Sunday, July 1, 2012

Some Good News

I'll say something about the Supreme Court ruling later. For now, consider that Mississippi may soon be free of abortion clinics. And they are doing without apologies:

Mississippi soon could become the only U.S. state without an abortion clinic as a new law takes effect this weekend. Critics say it would force women in one of the country's poorest states to drive hours to obtain a constitutionally protected procedure or carry unwanted pregnancies to term. 

Top officials say limiting abortions is exactly what they have in mind. 

Republican Gov. Phil Bryant says he wants Mississippi to be "abortion-free." The law takes effect Sunday. 

Abortion rights supporters have sued, asking a judge to temporarily block the law from taking effect. So far, that hasn't happened. 

The law requires anyone performing abortions at the state's only clinic to be a doctor with privileges to admit patients to a local hospital. Such privileges can be difficult to obtain, and the clinic contends the mandate is designed to put it out of business. A clinic spokeswoman, Betty Thompson, has said the two physicians who do abortions there travel to the clinic from other states. 

Michelle Movahed of the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights is one of the attorneys representing the clinic. She said Friday that several states -- including Mississippi, Kansas and Oklahoma -- have tried in the past few years to chip away at access to abortion. 

"One of the things that has really been surprising about Mississippi is how open the legislators and elected officials have been about their intentions," Movahed said. "They're not even pretending it's about public safety. They're openly saying they're using this law to try to shut down the last abortion provider in the state."   

Yeah, how dare they do such a thing? I mean, who do these democratically-elected representatives of the people think they are, passing laws and stuff? Notice they aren't saying it's unconstitutional. Yet. Which is our segue into the Obamacare discussion. What if this is an "undue burden" on the right to abortions under the Casey analysis? Can a hospital be forced to give privileges to an abortionist? And if they can be forced to give privileges to the abortionist, maybe it's an undue burden for the hospital not to provide abortion access to anyone who asks.

Since the Court can now make laws into things that they aren't, where are the limits now?

Keep praying, friends. Deus vult!


Titus said...

The whole thing---that is, the legal regimen in place on the topic since Casey---is a farce. Casey says state legislatures are free to express a preference against abortion in state law. So as long as the effect of the statute isn't to create an impermissible undue burden---whatever that is---the fact that the legislature is up front about its intention is beside the point.

Throwback said...

Of course, it's a farce, and some of the most convincing evidence that Court decisions often have nothing to do with Constitution and are more about making stuff up.

Like, say, defining the meaning of the universe: