Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, sports, and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to email@example.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Missouri Legislature Overrides Governor’s Veto of Forced 72-Hour Waiting Period
A professor for the sake of argument took somewhat seriously the argument that barring same sex marriage has a "rational basis" to (as his wife does as well at that blog etc.) to provide a professorial discussion on why it still isn't reasonable. Some regular commentator provided his usual "he realizes his argument is weak, right" replies. Tossed in a "judges are just ideologically deciding things" kicker.
I replied, trying to hold back my distaste. At some point, this is just too much -- the bans are not reasonable. Please, let us stop pretending it is reasonable to rest on the conceit that marriage is about one thing and then that some only serious if you try real hard "accidental procreation" or whatever rationale is the reason you are blocking same sex marriage. It isn't. It's a lie. You are blocking it out of distaste and/or a basic belief that same sex couples don't deserve the same basic rights as the rest of society.
It is somewhat helpful to reason these things out, but at some point, it is just annoying. There is some sort of blindness there. I know this will happen. I have been talking about same sex marriage and ending bans on homosexuals in the military from the 1990s. Joseph Steffan was one person I remember reading about in regard to the latter. Felt then as now that it was a basic principle of equality at stake. That denying equal rights, at least in regard to something like not criminalizing a same sex blow job is patently obviously something to protect. But, as we know, that didn't happen nation-wide until 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.
As with any medical procedure, the State may enact regulations to
further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but may not
impose unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial
obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.
The Casey plurality also held the 24 hour waiting period at issue was "troubling in some respects" but that a "substantial obstacle" was not shown by the District judge (maybe because earlier precedent didn't require that here). Of course, Justice Stevens (and Blackmun) was correct that such waiting periods were based on "outmoded and unacceptable assumptions about the decision making capacity of women." When we are dealing, like in Missouri, which is shocking on some level since you'd think it wasn't quite Mississippi or something, a state with one clinic, a fair reading of the facts can very well provide evidence of such a substantial obstacle.
People have some right to get the level of disdain warranted for claims against same sex marriage when it is determined a 24 hour waiting period is not enough. No, you need two more days. To quote:
Under Missouri law, women are already required to make two visits and
an abortion provider wait at least 24 hours before having an abortion.
The average distance a woman in the state travels for abortion care is
nearly 100 miles to and from the state’s only abortion provider,
according to Planned Parenthood. One in ten travel more than 300 miles
for a safe and legal abortion.
This gets into the territory of other states where clinic regulations, repeatedly targeting singular clinics, are so "unnecessary" and provide such "a substantial obstacle," some judges are saying "enough!" When you already have a waiting period and one burdensome as is, going further is gratuitous. The political messaging involved here is in part shown that the legislature overrode the governor's veto. As with gays, the problem is only highlighted when you look at the full picture. Glad some in the state realize it is b.s. and there is some strong public reactions against it.
And, since some sort of constitutional right is involved here, b.s. can only be taken so far. Too far thanks to Casey, but take what you can get. And, again, elections matters -- veto override.