Texas just figured out how to kill Planned Parenthood

[semaphore]

Laize, you're just picking bones by looking for immaterial details that does not change how the unconstitional conditions doctrine actually works.

Did you read the case? Republican employees were discharged on the grounds they did not belong to the Democratic Party. That directly violates freedom of speech and association.

What's your point? What a case is about, doesn't change the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution laid out in the case's opinion. Common Law is not so inflexible that you need to find exact matches of circumstances to apply binding judgements.

This wasn't denial of a government benefit. It was a denial of employment.

A difference without a distinction under the law (within this context). The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is applicable to all government policies.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here... in this particular case, the law was upheld as not unreasonable because it violated no one's rights despite the fact that it definitely was cumbersome to the faith of Orthodox Jews.

I'm not sure you understand how laws work. Again, the court's opinion is clear regardless of the specific case's outcome. Indirect burden can still be unconstitutional. In this case, the government was able to justify it because closing the shop for another day is a minor interference that could be justified since it furthers a legitimate government interest.

[Laize]

Laize, you're just picking bones by looking for immaterial details that does not change how the unconstitional conditions doctrine actually works.


What's your point? What a case is about, doesn't change the Supreme Court's interpretation of the constitution laid out in the case's opinion. Common Law is not so inflexible that you need to find exact matches of circumstances to apply binding judgements.


A difference without a distinction under the law (within this context). The unconstitutional conditions doctrine is applicable to all government policies.


I'm not sure you understand how laws work. Again, the court's opinion is clear regardless of the specific case's outcome. Indirect burden can still be unconstitutional. In this case, the government was able to justify it because closing the shop for another day is a minor interference that could be justified since it furthers a legitimate government interest.

I'm well aware that the exact circumstances of precedent do not cover all cases. I simply don't view these cases as being obvious precedents relevant to the case with the exception of 1 or 2.

It seems to me that a case could be made that Texas' legitimate goal is to reduce the numbers of abortions (Which IS a legitimate goal). To that end they simply refuse to fund abortion clinics or PP (Who will refer women to abortion clinics). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to support them. I do believe the next stop is the SCOTUS.

I'll be interested to see how this pans out. I'd be very surprised if it didn't reach the Supreme Court.

[semaphore]

I'm well aware that the exact circumstances of precedent do not cover all cases. I simply don't view these cases as being obvious precedents relevant to the case with the exception of 1 or 2.

I'm not citing the cases themselves as precedents. I'm saying that the court has delivered authoritative, binding opinons on how the constitution should be interpreted. That they appeared in cases which are not very similar, doesn't change the fact that they remain the law of the land until otherwise overturned.

It seems to me that a case could be made that Texas' legitimate goal is to reduce the numbers of abortions (Which IS a legitimate goal). To that end they simply refuse to fund abortion clinics or PP (Who will refer women to abortion clinics). The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to support them. I do believe the next stop is the SCOTUS.

Texas could well come up with a case, but what you described wouldn't be it. Texas can refuse to fund abortion clinics - but as I keep saying, that is not the issue. The issue, again, is Texas' refusal to fund clinics who do not provide abortion, and do not promote abortion, because of their association with another organisation.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit only agreed that Texas can choose not to fund abortion. It remanded the case back to the District Court to consider whether the affiliation rule is unconstitutional.

I'll be interested to see how this pans out. I'd be very surprised if it didn't reach the Supreme Court.

Well actually seeing as the Texas program could very well be in violation of state laws, the case might simply end there.

Texas Human Resource Code § 32.002(b): "If a provision of this chapter conflicts with a provision of the Social Security Act or any other federal act and renders the state program out of conformity with federal law to the extent that federal matching money is not available to the state, the conflicting provision of state law shall be inoperative" Since the Federal government has decided to stop giving Texas money I'd say this clause is now in effect.

[Laize]

Texas could well come up with a case, but what you described wouldn't be it. Texas can refuse to fund abortion clinics - but as I keep saying, that is not the issue. The issue, again, is Texas' refusal to fund clinics who do not provide abortion, and do not promote abortion, because of their association with another organisation.

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit only agreed that Texas can choose not to fund abortion. It remanded the case back to the District Court to consider whether the affiliation rule is unconstitutional.

That's not what I read. I read that the Fifth Circuit ruled Texas could cut funding to PP and then denied their appeal. They currently have a new suit based on free association in the works in district court. As I said, it seems the 5th Circuit is on Texas' side.

[semaphore]

That's not what I read. I read that the Fifth Circuit ruled Texas could cut funding to PP and then denied their appeal. They currently have a new suit based on free association in the works in district court. As I said, it seems the 5th Circuit is on Texas' side.

Read the actual judgement. The Appeals Court vacated the preliminary injunction only over whether Texas could not fund clinics promoting abortion. According to the court, the affiliation ban "is problematic because it is not a direct regulation of the content of a government program. Speech that organizations carry on in other capacities through affiliated entities is not speech within a government program in which the government has a direct say... we think it better simply to vacate the injunction in its entirety in this respect and, on remand, allow the district court to decide that question for itself."

[Laize]

Read the actual judgement. The Appeals Court vacated the preliminary injunction only over whether Texas could not fund clinics promoting abortion. According to the court, the affiliation ban "is problematic because it is not a direct regulation of the content of a government program. Speech that organizations carry on in other capacities through affiliated entities is not speech within a government program in which the government has a direct say... we think it better simply to vacate the injunction in its entirety in this respect and, on remand, allow the district court to decide that question for itself."

And if the District Court rules in favor of Texas?

Neither you or I are legal experts, much less federal judges. Let's see how this plays out. As stated, I'm greatly in favor of Texans being allowed to choose where their funding goes; mostly because I'm opposed to government subsidies for private institutions in general.

[semaphore]

And if the District Court rules in favor of Texas?

Then it starts getting interesting and we can potentially see it in the Supreme Court in a few years.

Neither you or I are legal experts, much less federal judges. Let's see how this plays out. As stated, I'm greatly in favor of Texans being allowed to choose where their funding goes; mostly because I'm opposed to government subsidies for private institutions in general.

Heh, I wasn't expecting to find an issue where I'm arguably more libertarian than you (since I'm in favour unconstitutional conditions doctrine).

[Laize]

Then it starts getting interesting and we can potentially see it in the Supreme Court in a few years.


Heh, I wasn't expecting to find an issue where I'm arguably more libertarian than you (since I'm in favour unconstitutional conditions doctrine).

I'm against government benefits in the first place :P

[Raelbo]

Why should we fund something that's providing abortions for people <snip> This isn't banning abortions or anything of the like all it does is prevents taxpayer money being wasted on things people have control over.

Even if you are completely lacking in any capacity for empathy with these people, it is still in your best financial interest to help fund this programme.

The cost to the state/taxpayer of an abortion or contraceptives is tiny compared to that of a child born to irresponsible, financially destitute parents.

You may think that these children are not your problem, but the reality is that when parents are fail parents, their kids become society's problem. Society can then either choose to spend money to do what the parents should have done and give those children an education, nutrition, security etc and hopefully one day become a productive members of society.

Or society can choose to ignore the problem still, and those children will grow up to become yet more leeches (criminals, people dependent on welfare, vagrants, beggars etc) on society who will then go on to perpetuate the cycle by becoming a fail parents themselves.

And you want to know what's even better? The kind of irresponsible people you talk about tend to be the kind of people who, left unchecked, will have more kids than the rest of us. Meaning that over time this problem tends to become exponentially worse.


It's one thing refusing to fund abortions because of a pro-life belief (provided you are then prepared to pay for that child to be raised) but simply ignoring the problem altogether is only going to come back and bite you in the future.