Texas Sued Over Coronavirus-Related Restrictions on Abortions

|

Here's the motion for a preliminary injunction; here's the heart of the argument (I hope to also post key parts of the state's brief, when that is filed):

Here, in terms of the burdens, the Attorney General's current enforcement threat operates as a ban, whether for all abortions or for all abortions after ten weeks. The Executive Order is in effect for at least thirty days, and in fact could remain in effect for months, which would push many abortion patients past the legal limit for an abortion in Texas. Moreover, even if some patients affected by the order are able to obtain an abortion if the order is lifted sooner than anticipated, they will still suffer increased risks to their health by the delay in access to abortion care. Thus, the Executive Order overwhelmingly harms individuals seeking an abortion.

These harms vastly outweigh any potential benefits from the Executive Order as interpreted by the Attorney General. The State asserts two interests—neither of which is furthered by the Attorney General's interpretation. On its face, the Executive Order is intended to preserve hospital capacity and PPE. Plaintiffs share those interests, but a blanket abortion ban does not serve either one and, in fact, as so interpreted the Executive Order is more likely to aggravate than alleviate the public health crisis arising from the pandemic. As to the first interest, legal abortion is safe, and complications associated with abortion—including those requiring hospital care—are exceedingly rare. Nearly all abortions in Texas are provided in outpatient facilities, such as Plaintiffs' abortion facilities and ambulatory surgical centers, not hospitals. Thus, Plaintiffs' provision of abortion would not deplete hospital capacity.

Regarding the second interest stated in the Executive Order—to preserve PPE—even in the absence of the Attorney General's threat to ban procedural abortion, Plaintiffs have already taken steps to preserve PPE, including by, for example, limiting the number of individuals allowed into the facility and during a procedural abortion and postponing other in-person, non-essential visits that may require PPE. Plaintiffs are exploring additional measures to preserve PPE, such as washable masks and gowns. Moreover, Plaintiffs either do not use N95 masks or do so only rarely, and this is the PPE that appears to be in shortest supply in battling the COVID-19 pandemic in Texas and around the country. As such, banning abortions does little to nothing to prevent the "deplet[ion]" of the personal protective equipment needed "to cope with the COVID-19 disaster."

Even before the Executive Order, Plaintiffs had taken steps to preserve PPE by minimizing the number of encounters a patient needs for care, but Texas law restricts this flexibility. Plaintiffs could make further progress in preserving PPE, as well as reducing overall contagion risks during the pandemic, were Defendants willing to consider temporarily waiving medically unnecessary abortion restrictions that limit their ability to adapt to this crisis—such as Texas's requirement that patients make an extra trip to the health center and receive an ultrasound before returning for an abortion.

Indeed, far from being necessary to address the COVID-19 crisis, an interpretation of the Executive Order that broadly prohibits abortion could well exacerbate the COVID-19 crisis, including by forcing patients to attempt to travel to other states to try to access abortion care, and potentially using public transportation, even though public health experts have advised the public to minimize activities outside the home. Moreover, the Executive Order may delay access for patients experiencing health problems because providers are uncertain as to whether these problems meet the Executive Order's emergency exception, which could endanger those patients and potentially require that they receive more invasive care (with attendant use of PPE) or even hospital-based care. Finally, delaying patients in accessing abortion ultimately requires increased use of PPE. Even if the Executive Order is ultimately limited to thirty days, this delay will push patients early in pregnancy now beyond the time for which they would be legally eligible for medication abortion (PPE is not needed to hand a patient pills), instead requiring one-day aspiration procedures. For some patients, the delay will push them into two-day D&E procedures, which necessarily require more PPE than a single visit or a medication abortion.

Even if banning or restricting abortion during the COVID-19 crisis would result in some small, temporary preservation of PPE, the harm to patients from not being able to access abortion for a month or more, if ever, is extreme and simply cannot be outweighed by any benefits of Defendants' application of the Executive Order. While Plaintiffs are mindful of the need for everyone in Texas and around the country to do their utmost to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on our health systems, the reality is that very little, if any, PPE would actually be conserved by banning or restricting abortion. Most procedural abortions in Texas are single-day procedures, where a patient encounters either one or two clinicians, who each wear, at most, a paper mask (not an N95 respirator), two-to-three pairs of gloves, and a gown. However, patients forced by Defendants to wait until the middle of the second trimester or later might be forced to undergo a two-day procedure, which would mean two consecutive trips to a health center; twice as much contact with health care providers; and at least twice the amount of PPE used—for a total of three visits.

For my Wednesday post on the general issue, see here.

NEXT: "Senator, I Have Worked with Professors at the University of Pennsylvania," I Say

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. How far can the state go in expropriating private property for the public good in an emergency? Forgetting Kermit Gosnell’s “House of Horrors” and presuming that the abortion clinic meets basic medical standards for a medical facility — in a dire situation — can the state seize it for temporary housing of Wuhan Flu patients?

    In other words, even though their outpatient clinic would never be considered a “hospital” under normal circumstances, can a state expand the definition to include it — as long as the state does likewise with similar facilities (e.g. hair transplant clinics).

    I think the larger issue of the rights being nullified by fiat in this hysteria is going to go to SCOTUS in a case quite similar to _West VA v. Barnette_ (flag salute), which I don’t think would have been decided the way it was if it wasn’t clear that WW-II was almost over and that we were going to win it.

    And what I don’t see either the gun or abortion people mentioning is what is probably their strongest argument — that denying the legal route creates the necessity defense for those who would act outside the law.

    1. I think that if a state picked abortion clinics to deal with victims of the Trump virus, it would not pass constitutional muster. But I suppose that if the Trump virus ends up being far more deadly than expected, and if a state had to seize control over each and every medical treatment facility in that state, then it would probably be allowed. (Compelling govt interest, least restrictive, no alternatives, etc.)

      [Fun fact: The Spanish Flu’s name had nothing to do with where or how that virus started. For wartime morale reasons, media were censored from truthfully reporting about the flu’s impact on the U.S., England, France, etc.. But since Spain was neutral in WWI, papers were free to report on the pandemic’s deadly effects in that country. So who knows . . . this may end up being known as the NYC Flu.] (“The Big Apple Flu”…Dibs on trademark!!!)

      1. So, do the ChiComs pay well, or are you renaming the Wuhan virus pro bono?

        1. The fact that neither of you can say “coronavirus” is just sad.

          1. Coronavirus is an incorrect term to refer specifically to SARS-Cov2, because there are a lot of different coronaviruses, most of them are quite harmless. “Wuhan virus” is a better term because it’s conventional and specific.

            1. When I want to get the bigoted, half-educated, stale-thinking perspective, the Volokh Conspiracy has become my go-to destination.

              As planned, I sense.

            2. (1) Common usage for weeks was Coronavirus and Covid-19. These terms were ubiquitous in the media and normal discussion.

              (2) They didn’t have to be precise scientific terms for common use.

              (3) The PC Language Police aren’t the ones attempting to change common usage, Trump and the Right are.

              (4) The reasons for their effort are base & ugly, pandering & childish, xenophobic & jingoistic. Painfully sleazy. Is such juvenile behavior really necessary in the middle of a world-wide catastrophe? On the Right, apparently so…..

              1. > (1) Common usage for weeks was Coronavirus and Covid-19.
                > These terms were ubiquitous in the media and normal
                > discussion.
                Coronavirus is not specific and Covid-19 is a wrong term to describe the virus

                > (2) They didn’t have to be precise scientific terms for common
                > use.
                That’s why Wuhan virus makes sense, it also follows a convention

                >(3) The PC Language Police aren’t the ones attempting to change >common usage, Trump and the Right are.
                Spanish flu, Ebola, Lyme disease were invented by Trump?

                1. (1) Common usage for the virus and associated disease is Coronavirus and Covid-19. Rhetorical deflection and side-show weaseling doesn’t change that fact a bit.

                  (2) I’m curious how far you’ll to to excuse this latest brat-like behavior from our president : Are you claiming Trump suddenly decided this should be named “China Virus” out of concern it could be confused with other coronavirus strains?!?

                  There are people who say this whole clownish snit is because
                  of some Chinese sources peddling the lie the virus originated from the U.S. Of course that followed people like Senator Tom Cotton, Steve Bannon, and Medal-of-Freedom winner Rush Limbaugh peddling the lie Coronavirus was commie biological research. Tell me, deg_ree, wouldn’t you like to be one of the adults in the room while everyone on earth is suffering?

                  Why not give it a shot? You might find being an adult is a pleasurable experience…..

            3. And we won’t even get into the genetic fingerprinting that likely has already been done. It’s already known that the Wuhan Institute for Virology was working on SARS-Cov1 (they were advertising for help last fall) and that SARS-Cov2 is fairly close to it.

              Even if they weren’t doing BioWeapons work, it’s entirely possible that the WIV was working on a vaccine for SARS-Cov1 (which broke out in China back in 2002) — and it got loose from their Level 4 lab. It’s even possible that someone sold the lab animals for food — yes, China *is* that corrupt.

              Donald Trump is many things, but stupid is not one of them, and I doubt he’d be quietly saying that China was responsible for this if he didn’t know more than is publicly known right now.

              1. It’s also possible the virus was brought by lush (and green) alien women from Saturn’s moon Enceladus, during one of their secret trips to our unsuspecting planet. Yeah; I could see how it might be fun to believe that – so I guess I will. After all, believing is pretty damn easy with a lax mind and proper motivation. (And Trump did warn us about illegal aliens)

                1. If you could prove that with a DNA fingerprint, then….

              2. It came from bats, now affects humans; therefore, call it “the Batman virus”.

                1. That would probably lead to the Robin Virus. I never did trust those darn birds – always trying to get the jump on everyone else come springtime.

      2. The virus came from bats and transitioned to become infectious to humans. It should, obviously, be called the Batman virus.

    2. The state can’t do anything in response to Wuhan Flu, because that’s a spin term, not an illness.

      In response to the deadly pandemic coronavirus, no, it isn’t enough to “treat abortion clinics equally”. The government would need to show that there were no other clinics that it could seize to do the same job.

      1. “The government would need to show that there were no other clinics that it could seize to do the same job.”

        I don’t read the _Roe_ decision as giving abortion a preference over other medical procedures, merely placing it on an equal footing with them. Notwithstanding that, how is the government supposed to know how many clinics it will need?

        If one goes true “Chicken Little” here, if the government is husbanding ALL the resources it can find, then your point is moot as the government’s argument is that everything won’t be enough.

        1. Of course abortion gets a preference. Other procedures aren’t constitutional rights.

          1. I’m sorry, what? “Other procedures aren’t constitutional rights”?

            We really need to review the case law here, and the arguments made. Let’s be pretty specific here. The word “abortion” is not found in the Constitution at all. Instead, Roe v Wade found that women have a “right to privacy” via the 14th amendment (already a stretch, but let’s roll with it) and that that “right to privacy” included a woman’s choice to have or not have an abortion.

            Now, what you are somehow arguing is that a woman’s choice to have ANY OTHER ELECTIVE PROCEDURE besides an abortion somehow doesn’t fall under her right to privacy, but ONLY the choice to have an abortion falls under that right.

            Which is absurd.

            For example, a woman has the right to choose to or not to choose to undergo in vitro fertilization. But according to you, that’s not a constitutional right, and that wouldn’t fall under her right to privacy, so it could be banned. ONLY abortion falls under this right to privacy.

            1. Ask your armchair to explain our legal system to you.

            2. You really need to re-litigate something everyone has already been over, even in Supreme Court caselaw?

              The rhetoric on abortion is always either empty fallacies like this or empty blood and guts righteousness.

              1. The courts have never ruled that ONLY abortion is subject to the privacy “penumbra.”

            3. Exactly. My take was that _Roe_ gave a woman the right to have an abortion treated as any other medical procedure she wished to have. That the “privacy” was that of medical privacy in general.

    3. Could you all educate us on what the phrase “Wuhan Flu” means “Dr.” Ed – because I don’t see that term referenced by anyone following the current situation.

      1. You may also know it as the Kung Flu or Boomer Remover.

    4. They wouldn’t need an emergency to seize the clinic for the public use. Once you establish the seizure of the clinic is for the public use the only requirement is just compensation. Now in a non emergency situation the clinic could argue and likely prevail on the grounds that the takings is not for the public use but really for the removal of the clinic unless the government shows it is part of a larger redevelopment scheme. The emergency would pretty much seal the public use argument.

      1. Oh yes, the _Kelo_ case. 🙁

        It would be interesting to see how a _Kelo_ type case involving a private university whose hospital (elsewhere) performed abortions would come out.

  2. Do you think these liberal women can satisfy their bloodlust on some puppies or kittens while this whole ‘rona thing is going on instead?

    1. Do you think these conservative theocrats can satisfy their dogmatic fundamentalism on exorcising made up demons or devils while this whole ‘rona thing is going on instead?

      1. This week of all weeks I don’t want to hear sanctimonious bull from conservatives about “life”.

        1. The same believe in the sanctity of life that leads one to want to preserve the life of a pre-born baby also leads one to want to preserve the life of an 85-year-old Senior Citizen.

          Just sayin……

          1. Plenty of clingers ranting these days about how 85-year-olds need to be sacrificed to promote rapid economic recovery, resumption of social life, and the electoral prospects of Pres. Trump.

            The same clingers who rant about “personhood” amendments.

            Your assertion is unpersuasive.

        2. The virus death toll is far less than the abortion death toll.

          1. No it’s not. A fetus isn’t a person, so abortions aren’t counted in death tolls. Your contrary claim is religion, not science.

            If Farmer Joe wants to know how many chickens he has, he doesn’t count whatever eggs they happen to be sitting on instead. Same reason.

            1. ” A fetus isn’t a person, so abortions aren’t counted in death tolls. Your contrary claim is religion, not science.”

              Your claim that it isn’t a person has exactly squat to do with science.

              A fetus is a genetically distinct living entity of species homo sapiens. That is science, whether or not the law considers said entity a person.

              1. Sorry, but “genetically distinct living entity of species homo sapiens” takes in cancerous tumors. The question is whether it’s also a person, which requires some discussion as to what is, and is not, a person.

                I’m willing to concede that it’s a person near the end of gestation, but for at least the first trimester, it isn’t. That’s because personhood means having things that non-persons don’t, such as consciousness. Once it’s acquired consciousness, I think your personhood argument is much stronger. But that doesn’t happen until several weeks into the pregnancy.

                1. “Sorry, but “genetically distinct living entity of species homo sapiens” takes in cancerous tumors.”

                  No, a tumor is not a distinct entity in it’s own right. Not only is it not capable of surviving on it’s own, it has zero potential to develop to the point where it can.

                  “The question is whether it’s also a person, which requires some discussion as to what is, and is not, a person.”

                  Yes it does. However, this is a moral/legal question, not a scientific question.

                  1. The problem with saying that personhood is a moral question is that there is no agreement among differing schools of morality on the question. As difficult as it may be for you to grasp, there are people, and churches, who hold believe that it would be just as deeply and viscerally immoral to ban abortion as you think it is to keep it legal. I happy to be one of them. So until we have a moral consensus on the issue, the best the law can do is listen to science.

                    I’m not an expert, but I did have a semester of fetal development, and from a biological standpoint the idea that a zygote, or anything that develops from a zygote within the first several weeks, is a person, is just wrong. The answer to “what separates a person from other life forms, like cancerous tumors” is consciousness, which doesn’t arrive until about the end of the first trimester.

                    And by the way, even if you were right that it’s a person from conception, I — who clearly am a person, having already been born — could not legally force you to let me sleep on your couch for nine months. The idea that I could take over your body for nine months without your consent is a constitutional atrocity.

                    1. “The problem with saying that personhood is a moral question is that there is no agreement among differing schools of morality on the question. As difficult as it may be for you to grasp, there are people, and churches, who hold believe that it would be just as deeply and viscerally immoral to ban abortion as you think it is to keep it legal.”

                      I didn’t say that it was a moral question I said it was a moral and LEGAL question. If you can’t comprehend the difference, put down the keyboard and back away from the internet.

                      I actually think abortion should be legal.

                      ” The answer to “what separates a person from other life forms, like cancerous tumors”

                      The claim that a cancerous tumor is a life form in it’s own right is complete nonsense with no basis in real science.

                      “And by the way, even if you were right that it’s a person from conception.”

                      At no point did I claim that it’s a person from conception.

                    2. Matthew, I think you’re being a tad disingenuous here. Yes, it is a legal question in the sense that the law ultimately determines whether a fetus has legal rights, but the law does not operate in a vacuum. That determination is based on something, whether it’s science, morality, or simply a coin toss. My comments were directed to why morality is not a good choice — there is no moral consensus on the question — and the determination should therefore be based on science.

                      A cancerous tumor *is* a life form, but then so is green slime. My argument is that a cancerous tumor fits within your original definition of personhood. Since we both agree that a cancerous tumor is not a person, obviously there’s a problem with your original definition.

                      I’m happy to hear that you don’t believe life begins at conception. Most opponents of abortion seem to, though, and they’re flat out wrong.

                    3. ” I — who clearly am a person, having already been born — could not legally force you to let me sleep on your couch for nine months. “

                      What do you think child support laws are???

                2. “genetically distinct living entity of species homo sapiens” takes in cancerous tumors.”

                  No. Cancerous tumors are a defect in the person’s own DNA.
                  A baby is 50% someone else’s DNA.

                  A cancerous tumor has your own blood type. A baby often has a different blood type.

          2. As you well know, of course, aborted fetuses are not counted as deaths because they were never viable. Same thing with stillbirths and spontaneous abortions. When live people die, their deaths are tallied in official statistics. You are free to keep a count of whatever you want.

    2. Do you think having a tide of late-term abortions after return to normalcy in 12 weeks is a better option?

      After all, right now only a small percent of elective abortions are beyond 14 weeks. A 3 month delay would take them all the way past viability to 26 weeks. Seems gruesome.

  3. PP is not suing to protect a womens right to abortion

    PP is suing because abortion is a major portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the abortionists are willing to admit.

    1. The NRA is not suing to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

      NRA is suing because gun sales are a measure portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the NRA is willing to admit.

      1. Gun sales amount for no portion of the NRA’s revenue

        1. The NRA gets no money from gun manufacturers?

          1. The NRA receives no money from gun sales, and the amount it receives from manufactures is a minority of total revenue (the majority of which comes from dues and individual donations)

            1. 1. The NRA gets money from gun manufacturers who get their money from gun sales. If anti-abortion folks are going to play the ‘PP gets no federal funds for abortions but they get them for other things and since money is fungible they’re really getting it for abortions’ then everyone gets to play that game.

              2. What amount of the total revenue of PP comes from abortions?

              1. 1: I’ve always been an advocate of no one playing that game, because it’s an idiotic game, but I do admit that puts it right up the alley of both the anti-gun and anti-abortion folks. So if you insist we play then let’s play for keeps. Gun manufacturers get their money from gun sellers, gun sellers get their money from individual consumers, therefore even any money the NRA gets from gun manufactures is actually money from individuals

                2: Don’t know, don’t care. I’m not advocating PP be closed or denied revenue for abortion or any other service

                1. So if any company, say Y, decides, as an entity, to donate to X cause, you wouldn’t say ‘Y gave money to X’ you’d say ‘Y’s customers donated money to X?’ That seems an odd way to think about it.

                  But look, I’m not sure you’re getting that I’m not making an anti-NRA comment, I’m using the NRA analogy to criticize the anti-PP comment I originally replied to. My point was that both NRA and PP get money for fighting for what they fight for, but it’s silly to argue that they don’t ‘really believe’ in what they fight for and are just doing it for that money.

                  1. “So if any company, say Y, decides, as an entity, to donate to X cause, you wouldn’t say ‘Y gave money to X’ you’d say ‘Y’s customers donated money to X?’ That seems an odd way to think about it.”

                    Go back and re-read the first sentence of my last comment

                    1. How is you not advocating PP be closed or denied revenue relevant to my point about saying “if any company, say Y, decides, as an entity, to donate to X cause, you wouldn’t say ‘Y gave money to X’ you’d say ‘Y’s customers donated money to X?’ That seems an odd way to think about it.”?

                  2. Queen Amalthea has clearly never been a member of the NRA.

                    ALL the NRA does is solicit yet more money from it’s members — its why I don’t belong anymore, and why everything they send me goes directly into the trash, unopened.

      2. PP is not suing to protect a womens right to abortioPP is suing because abortion is a major portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the abortionists are willing to admit.

        The NRA is not suing to protect the peoples right to keep and bear arms.

        NRA is suing because gun sales are a measure portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the NRA is willing to admit.

        Democrats don’t want mass immigration because they think America is the shining city on the Hill. They want mass immigration because immigrants vote for them and they wanna roll the domestic electorate.

        Republicans don’t wanna stop mass immigration because they hate immigrants racistly, or because of jobs. They don’t want mass immigrants voting for Democrats.

        Democrats don’t want Puerto Rico to be a state because it’s cool to be a state. They want it to be a state so they get two more senators.

        Republicans don’t wanna stop Puerto Rico frok being a state because they hate Latinos. They want to stop Puerto Rico from beign a state to stop the Democrats from getting two more senators.

        Republicans don’t want school vouchers because they want alternatives to public schools. They want school vouchers to divert students from public schools and thus reduce the number of union government public school teachers voting for Democrats.

        Democrats don’t hate vouchers because they love public schools. Democrats hate vouchers because it reduces the number of unionized teachers voting for them.

        So what was your point? Best not to look under the hood at any of these things, and rather continue to argue the surface memes in service to your memeplex overlords who gain the power.

        1. Mine or who I was replying to? If you follow that I think you’ll see mine.

        2. Statehood for Puerto Rico would be quite interesting for reasons that a lot of people don’t think of. First, they would lose a good chunk of their pharmaceutical industry because it would be unconstitutional to give a *state* the preferred tax status PR now enjoys. Second, they’d have to comply with Federal law, starting with recognizing American CDLs — which they don’t.

          A lot of the “good-old-boy” corruption would end because it wouldn’t be permissible in a state, and local industries (eg. the electric utilities) would be taken over by large “mainland” companies. That would be good for the people of PR, but would hurt (and be vehemently opposed by) the people currently in power on the island.

          Everyone presumes that the State of PR would be a Democratic stronghold — I’m not so sure. Georgia isn’t anymore, and I think that economic development, which that island could see if it wasn’t just so damn corrupt, would turn the island red.

          1. A strong economy promotes Republican electoral prospects?

            That certainly explains California, Mississippi, the District of Columbia, Idaho, Massachusetts, West Virginia, New York, Arkansas, Connecticut, South Carolina, Alabama . . .

            1. Of those states that actually have (or had) a strong economy, it was largely governmental spending, either directly or indirectly (eg. Massachusetts). Connecticut is a mess, WV has been one for a long time, and didn’t Alabama just pass an abortion ban?

        3. Republicans don’t wanna stop Puerto Rico frok being a state

          The Republican Party platform explicitly calls for Puerto Rican statehood.

    2. PP is suing because abortion is a major portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the abortionists are willing to admit.

      The facts say otherwise. But facts aren’t important to “pro-life conservatives” such as yourself. Just the obsession over controlling women.

      1. “The facts say otherwise”

        The Facts dont say otherwise. Abortion services is a major portion of PP’s revenue.

        1. Guys like reg count each time a woman picks up a free condom at PP as equal to getting an abortion. He just uses the PP spin about abortions being a tiny percentage of services and ignores the revenue issue.

          1. Did you read your own link? The only reason it’s particularly “complicated” is due to PP’s highly selective disclosures:

            Advocates on both sides have used other measures in an effort to portray a more representative figure of adoption services as a share of total services. But all face limitations, as Planned Parenthood — a non-profit — does not have to release financial information beyond its legal requirements.

            But we don’t know how many pregnant women Planned Parenthood serves every year or how many they refer to private providers for prenatal care, because the organization does not report that information.

            Planned Parenthood could end the speculation–and Pinocchios–by providing a more transparent breakdown of its clients, referrals and sources of revenues.

            1. Did you read the post you just replied to? It says it’s complicated.

              If that’s all you took from the link your confirmation bias is amazing.

              1. Did you read the post you just replied to? It says it’s complicated.

                Given that my reply had the word “complicated” in it, and directly addressed why I put it in quotes, I think you officially win the feigned confusion award for the day. Maybe longer.

                1. You just mined an article for a quote you like, and pretty clearly didn’t bother to actually read it.

          2. Very selective and misleading article.

            PP revenue – which is directly on point with my statement which you did not addres – You chose to argue #of services – which is not the point being addressed.

            PP’s revenue from abortion services during the FYE June 30, 2018 is approximately $220m and $300m.
            PP’s total revenue from non government reimbursed revenue is $366m and Govenment reimbursed revenue (medicare/medicaid, etc ) ranges somewhere between $250m to $$300m.

            Revenue from abortions comprise approximetely 40-50% of total revenue from services. It is a major profit center.

            1. Read the article again – it explains why revenue is not something anyone can claim to know.

              1. Sacrastro – you need to read PP’s financial report – using basic accounting skills and basic math skills, you can get pretty close.

                Revenue from abortion services in the range of 40%-50% out of total service revenue is pretty damn close.

  4. NRA is suing because gun sales are a measure portion of their revenue. Its a lot more about money than the NRA is willing to admit.

    Your statement is flat out wrong – The NRA doesnt sale guns, your false analogy simply does not jive with reality.

    PP on the other hand generates revenue directly from abortions and it is their leading source of revenue.

    1. No, the NRA doesn’t get all its money from gun manufacturers, but they manage to act as if they do.

      1. It’s just a confluence of interests: While the NRA upholds gun owners’ interests, one of those interests is having gun manufacturers around to buy guns from. But you can see the difference when a manufacturer tries paying the Danegeld.

        1. That’s not true. The vast majority of gun owners own one or two guns, don’t have any fantasies of overthrowing the government, are happy to go through a background check, have nothing to fear from gun registration and licensing, don’t own anything that could be characterized as an “assault rifle”, and have no desire to carry the weapon everywhere they go, and could have easily waited a few days to purchase the weapon.

          But a world where guns are available but strictly regulated, while perfectly fine for most gun owners, is bad for the gun industry. The NRA protects THAT.

          My suspicion is that (1) the NRA gets more assistance from the industry that they disclose, although not all of it is monetary and (2) the NRA has a very close relationship with the lobbying groups, such as NSSF, which explicitly represent gun manufacturers. In any event, there’s no doubt that their actions represent the interests of the gun industry, not America’s gun owners.

          1. Women prefer semi-automatic “Assault Rifles” because they have less recoil — *because* they are semi-automatic, and that energy is re-directed to chamber the next round.

            And as you may (or may not) know, the only difference between a Chevrolet and a Cadillac is cosmetic. So too with rifles — excepting bolt-action (marksmanship) rifles and lever-action carbines, essentially every rifle sold today is “semi-automatic.” The technology is superior and they work better in a lot of ways.

            One of the best deer rifles is the M-1 Garand firing the .30-06 round. This was the weapon the US military used in both WW-II and Korea, it is semi-automatic, and the “06” references the cartridge being designed in 1906 by the US armory in Springfield, MA. It definitely is an “assault weapon” — and it is the most basic of hunting rifles.

            Your argument falls apart on its face.

            As an aside, the reason the military got rid of the M-1 was the belief that the average soldier didn’t need that much firepower — they didn’t need the range as most of the shooting was done at closer distances, and they could go with lighter weapons and lighter rounds (i.e. the .223 (5.56 mm) used today).

            1. I agree with you that assault weapons bans that ban cosmetic features are dumb.

              But my statement- that the NRA’s actions protect gun sales rather than the preferences of gun owners- is correct.

              1. And as a life member of the NRA since the 90’s, I will continue to assert that you’re wrong.

                Gun ownership requires that there be an industry selling guns, a point which is as obvious to gun owners and the NRA as it is to the anti-gun movement. And thus the NRA has some degree of solicitude towards the firearms manufacturers. But when the interests of owners and manufacturers come into conflict, the NRA takes the side of owners.

                1. “And thus the NRA has some degree of solicitude towards the firearms manufacturers . . .”

                  much as you had some degree of solicitude toward birtherism.

                  How often and to what degree has the NRA fought against the interests of gun manufacturers?

    2. Technically, the NRA does sell a few guns. “Commemorative” guns of the sort your average gun owner would be embarrassed to be seen packing, as fund raisers.

      But almost all their revenue IS individual dues and donations.

      The left has trouble accepting this, because almost all their own groups are AstroTurf, financed by a handful of billionaires, subverted foundations, and diverted tax dollars. They can’t believe their foes don’t all operate the same way.

      1. “The left has trouble accepting this, because almost all their own groups are AstroTurf,”

        Wow, what a ‘every accusation is a confession’ doozy.

        1. Yeah, right. Bloomberg by himself provides almost all the gun control movement’s funding.

          There’s not a single gun control organization I’m aware of where the membership has any role in selecting the leadership, or influencing policy. If you’re a gun control organization, the “members” are little more than window dressing for a PR campaign funded by one of a handful of billionaires or foundations. Astroturf.

      2. Is “Brett Bellmore” your real name, or is it an alias that stands for “birther” and “Bircher?”

  5. Ooh — the wire hangers must be FLYING off the shelves!

Please to post comments