CDZ What is the real problem

[jwoodie]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

 

[well named]

People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I don't know about required, but one problem with your premise ("people have always been able to go to another state") is that travel requirements can be a significant burden on the poor, in general (there's research on this in various contexts, I can try to look for links later if you're interested). So one of the effects of a state-by-state legal regime on some of these issues is that you effectively restrict the availability of those services only for the poor, which seems undesirable.

 

[jwoodie]

People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I don't know about required, but one problem with your premise ("people have always been able to go to another state") is that travel requirements can be a significant burden on the poor, in general (there's research on this in various contexts, I can try to look for links later if you're interested). So one of the effects of a state-by-state legal regime on some of these issues is that you effectively restrict the availability of those services only for the poor, which seems undesirable.

My sense is that "burdens on the poor" are often exaggerated, such as voter ID requirements. It seems that Planned Parenthood and other like-minded organizations could easily provide counseling and transportation to legal clinics in other states if that was a real problem.

 

[Leo123]

My sense is that "burdens on the poor" are often exaggerated, such as voter ID requirements. It seems that Planned Parenthood and other like-minded organizations could easily provide counseling and transportation to legal clinics in other states if that was a real problem.

The the Democrat-left needs victims to get votes. IOW they maintain a victim-class just like a sheep herder maintains the flock. If there is no oppression then they make sure oppression exists by causing faux problems.

 

[well named]

My sense is that "burdens on the poor" are often exaggerated, such as voter ID requirements.

On what evidence is this sense based? It seems pretty intuitive to me that a person making ~15k a year living in an urban area with no personal transportation is going to have a difficult time traveling 50+ miles, for example. And it's not just the direct travel costs, there's also the cost of having to take time off work. As I said, there are also studies on this in various contexts. I haven't made any really deep review of the literature, but here's one study that looks at the impact of polling station travel distance on voting in Atlanta, from 2005:

"When no one owns a car (vehicle available = 0), the likelihood of voting drops from .664 at a distance of .01 miles to .418 at the median distance of .69 miles. When automobiles are universally available (vehicle available = 1), voters are much less sensitive to changes in distance: the likelihood of voting drops from .444 to .392 over the same distance range" (567).
​

I don't think this is the only relevant consideration if we're thinking about different regulatory schemes, but I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the way different policy choices can contribute to inequality.

It seems that Planned Parenthood and other like-minded organizations could easily provide counseling and transportation to legal clinics in other states if that was a real problem.

It seems like you ought to try harder to understand what the actual cost of those programs would be before you declare that they can be provided easily.

 

[oldsoul]

It seems pretty intuitive to me that a person making ~15k a year living in an urban area with no personal transportation is going to have a difficult time traveling 50+ miles, for example.

Out of curiosity, I ran the numbers. Your example, assuming full time (40hrs/wk) employment, would be a minimum wage earner. That number is roughly 4%. So, are you suggesting that laws be written to accommodate just 4% of the population? Keeping in mind:
"Just 4 percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full-time, compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers." Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

 

[well named]

Out of curiosity, I ran the numbers. Your example, assuming full time (40hrs/wk) employment, would be a minimum wage earner. That number is roughly 4%. So, are you suggesting that laws be written to accommodate just 4% of the population? Keeping in mind:
"Just 4 percent of minimum-wage workers are single parents working full-time, compared to 5.6 percent of all U.S. workers." Who Earns the Minimum Wage? Suburban Teenagers, Not Single Parents

The sentence you quoted doesn't actually say what you are claiming. it doesn't say anything about what percentage of Americans (or even what percentage of workers) earn minimum wage. It tells you that 4% of minimum wage workers are single parents, and 5.6 percent of all US workers are single parents. But "single parents" is not the category I'm interested in.

I should note that I picked $15k as an example because it was about minimum wage, not because I think someone making any amount over that would have no problems with increased travel distance to various services. In any case, according to 2017 census data about 6.4% of all families had a total income below $15k/year, and a little over 9% had a total income less than $20k. Those are in fact significant numbers of people. I already said I didn't think it was necessarily the only consideration, but I do think it's an important one. It's especially relevant to abortion, because abortion patients are disproportionately poor.

(edit: I linked family income not household income, editing text to reflect that. In any case, the percentages for household income are 10.6% < 15k and 15.6% < 20k: data here. "Families" appear to be a subset of "households", i.e. because within a household a family group indicates only the occupants who are related to the head of household. This suggests that the difference between the two data sets reflects the fact that there's a lot of poor people living in households with non-family members.)

 

[jwoodie]

I don't think this is the only relevant consideration if we're thinking about different regulatory schemes, but I think it's reasonable to be concerned about the way different policy choices can contribute to inequality.

What "inequality" are you referring to? Is that a legitimate basis for deciding whether individual states should be allowed to make their own policy decisions?

 

[jwoodie]

It seems like you ought to try harder to understand what the actual cost of those programs would be before you declare that they can be provided easily.

It seems you ought to try harder to quantify what the actual cost of those programs would be before you declare that they cannot be provided.

 

[well named]

What "inequality" are you referring to?

The potential inequality between rich and poor in access to various services, e.g. abortion, or voting.

Is that a legitimate basis for deciding whether individual states should be allowed to make their own policy decisions?

In my opinion it's a legitimate reason to prefer uniformity across states, ceteris paribus. It's not a legal principle, it's a preference dependent on the expected outcomes associated with different policies. Remember that you wrote:

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

My only goal was to outline one way that people can be harmed.

It seems you ought to try harder to quantify what the actual cost of those programs would be before you declare that they cannot be provided.

I have made no such declaration. I said that inequality in access was a concern and a potential reason why a state-by-state approach might have problems that don't exist in the same way under a single federal policy, although even under the status quo the gradual erosion of abortion rights (or even voting rights) by various states has already created some of the same issues. There are probably different ways that you could pair a state-by-state approach with federal funding for programs that would mitigate those drawbacks, but obviously federal funding for abortion is a non-starter for the people who would support a state-by-state approach.

 

[candycorn]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

People’s rights shouldn’t be up for majority rule. Hence uniform national laws are required to drag some places into the 20th century.

If you’re in the Army and you’re being transferred to Fort Hood from Fort Dix (for example) and you’re a mixed race couple…. it would be dandy if Texas recognized your marriage.

If you’re a bank vice president who is of child bearing years but do not wish to start a family, you may live in a state that recognizes your right to privacy. If a promotion comes up in Atlanta where the right isn’t recognized, you would have to decide to become celibate and accept the promotion or simply stay put in your burb.

If you’re offered a new job in Minnesota and you’re in Nebraska and you have some guns, wouldn’t it be dandy to have the same gun rights you had in Nebraska?

 

[MarcATL]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

Yes.

If you're stuck in a winger state with Draconian laws, you're screwed.

So, thanks, but no thanks.

 

[OldLady]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

A lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so because they cannot afford to raise another child. To someone living in central Texas, let's say, with three other children and a full-time job with no sick days or other benefits, traveling to, say, Colorado, for the termination would be loss of pay, someone to care for the children, as well as the travel expenses. Many people do not own a car. At least not one that runs. And most clinics require at least a one or two day waiting period from their initial appointment to the actual procedure, which would be paying for a motel, eats, etc. And of course that does not take into account the $600 average for the procedure itself, which is not covered by Medicaid and over half the states providing Obamacare.
It would in many cases make it realistically impossible for a woman to seek a termination of pregnancy if she had to find another state to travel to.

 

[dblack]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

It's important to maintain some common culture and unity for the country as a whole. The US, in particular, was founded on the notion that government is created to protect our rights. If one of its member states is violating those rights, the federal government has a vested interest in keeping them in line.

 

[dblack]

People’s rights shouldn’t be up for majority rule.

Winner.

 

[Vastator]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

A lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so because they cannot afford to raise another child.

How unfortunate... Wouldn’t a person be able to save a lot of money by killing their child, at practically anytime prior to the age of majority? I imagine a lot divorced father could be quite handsomely unencumbered financially by the death of their child... Hmmm....
Unlike you; I’ll say it plain. The overwhelming majority of abortions are committed by women, for the express purpose of financial gain. Or “offsetting future cost” for voluntary actions; if that makes it sound prettier for you. Either way... They’re mudering their own children for money.

 

[Toronado3800]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

I'm an American red white and blue, not a Missouran. Let's not subdivide the world into a bunch of mini-balkesque states.

There is also a bit of a class issue here. Peyton Manning can afford to go to Europe for crazy surgeries. Poor folks can't drive 30 miles. I want to inflict everyone with the same laws. Remember, I'm the guy who says if strip clubs aren't allowed in your zip code you shouldn't be able to enjoy one in mine.

 

[task0778]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

A lot of women who choose to terminate a pregnancy do so because they cannot afford to raise another child. To someone living in central Texas, let's say, with three other children and a full-time job with no sick days or other benefits, traveling to, say, Colorado, for the termination would be loss of pay, someone to care for the children, as well as the travel expenses. Many people do not own a car. At least not one that runs. And most clinics require at least a one or two day waiting period from their initial appointment to the actual procedure, which would be paying for a motel, eats, etc. And of course that does not take into account the $600 average for the procedure itself, which is not covered by Medicaid and over half the states providing Obamacare.
It would in many cases make it realistically impossible for a woman to seek a termination of pregnancy if she had to find another state to travel to.

It is hard for me to feel bad for somebody in that position who gets pregnant in the first place. BC pills are a heckuva lot cheaper, probably free in some cases, and so are condoms. Aren't there morning after pills that you can get at a drug store? And of course you can always keep your pants on. Not meaning to be insensitive, but dang, unless it's a rape I would think you should be able to prevent conception.

In a case of rape, I'd say states should allow a woman who reports a rape and goes to an ER or clinic as soon as it's practical to be given the choice of some sort of drug that precludes conception or terminates the pregnancy free of charge. That way she gets what she needs and the rape is on record with whatever data is available. Gotta be a certain window of opportunity though, you don't get to wait until your 2nd trimester to do something about it. JMO.

Re the OP, it's hard for me to justify allowing any state to deny marriage between gays. You shouldn't have to cross state lines to do that, and I think it should be the law of the land. This business of denying somebody a wedding cake is a different matter though, if somebody says I won't do it then go somewhere else and STFU. Hell, you can buy a cake at a supermarket somewhere and decorate it yourself however you want.

Abortion is a little different IMHO, cuz now you're talking about the sanctity of life and that oughta mean something to any civilized society. I am not too happy about ending a potential new life once conceived when there are choices that can be made to prevent the conception in the 1st place, but it's a complex issue that requires some pragmatism mixed in with some compassion. So I can see the need to make BC and morning after pills available as cheaply as possible everywhere; I don't see that as the gov't job to do that, but I also don't see it as the gov'ts job to prevent it either. I would therefore support those options in every state, including the RU-486 drug for pregnancies still in the 1st trimester. After that, sorry kiddo, but you're on your own. If you've done the deed and think you might be pregnant then you better get one of those pregnancy kits and find out PDQ, and then do something about it according to your conscience. As far as surgeries and other procedures after the 12 weeks are up, that ought to be up to the individual states to legislate. They can help pay for them if they want to or outlaw them altogether, whatever the citizens in that state want and vote for.

So, a uniform national law is necessary to ensure certain basic rights are not denied to anybody within reason. Whatever the certain basic rights are and what constitutes 'within reason' would be up to the states, with our judicial system making the final call as to where the line is.

 

[toomuchtime_]

with letting States determine their own laws regarding marriage and abortions? People have always been able to go to another state (e.g., Nevada) for marriages and medical procedures, and their home states are required to recognize them, so why is a uniform national law required?

I am not interested in convoluted constitutional arguments; rather, I am interested in why this is such a big deal deal to some people. Does it really cause irreparable harm to a significant number of people, or is it more of a theoretical/emotional issue?

As a practical matter, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the right to decide to allow, limit or ban abortions would devolve to the states and some states would allow it while some others would ban it, so if a woman who wanted an abortion lived in a state that banned abortions, she would have to take a bus to an abortion clinic in a state that allowed abortions and that would be less convenient.

 

[jwoodie]

To summarize: Many of you have various reasons for wanting abortions to be legal, without any restrictions, throughout the U.S. and do not feel that people who do not agree with you should have any say or vote in the matter. The same is true for marriage restrictions, even though States are required to respect other states' laws.

Ironically, the stage has been set for new SCOTUS rulings (e.g., rights of unborn children) that may have the opposite effect from what you intend. Perhaps you will rue the day that Jane Roe filed her fraudulent complaint.