While it sucks that she apparently went through all that nonsense for nothing, since it seems she could have avoided it because of the condition of her fetus, it's hard to blame Planned Parenthood for erring on the side of caution.
I think you're absolutely right. Part of the strategy is to make operating so difficult for abortion providers that they just get out of the business altogether rather than risk legal liabilities. Some states have imposed regimes that put so many restrictions on abortion clinics that it's almost impossible to follow all of them to the letter.
What's interesting about this strategy is that it borders on a violation of the Takings Clause, particularly as conservatives have often framed it. For example, when the government comes in and says you can't do something on your land because it might impact an endangered species, or if the government asserts control over part of your property that's ostensibly come under their control because a beach has eroded or some silt has built up, these conservatives argue that there's been a "Taking" by the government because they can't really use the property any more. There's a case challenging NYC rent control ordinances on this basis, as well. It seems like an identical argument could be made where states are imposing onerous burdens on abortion clinics to shut them down.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 17/3/12 16:16 (UTC)I think you're absolutely right. Part of the strategy is to make operating so difficult for abortion providers that they just get out of the business altogether rather than risk legal liabilities. Some states have imposed regimes that put so many restrictions on abortion clinics that it's almost impossible to follow all of them to the letter.
What's interesting about this strategy is that it borders on a violation of the Takings Clause, particularly as conservatives have often framed it. For example, when the government comes in and says you can't do something on your land because it might impact an endangered species, or if the government asserts control over part of your property that's ostensibly come under their control because a beach has eroded or some silt has built up, these conservatives argue that there's been a "Taking" by the government because they can't really use the property any more. There's a case challenging NYC rent control ordinances on this basis, as well. It seems like an identical argument could be made where states are imposing onerous burdens on abortion clinics to shut them down.