Professional licensing is important, but, like this Texas law, it can be carried away. It happens when one group has a self serving agenda. Unions are famous to put undue burdens on professional licenses like company owners are equally famous to push the other way and remove the professional licensing of its intent.
In the case of this Texas law, denying that the amendments are meant to put further burdens on the women is disingenuous.
It would far more honest to say that, because one is against abortion, these tactics are fair game. But just arguing there is no hidden agenda, knowing the history on this subject, is not true.
Thanks for the answer Dug.
So, would it be fair to say that you're fine with professional licensing / regulation as long as it doesn't place an undue (or unjust) burden on the people it is aimed at? The point of this whole vein was to make sure I'm arguing in good faith, because if you come from a position of "all regulations are fine" then there would seem to be a problem here; and if you came from a position of "no regulations" then we'd have to start there.
I agree that it is obvious that the law will place a burden on abortion services. It's obvious that both the for and against sides of these things are primarily motivated by ideology. For the people at Planned Parenthood, any additional regulation will be viewed and construed as too much. For those who are on the Pro-Life side, any regulation will be acceptable and just.
So the question here is: does this place an unjust burden on abortion services? I think that's yet to be seen. If we take the estimates from the people opposed, it will add $2,000 per abortion. If we take the estimates from the regulating authority's response, they project an annual cost of ~$450 per facility providing the service. If the opposition is right, they're probably correct that this an undue burden. If the governing body is right, $450 per facility (not per abortion) is pretty minuscule and wouldn't reach to point of "undue burden".