The Texas law restricting abortion was overturned as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court this morning, 5-3:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ET AL. v. HELLERSTEDT,
COMMISSIONER, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE
HEALTH SERVICES, ET AL. [pdf]
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 15–274. Argued March 2, 2016—Decided June 27, 2016

[….]

790 F. 3d 563 and 598, reversed and remanded.
BREYER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KENNEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a concurring opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, J., joined.

From Justice Breyer’s opinion:

“….We must here decide whether two provisions of Texas’ House Bill 2 violate the Federal Constitution as interpreted in Casey….We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, Casey, supra, at 878 (plurality opinion), and each violates the Federal Constitution….”

“….The statement that legislatures, and not courts, must resolve questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this Court’s case law. Instead, the Court, when determining the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion procedures, has placed considerable weight upon evidence and argument presented in judicial proceedings….”

“….In our view, the record contains sufficient evidence that the admitting-privileges requirement led to the closure of half of Texas’ clinics, or thereabouts. Those closures meant fewer doctors, longer waiting times, and increased crowding. Record evidence also supports the finding that after the admitting-privileges provision went into effect, the “number of women of reproductive age living in a county . . . more than 150 miles from a provider increased from approximately 86,000 to 400,000 . . . and the number of women living in a county more than 200 miles from a provider from approximately 10,000 to 290,000.” 46 F. Supp. 3d, at 681. We recognize that increased driving distances do not always constitute an “undue burden.” See Casey, 505 U. S., at 885–887 (joint opinion of O’Connor, KENNEDY, and Souter, JJ.). But here, those increases are but one additional burden, which, when taken together with others that the closings brought about, and when viewed in light of the virtual absence of any health benefit, lead us to conclude that the record adequately supports the District Court’s “undue burden” conclusion. Cf. id., at 895 (opinion of the Court) (finding burden “undue” when requirement places “substantial obstacle to a woman’s choice” in “a large fraction of the cases in which” it “is relevant”)….”

“….More fundamentally, in the face of no threat to women’s health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities. Patients seeking these services are less likely to get the kind of individualized attention, serious conversation, and emotional support that doctors at less taxed facilities may have offered. Healthcare facilities and medical professionals are not fungible commodities. Surgical centers attempting to accommodate sudden, vastly increased demand, see 46 F. Supp. 3d, at 682, may find that quality of care declines. Another commonsense inference that the District Court made is that these effects would be harmful to, not supportive of, women’s health….”

On the sweeping severability provision in the Texas law:

“….That language, Texas argues, means that facial invalidation of parts of the statute is not an option; instead, it says, the severability clause mandates a more narrowly tailored judicial remedy. But the challenged provisions of H. B. 2 close most of the abortion facilities in Texas and place added stress on those facilities able to remain open. They vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women’s health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny. The provisions are unconstitutional on their face: Including a severability provision in the law does not change that conclusion….”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a righteous Supreme Court smack down of legislative game playing.

From Justice Ginberg’s concurrence:

“….When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety….”

From Justice Thomas’ dissent:

“….I remain fundamentally opposed to the Court’s abortion jurisprudence….”

Uh, we all knew that already.

Remember in November, it’s the Supreme Court, Stupid.

President Obama weighs in via Twitter:

President Obama ‏@POTUS

Cool clock, Ahmed. Want to bring it to the White House? We should inspire more kids like you to like science. It’s what makes America great. 11:58 AM – 16 Sep 2015

Gun Owners Participate In Simulation Of Paris Massacre

January 13, 2015 9:00 PM

PLANO [….] – A group called The Truth About Guns organized a simulation of last week’s terrorist attack in Paris. They hoped to learn how things may have played out differently at Charlie Hebdo, or any other mass shooting….

….Volunteers took turns on a set designed to look like the offices of the French satirical weekly magazine. But unlike the terrorist attack that killed 12 people, volunteers played the role of armed civilian….

….Twelve volunteers participated in the exercise. Only one survived after running away. No one was able to take out both shooters.

Talking Points Memo has some good coverage of the cagematch between our Governor Nixon and Texas Governor Rick Perry that centers on the relationship between tax rates and jobs. TPM raises a point that is significant in view of the upcoming veto session, where at least some state GOP lawmakers will vote to override the Governor’s veto of the disastrous HB253, which would take a tiny nibble out of the income taxes of most middle-income earners and a great big giant bite out of already very low corporate income taxes:

Tax rates, like what Perry and Scott have been flaunting, are oftentimes the favored incentive for governors hoping to lure new business from elsewhere. Actually, Muro said, there is little research to suggest that a business actually sees larger profits or more job creation from moving to a state with a lower tax rate.

“That one’s a particularly fatuous offering because many relocation studies notice that taxes often aren’t a huge part of the operating budget so that that is often the peripheral consideration,” Muro said.

Muro pointed to a study he did with Kenan Fikri, also of Brookings, which found that states are better off trying to foster homegrown businesses rather than through bringing in business from other states.

“The best way to create more jobs in a state is to grow them at home, rather than poach them from elsewhere,” the report said. “Some 95 percent of all job gains in a year in an average state come from the expansion of existing businesses or the birth of new establishments.”

The article notes that Texas has had its credit rating downgraded under Perry’s leadership. Kansas has also seen its creditworthiness downgraded since it started the process of eliminating income taxes – a somewhat cloudy effort it should be noted, since in order to avert total disaster, Governor Brownbeck is trying to come up with more indirect revenue raising schemes, including higher sales taxes.

What is clear about the Kansas experiment, though, is that whether or not there is eventual growth it will be hard times for many years:

What these changes will mean for the Kansas economy over the long-term is a matter of intense debate. A study by the state Department of Revenue predicted 23,000 new jobs for the state by 2020, above and beyond the job growth Kansas otherwise would have experienced. Others are skeptical. A forecast from the Kansas Legislative Research Department, which didn’t account for any economic benefits from the tax cuts, said that they will result in a series of shortfalls that add up to $2.5 billion through fiscal year 2018.

As for job growth, if it ever happens in Kansas,  expect to see low-wage jobs and sweat-shop conditions, especially since wrecking unions seems to be a related goal of the tax-cutters. Bad schools, a poorly educated, poorly paid population with no public services to alleviate their situation, equals a corporate paradise for select types of industry – the type that have mostly preyed on third world countries in the past. As for forward-looking, entrepreneurial businesses offering good salaries, expect to see them thriving in more enlightened parts of the country.

The current employment situation in Texas tends to support this thesis:

As Gov. Rick Perry continues to tout Texas’ low-tax, low-regulation business climate as the secret to the state’s relative economic strength, critics have pointed to Texas’ [high] unemployment rate and low-wage jobs, noting that Texas ties Mississippi for the highest percentage of minimum wage workers.

While loose regulatory policies have permitted many environmentally dangerous practices in the energy sector have probably contributed to growth of Texas biggest engine of new jobs, energy extraction, even supporters of the Texas low-tax climate have to admit that as far as the energy industry goes:

… the governor cannot take credit for recent discoveries of shale formations, the price of oil or “many other factors that have provided Texas with a competitive advantage in recent years.”

I have to admit that I am beginning to think that all the talk about growth is a smokescreen and that the point of this tax-cutting is precisely the social service cuts that everybody pretends to deplore. Jobs – who cares? If job creation were to pick up in Kansas while the same folks hold the reins of the state government, you shouldnt expect to see any new revenue going to education, which has been cut way past the bone, or to provide other services – the tax cutting experimenters, after all, are usually the ideologues who oppose the very idea of public education, call for privately-owned toll roads, and privatization of almost all government functions. I suspect that these folks are getting just what they want – and that many of their compères in Missouri, the ones that are capable of figuring out how to open a paper bag unaided, that is, actually want the same thing.

If none of this sounds too appealing, perhaps you should let your state legislators know that you won’t be too happy if they vote to override HB253, Senators can be found here and representatives here.