a safety measure, since abortions do not require incisions or suturing and are no more dangerous than various other procedures commonly performed in doctors' offices, such as vasectomies and colonoscopies. Texas is requiring even clinics that do nothing but administer abortifacient drugs to meet the prohibitively expensive ASC standards, which makes even less sense.

Far from protecting women, these overbearing rules are likely to undermine their safety. Making abortions harder to obtain is apt to encourage dangerous self-induced abortions, delay the procedure (which makes complications more likely), and result in more births (which are much riskier than abortions).

"The health and safety of abortion patients would be best served by a free market constricted only by evidence-based regulations," Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine argues in a brief that I joined. "Unjustifiable government regulation creates obstacles to free market processes, resulting in increased costs and decreased supply without providing improvements in health care quality or availability."

Conservatives surely understand these points, which they frequently make in connection with other kinds of regulation. But regulatory excess is desirable when your goal is preventing people from exchanging money for a service you consider morally abhorrent.

Supporters of H.B. 2 are not supposed to admit that's their goal, since the Supreme Court's blessing hinges on pretending it isn't. According to the Court, regulations that "serve no purpose other than to make abortions more difficult" are unconstitutional.

But sometimes the truth slips out. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld H.B. 2 in 2014, Rick Perry, then governor of Texas, welcomed the decision as a victory for "the culture of life."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who cosponsored H.B. 2 as a state legislator, describes it as "the landmark legislation to protect the lives of unborn children." Another cosponsor, Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar, says H.B. 2 is "widely recognized as the toughest pro-life legislation in United States history." But don't tell the Supreme Court.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

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.

  • Eman||

    if it was a good idea it wouldnt need to be a law

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Now, that sounds just like a Progressive; a sweeping statement that is smug, fatuous, and clearly untrue in most important respects.

    Please, we're supposed to be better than those idiots.

  • bassjoe||

    Um, you just made two sweeping statements about progressives... But since I guess you think those statements are true, you're better than "those idiots". The lack of self-reflection amongst the comentariat here is sometimes amazing.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Yes, it is.

  • ThomasD||

    " Neither mandate makes sense as a health regulation..."

    Sullum's entire essay hinges on that banal, and entirely unsupported assertion. Unless you want to count the apples to oranges nonsense and the plain misdirection.

    Which means he's not actually making an argument, merely engaging in bootstrapping as a method of signaling his virtue to the choir.

  • cibudahuhi||

    Want to earn over internet from your couch at home by working easy jobs with your desktop or laptop for 3-5 h a day, get 55 dollars hourly and qw get a paycheck at the end of each week and choose yourself the time when you work and for how long. its original site.....Visit that.........

    ------- www.workprospects.com

  • Thisisalongname||

    I think abortion is a unique situation, much like the death penalty.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Therefore...?

  • HenryC||

    If you are of the belief that a fetus is a person, simply undeveloped, that person deserves the right to life. Regulations promoting that are needed, just like laws against murder. Scientifically speaking, abortion is homicide. It is not necessarily murder, sometimes it is self defense. A fetus is, however, a unique human being, with a complete individual DNA pattern. This is not religious thought, it is science. Abortion is the only free pass on killing another human, other than self defense.

  • Chipper Morning Wood||

    Tumors also have a unique individual DNA. Clearly, that cannot be the sole requirement for granting rights.

  • Loki||

    Yeah but a tumor, if left alone, won't develop into a separate sentient human being. Unless you're talking about Kuato from Total Recall...

  • Mongo||

    Remember that 70s movie The Manitou where a tumor on the character's back grew to become an Indian shaman?

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    So already we've gone from "it is a human being" to "it will be a human being."

  • Curt2004||

    No, both the tumor and fetus if left alone will die. They both require a human host.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Let me know when tumors develop sentience, then we'll talk.

  • EscherEnigma||

    To be fair, many commenters here don't believe a lot of people have sentience anyway.

  • Jickerson||

    You might have a right to life, but you don't have a right to make use of someone else's organs against their will to keep yourself alive. There is a difference. The question of whether or not a fetus is a person is uninteresting.

  • ThomasD||

    Fantastic, can you explain that to every parent, who is legally compelled to provide for their offspring?

  • Jickerson||

    I would, but it seems like it would be quite a daunting task to explain that to every parents, yes?

  • mulp||

    Do you also consider not giving food and shelter to the homeless and hungry to be murder if you have any food at alleast and even just a small space in your house to provide shelter? Aren't you committing murder by failing to give away all your money beyond the bare minimum needed for your survival to prevent death in Africa, Syria, ....?

    You seem fully capable of demanding other women to sacrifice a lot or even everything to force a child to be born, so, you should be willing to sacrifice everything you have to provide support for all you believe must be forced to be born.

    If you are not willing to force others to support the children in need with the same determination you show to force the birth of more children in need on other women, you are a hypocrite who is not willing to sacrifice for the principles you consider noble to force other women to make.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Isn't it funny, the title is "When Conservatives Love Overregulation" instead of "When Conservatives use Liberals Tactics Against Them, Liberals are Incensed".

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    And the real story is "When Liberals screw the pooch and Conservatives use that to score, Liberals are insensed."

    Failing to catch the Kermit Gosnell operation early was a big f*ckup. The anti-abortion forces are going to be making use of that for a looooooong time. And so far as I can see, instead of cleaning up their own act so that a similar abbatoir cannot operate again, the pro-abortion forces have chosen the 'whine until you win' option.

  • Loki||

    And so far as I can see, instead of cleaning up their own act so that a similar abbatoir cannot operate again, the pro-abortion forces have chosen the 'whine until you win' option.

    A lot of the pro-abortion people don't think Gosnell did anything wrong. Of course, they're not going to make that argument, for obvious reasons.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    At best, they think he could have used a better cleaning service.

    But on principle? Nope. They honestly don't see what the big deal is.

  • ||

    A lot of the pro-abortion people don't think Gosnell did anything wrong.

    Citation needed. I haven't seen anyone excuse the harm he did to women under his "care."

  • R C Dean||

    Not overtly. But for years and years the state, which had the responsibility for enforcing their health and safety regulations but did not, excused what he did, and the harm he caused.

  • ||

    That doesn't very well support the argument that more state regs will help, of course.

  • R C Dean||

    No, but it does show that Gosnell was excused, by people who actually had the power to stop him. Revealed preferences and all that.

  • Marshall Gill||

    You just provided a citation. He harmed actual, born human beings not just women who came to him for "treatment". Killing the already born is supposed to be a line that principled people do not cross.

  • ||

    How could I have provided a citation, when I think Gosnell did do something wrong?

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Read pretty much ANY feminist analysis of the Gosnell case.

    Their criticisms of Gosnell begin and end with the substandard 'quality of care' he provided to his patients.

    The offices were unsanitary, women were maimed and drugged, medical waste was not properly disposed of, he didn't offer adequate post-op care... those are the criticisms. And they are of course valid. But almost ALL of these analyses stop short of actually criticizing the practice of late-term abortion, or even the killing infants after they're 'accidentally' born alive.

    This is because the feminist position on the validity of life is that it is bestowed upon a child at the whim of it's mother. If a woman wants her pregnancy, then it's a baby and deserving of protection. But if a woman does not want her pregnancy, it is simply not to be considered a valid life, regardless how far along it's developed.

    So if a woman goes for a late-term abortion and the fetus happens to be viably delivered, then of course it should be destroyed, because it hasn't been granted 'life' by the woman, and therefore has no right to exist.

    Of course this is antiscientific nonsense, but make no mistake, this is indeed the feminist position. But of course, nobody wants to actually draw attention to this fact, and that's why the Gosnell case received approximately zero news coverage, despite being one of the most horrific stories ever told.

  • ThomasD||

    A choir often speaks most loudly when it chooses to go silent.

  • bassjoe||

    I was hoping somebody would knee-jerk blame liberals on this comment board. Thanks for not disappointing! God forbid actually recognizing authoritarianism might also exist on the Right.

  • ||

    Never forget that only liberals support abortion rights!

  • Marshall Gill||

    Killing living humans declared "unpersons" by government is the hallmark of Socialists, so yeah.

  • ||

    Cool story, bro.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    Who knew all those slave owners were socialists?

  • Azathoth!!||

    Anyone who took a moment to think about it.

  • ant1sthenes||

    The point is that conservatives aren't being hypocrites and doing what they accuse the left of doing. They accuse the left of accidentally killing businesses through idiotic overregulation, while the left claims that there is no meaningful economic harm relative to the great public good done. The right is putting that belief into practice by deliberately employing overregulation of the same sort to kill a type of business they despise.

    If the same activist who for years claimed that the drinking water was dangerously polluted in a neighborhood ended up putting it into the drinks at a City Hall function, they aren't resigning themselves to their opponents views, they're using their opponents' views as a weapon against them. "If the water is so fucking safe, why are you upset that I just made you drink it?"

  • ThomasD||

    There was nothing accidental about Operation Chokepoint, and many of the accusations hurled at it recognized that the effects were entirely intentional.

  • Pebar||

    If democrats were as pro-choice on everything else as they are on abortion, they wouldn't be democrats.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And if Republicans were as anti-choice on everything else as they are on abortion, drugs and gays, they wouldn't be Republicans.

    It's almost like political ideology is more nuanced then a bumper-sticker.

  • retiredfire||

    You think it is the proggies that want to decriminalize drugs?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Some have made gestures towards decriminalizing marijuana. Very little word on other drugs. No-can-do on tobacco, sugary drinks, trans-fats or other unhealthy life choices you might make.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    And don't get me started on vaping.

  • Jickerson||

    Mere decriminalization isn't good enough.

  • Loki||

    regulatory excess is desirable when your goal is preventing people from exchanging money for a service you consider morally abhorrent.

    Let's turn this around: since Conservatives view abortion as morally abhorrent, and therefore view prohibitive regulations as desirable, then the fact that Progressives view regulations on almost everything BUT abortion as desirable means that they feel everything but abortion is morally abhorrent. Sounds about right.

  • Chip Chipperson||

    Yeah I'm glad people are picking up on this little nuance, which seems altogether lost on the author.

  • ThomasD||

    That which is not prohibited is mandatory.

  • Curt||

    "Conservatives usually are not fans of arbitrary, heavy-handed, anti-competitive, counterproductive regulations."

    lolz

    I also like to start by telling a joke.

  • b1071305||

    I'm making over £5k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. AO Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. For further details

    Check this link www.workprospects.com

  • JimBob7||

    "The supposed health benefits of that shakeout are illusory, since abortion was already a very safe procedure and there is no reason to think the new mandates will make it safer. "

    Dr Kermit Gosnell was unavailable for comment when this article was published.

  • ||

    It's great that the existence of a single butcher makes abortion more dangerous than childbearing.

  • KB Check Release||

    Yes for the baby abortion is infinitely more dangerous than being born.

    Nikki seriously, could you be any more pedantic? It's getting worse every day

  • R C Dean||

    The supposed health benefits of that shakeout are illusory, since abortion was already a very safe procedure and there is no reason to think the new mandates will make it safer.

    Applying this consistently would lead to a great many regulations being repealed. Its a conundrum.

  • kbolino||

    The reasoning of Roe contradicts Wickard and basically all regulatory authority. If applied consistently, we might actually be living in an honest-to-God libertarian country.

    Personally, I would rather see all regulation overturned and abortion remain legal than to see either side "hoist by their own petard" for the sake of schadenfreude.

    But neither side in the mainstream debate is honest or consistent.

  • ThomasD||

    Applied to all health care, the privacy aspects of Roe should prevent anything remotely resembling Obamacare.

  • johncbsr1||

    I am registered Libertarian and believe in the platform. I don't understand why anyone cares about abortion, besides a pregnant woman. It's a medical condition. How it is handled should be the woman's decision. I don't care what she does about it or when she does it. Considering the "separation of church and state" protections, I don't understand how it has become a legal issue. It shouldn't be. I think people need to be content to live their life as they see it best and allow others to do the same. This conflict is unnecessary and a waste of time and money.

  • Governor Squid||

    One assumes that you're also cool with women aborting their children up to the age of 26, when they are legally recognized as adults by the federal health insurance commissar.

    If not, why not?

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Jesus Christ.

    Throw out a reductio ad absurdum and then demand it be defended? Yes, why not! Abortion threads! Yaaaay!

    Needs moar Trump.

  • ThomasD||

    Explain how "it's a medical condition" is likewise not reductio ad adsurdum?

    Maybe you can start with whose medical condition(s) will be affected by an abortion.

  • Cyto||

    To underline the cephalopod's point, the entire crux of the argument is: When does human life begin?

    Johncbsr1 has an unstated premise in his argument - that life begins at birth, or some other time long after an abortion is a part of the equation. Since this is the entirety of the points in dispute, leaving this out is critical.

    I don't understand how there can be any of these arguments on HnR. It is silly to opine that the state has no interest in regulating a woman's medical services as a counter to anti-abortion arguments. Just as it is silly to opine that all abortions should be banned because abortion is murder.

    Both positions pre-suppose that the answer to the only question in dispute falls in their favor.

    Let me be clear: There are those who would create straw-man arguments by pre-supposing they have won the underlying premise. People of reason won't allow such shenanigans.

    You cannot have a reasoned argument on this topic until you settle the beginning of human life. And you are never going to settle that point, because there is no scientific basis for it - there is only a galaxy of opinion to draw on.

    So we are left with pragmatic choices trading off various rights and plying on various emotions and ick factors. This argument will be click bait for the rest of eternity.

  • This Machine||

    Yup. Well stated.

  • R C Dean||

    Yup. There is one, and only one, question that matters in abortion:

    I wouldn't phrase it as "when does human life begin" exactly. I'm more: "When does a fetus become a person".

    To me, whether a fetus at a given stage of development is inside or outside of a womb is irrelevant as far as their development and personhood goes. That's why I like viability - you can't kill a 24 week preemie in the NICU, so you shouldn't kill a 24 week fetus in the womb.

  • sarcasmic||

    What happens when technology gets to the point where a fertilized egg can be developed outside the womb?

  • R C Dean||

    I think the principle still applies. Preemies today can't survive without medical support, and I don't think anyone would say that killing a preemie who is on a ventilator isn't murder.

    That technology would just push viability back to conception. I can't see where to draw a different line. Suggestions?

  • sarcasmic||

    So personhood would be defined by technology? If the technology exists to incubate a fertilized egg outside the womb, then it is a person? If the machine breaks then it ceases to be a person?

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Exactly. The fundamental question is When does a fetus become a person entitled to legal protection? The most common points I've heard are either viability or the development of the central nervous system, and I can see the case for both of those.

  • R C Dean||

    I just can't get excited about CNS development as a test for personhood. Its looking at something "scientific" to resolve a non-scientific question.

  • Cyto||

    Exactly. Because relying on cognition or viability for your definition of personhood opens the door to things like eugenics for severely mentally disabled people and pulling the plug on grandma's ventilator to save money on the electric bill.

    Everywhere you turn in this it is a spiral of Hobson's choices and "yeah, but we didn't mean that!"

  • ThomasD||

    Agreed, one of the primary reasons we have gotten this far into the weeds over the practice is by deferring to science as an arbiter of what is ultimately about morality.

  • Jickerson||

    the entire crux of the argument is: When does human life begin?

    That might be the relevant question for a lot of people, but it isn't for people like me. Even if you're a person, that doesn't give you the right to force others to allow you to use their organs against their will. A right to life does not equate to a right to do absolutely anything to keep yourself alive.

    So I don't care much when human life begins.

  • ace_m82||

    What if that person decided to create you? Do you then have claim to use of their organs for a period of time? Or does the creator get to be the destroyer when she wills it?

    To put another way, if you signed a contract to attach my hand to your body to keep it alive so I could use it later, would you be within your rights to randomly demand to have it removed because it happens to use your organs?

  • Jickerson||

    To put another way, if you signed a contract to attach my hand to your body to keep it alive so I could use it later, would you be within your rights to randomly demand to have it removed because it happens to use your organs?

    Not when you signed a contract. However, you can't make contracts with the unborn or with people who don't yet exist. The mother and father could perhaps make a contract that specifies that she will have the baby, however.

  • ace_m82||

    However, you can't make contracts with the unborn or with people who don't yet exist.

    What if I blew your mind and told you that the sex was the contract with that which could be? After all, the act of birth doesn't mean you've signed a contract with the child to care for it til adulthood, or at least to find it another suitable home.

    By your argument, the "lack of contract" argument, the parents could leave their newborn on the hill outside Sparta to die of exposure because they never signed a contract to keep it alive. After all, it has no right to your labor, right?

  • Jickerson||

    What if I blew your mind and told you that the sex was the contract with that which could be?

    That sounds like the "social contract" that liberals love talking about. No one knows what the exact terms of the contract are, no one explicitly signed the contract, and it seems like the terms are whatever the individual talking about this mysterious contract say they are.

    But this contract has an extra property: You can even sign the contract with a person who doesn't even exist yet! Truly revolutionary.

    After all, the act of birth doesn't mean you've signed a contract with the child to care for it til adulthood, or at least to find it another suitable home.

    Right. Don't assume that I agree with current laws regarding childcare. Even so, forcing someone to lend out their organs to keep someone else alive is a much more personal violation. Regardless, the child is indeed not entitled to your labor.

  • retiredfire||

    The only question is if other medical facilities that perform procedures similar to the types performed in abortion clinics have these kinds of regulations.
    There is a possibility of hemorrhaging, or other complications that might require hospitalization, as with other outpatient medical facilities. If they must have the same admitting privileges and have to meet the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center, then abortion clinics are not being treated any differently.
    What is a shame is where abortionists get special freedoms, such as being able to perform their practices on minors, without parental notification - something a school nurse wanting to administer an aspirin wouldn't be able to do.

  • ||

    Abortion clinics that do not perform surgical abortions are also being required to meet the standards for surgical care centers.

  • R C Dean||

    If that's the case (and I don't recall, but wouldn't be surprised), then I think that part of the rule would fail even under rational basis review.

  • ||

    I sure hope so.

  • Cap'n Krunch||

    As far as I can tell abortion is one of those 'falls to the state' issues. While I think the Texas regulations are ridiculous I also believe that's a right of Texas and the citizens of that state to settle, just like it's up to the states to decide who can marry in that state. I have no problem with abortion, I have no problem with gay marriage.

    These kinds of issues are why I say republicans are really just democrats with bibles. The same republicans who say abortion is a states rights issue because they lost in federal court are the republicans who insist that marriage is a federal issue because they're losing in state courts. D's and R's are the pushmi-pullyu of the political world.

  • Real American||

    abortion is not a "safe procedure". an innocent human being dies EVERY SINGLE TIME.

  • ThomasD||

    Almost every time. Mistakes do happen.

  • Longtail||

    I think, for some reason, you confuse the Democratic push to regulate finance and education with the Republican push to regulate sex and religion. You just need to figure out which one is in worse need of regulation.

  • Real American||

    Republicans aren't being hypocrites here. They want to ban baby killing but Democrats want to kill babies. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court read a right to kill babies into the constitution and it has infected our politics ever since. Had the Constitution been interpreted properly and no right to kill babies existed then these types of regulations would be far less common. Unfortunately, that's the baby-killing world Republicans have to work with so to prevent more baby killing favored by Democrats they have to enact these regulations to ensure that at least the mothers of the dead babies are safer than they'd otherwise would be after the baby killers get done. Republicans know that regulations reduce the activity being regulated, which is why they've enacted regulations to limit baby killing. Democrats deny that regulations ever have an impact on the activity being regulated until it something they like - killing innocent babies - is regulated. If anything, they're the hypocrites in addition to being baby killers.

  • ||

    Needz moar "baby killing."

  • ace_m82||

    That's not an argument.

    Define "baby killing". You must first define "baby". And even the worst of us would have to agree that the important distinction between libertarians in that statement is how one defines the word "baby".

  • Mindyourbusiness||

    Please move away from the soapbox...

  • plusafdotcom||

    Thanks, Jacob... I was wondering when and if anyone would begin to recognize that kind of 'over-regulation' as a STRATEGY or TACTIC.

  • Governor Squid||

    "When Conservatives Love Overregulation"

    When it slows down the rate of infanticide. Oh, those horrible conservatives! Why can't they understand that murdering infants is the right of every American?

    I hope the next Justice finds a penumbra that says we're allowed to abort children up to the 30th trimester. I've got some neighbor kids that are just dying for some dying. It takes a village!

  • ThomasD||

    If only we had had the massive power of the regulatory state in the mid 19th century. Maybe could have avoided all that bloodshed.

    Oh wait, this is the "massive" power of a State. Not the MASSIVE power of the Federal state...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    I am going to shun this thread.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Don't sweat it bro, the drive-by sockpuppet squad is here to give us 300+ posts of angry non-sequiturs about why their personal beliefs should be enforced by the law.

  • Hamster of Doom||

    Abortion threads have the worst porn.

  • Cyto||

    Hey, I think you have the nub of an idea!

    We need to institute a new rule: If you want to post a pro- or anti- abortion argument, you have to post a nude selfie with each one. That'd chase away the sock-puppet trolls and make the whole thing more interesting. :)

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's S.E. Cupp's position on abortion, and can we get her to detail it here?

  • Chipwooder||

    I can think of other positions I'd like to see SE Cupp detail.

  • ace_m82||

    So, why should your personal beliefs about NAP be enforced (or protected) by law?

  • This Machine||

    Yeah, same. See you guys at the PM Links.

  • Rich||

    I give up. What is that logo?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "Hurricanes go right to my hips."

  • ||

    What is that logo?

    They wanted to go with a swirly symbol into a vagina, but Time Warner Cable already owns that.

  • Derp-o-Matic 5000||

    Conservatives usually are not fans of arbitrary, heavy-handed, anti-competitive, counterproductive regulations.

    Citation needed.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "That's because these regulations, ostensibly aimed at making abortion safer, are actually aimed at making abortion rarer."

    Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

    If anything should be heavily regulated, maybe it's killing babies.

    I remain of the opinion that elective abortion is both highly unethical and should be perfectly legal.

    But whether it should be easy is another question entirely.

    People don't have a right not to be offended. I'm not sure the government has a responsibility to create a safe space for women who want abortions.

    Meanwhile, is it still possible for doctors to give underage girls an abortion without a parent's knowledge (much less consent)?

    I hurt myself skiing when I was 16. Explained to the medical staff that I was on my own, but they didn't care. They wouldn't give me an over the counter Tylenol without a parent's consent. Funny how some things get a free pass.

  • MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

    So not perfectly legal.

  • Ken Shultz||

    No criminal penalties isn't perfectly legal?

  • R C Dean||

    Meanwhile, is it still possible for doctors to give underage girls an abortion without a parent's knowledge (much less consent)?

    Yup.

  • Dallas Tom||

    I admit it, when it comes to killing human beings, I think we should have some really strict regulations. Just call me an evil conservative, but there you have it.

  • prolefeed||

    While suppressing economic activity is an unwanted side effect of the regulations conservatives tend to criticize, it is the whole point of the Texas law they are defending.

    Well, they * might * also be trying to stop what they view as murder, or at least killing a human being.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Here's the thing.

    As noted above the only real question is just when does it become a person, with the rights of a person?

    We kinda already know the answer--because modern science is pushing the issue of viability closer and closer to conception.

    It never goes the other way. It never affirms the desires of the strident pro-abortion folks.

    Eventually, abortion will be illegal--because it will be no different from any other murder.

    We know this now.

    Think about it.

  • ace_m82||

    Well. to be fair "person" is a meaningless construct in this case. I suppose you mean it to be "viable" (whatever that means) human being. That's fair enough, I suppose, but the term "person" isn't defined by science. The term "viable", I suppose, could be defined as "can survive without the mother" and could be defined scientifically.

    I need more quote marks in my comments!

  • eyeroller||

    Conservatives usually are not fans of arbitrary, heavy-handed, anti-competitive, counterproductive regulations.

    WTF?

  • MattFC||

    Of course, if one views abortion as murder, "regulating" against it might be a little different that Dodd-Frank. Harm principle. Gotta argue against the premises that these things are being proposed using not against whatever strikes your fancy.

  • cjones1||

    Ending quackery shouldn't be a problem.
    If a person wishes to end their pregnancy by killing herself, would you think them wrong? How about if they decided to take it out on someone else? Abortion takes it out on a life that would burst out naturally if left unmolested. I think proponents of abortion similar to the primitive cultures who practiced human sacrifice to change the future.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online