Replies

Dear Rippin,

"Not sure what field it is but clearly you know how much of that precious margin can be eaten up by regulatory requirements."

If applied evenly, across an industry, most businesses will just eventually work it into the cost of doing business. If prices rise a bit, demand may slacken a bit, and a few marginal businesses in the given industry may very well fail. However, regulation at the margins just doesn't give me much concern.

One regulation that I must obey is that I must conspicuously post certain governmental notices in my place of business. Costs me some wall space and thumbtacks. Because my company is very small, and we don't have an HR dept to track this stuff, I splurge $30 to buy a pre-packaged set of posters that accounts for all current regulations. That's regulation at the margins. No, that doesn't drive folks out of business. Not usually. Not a healthy company.

Conversely, the ADA is regulation that goes to the heart of a business, in that it can directly interfere with who a business may hire, and how much the business may be forced to put out to "reasonably accommodate" the hire. In my business law class, in pursuit of an advanced degree in management, our instructor, a sitting California state judge, told us that the "accommodation" required varies from case to case, and an accommodation that might cost a few thousand dollars will almost certainly be considered "reasonable," while in some cases accommodations costing tens of thousands of dollars may be considered reasonable.

THAT isn't regulation at the margins, but regulation that strikes at the heart of the business, in that it interferes with a basic function of business - who should be hired to do the work - and makes entirely unpredictable the actual costs of labor. Yes, that kind of regulation can put businesses out of business.

But the Court has, in upholding Roe, always banned regulations that would have that effect. In fact, the rule used by outgoing Servant of Satan O'Connor was that ANY rule or regulation or law that had the effect of causing an undue burden on the ability to obtain an abortion was automatically unconstitutional.

"It would be my understanding (no lawyer here) that the court could overturn their decision on partial birth abortion without overturning their decision on Roe."

Well, I'm not a lawyer, either. However, the Court previously ruled that the basic holding of Roe prevents a ban on partial birth abortion, because it puts an undue burden on the exercise of the abortion "right."

Now, I suppose that the Black Robed Tyrants can make it up as they go along, and they could say tomorrow (or in October, actually, if there were a case before them) that, no the previous Court was wrong, you can ban partial birth abortions, but it doesn't implicate Roe at all.

However, even that wouldn't matter much, as partial birth abortions account for perhaps as much as 1% of abortions, annually. As well, the abortionists would just switch to a different methodology of late-term abortion, as the Court has made clear that no one may touch the right to abort up to and including the beginning of delivery of the baby - uh, fetus.

Now, if the Court were to, say, change its mind, and say, no, well, the states actually may pretty much ban most 3rd trimester abortions, call it what you will, but that would be vacating a very large chunk of Roe/Doe, because even though Roe gives lip service to the right of the states to restrict 3rd trimester abortions, Doe (Doe v. Bolton, the same-day companion ruling to Roe) vitiates any ability of the state to do so. Any ruling which permitted significant restriction even of only 3rd trimester abortions would rightly be understood as a partial overturning of Roe, even if the Supreme Moral Horrors didn't call it that.

Even there, over 90% of abortions are in the first and second trimesters. If the Court were to permit serious restrictions of 2nd trimester abortions, that would actually cut into the very language of Roe itself, not just Doe. That would be a very large partial overturning of Roe.

Even there, I think around 80% of abortions are, nonetheless, performed in the first trimester. To touch those, you pretty much have to entirely vitiate the holding or Roe. Whether you want to call it "overturning" or not, effectively, Roe would no longer apply.

The Court, as well, has weighed in on other ways of trying to limit abortion, such as requiring that abortions be performed in hospitals, by licensed doctors. The Court has held, consistent with the logic of Roe, that these restrictions are unconstitutional because it unduly burdens the absolute constitutional right to abortion on demand.

Thus, even to regulate abortion around the edges, we would have to partially overturn part of the case law and rulings that surround Roe. Even to require that only a doctor may perform an abortion. Even to require that one must have this surgical procedure performed in a hospital.

The Black Robed Enormities also understand that the power to regulate can be the power to destroy, and they have done much to protect their constitutional bastard child - the "right" to procure the murder of one's unborn child - even from the most ineffectual regulations.

Even so, abortion is an extremely profitable business.
Those sorts of regulations may make the margins fall from 90% or more to perhaps only 50%. A practicing full-time abortionist might only make $400,000 per year instead of $500,000 per year. The killers will cut some more corners where they can, pay fewer taxes (Many abortionists run cash-and-carry businesses, and many former abortionists say that tax evasion is rampant in the business.)

The guy out in California who owns a chain of abortuaries might see his $25 million annual income drop to $20 million, but because there is just so damned much money in the business, just so damned (and I literally mean damned) much money to killing babies, that even regulations that go beyond the margins - like changing who you can hire to do the work, and changing where the work must be performed - will not significantly affect the availability of abortion in most of the United States.

No, we're not going to be able to "regulate" this industry to death in most of the United States.

If the Court were to reverse itself, and permit some of the restrictions which have previously been ruled unconstitutional, but not permit any change that would implicate the central holdings of Roe/Doe, perhaps the numbers of abortions in the US might fall by as much as 5% (abortions might get a little more expensive, and thus, demand might fall a little). Which would be better than nothing. But which would still leave about 1,150,000 per year dead.

Roe must go.

sitetest

You make a lot of good points. Here are a few things to keep in mind however.

1. Is it legal for anyone other than a physician to immediately perform an abortion?

That could be required.

2. Is a separate certification required for abortion?

That could be required.

3. Are there any mandatory reporting requiremnts?

That could be required.

4. Are there any regular record reviews?

That could be required.

5. What type of malpractice insurance is required for abortionists?

It could be required that they get insurance that covers all obstetric services. In otherwords no abortion riders.

6. Is it legal for med schools to require abortion training?

That could be outlawed.

7. Are there minimum staffing levels for abortions to be performed (as there are for many "health care" services?) Those could be required.

Remember, if Roe is overturned, it goes back to states and few states will outlaw all abortions. All of these types of baby steps will need to be taken even if Roe goes.