The Fifth Circuit panel found that the percentage of affected women who would face travel distances of 150 miles or more amounted to 17 percent, a figure that it said was not a “large fraction.” An abortion regulation cannot be invalidated unless it imposes an undue burden on what the Supreme Court has termed “a large fraction of relevant cases.”And I got to thinking...
So, what does constitute a "large fraction"?
What about epidemics?
Well, I found this Slate article discussing the difference between outbreaks and epidemics. In it, they state that, in terms of the flu:
If the number of flu-caused deaths exceeds 7.7 percent of the total, then the United States officially has an epidemic on its hands.Then I got to thinking about autism, because, well, you know, we're an autism family, and all the statistics that get thrown around regarding that issue, like 1 in 88 kids has autism. You've heard the stories and statistics and the desire to determine what's been causing this autism epidemic so I won't bore you with all that. Instead I'll just say that there does seem to be a very big concern regarding the supposed increase in the number of children diagnosed with autism. Some statistics even say that 1 in 50 children have autism.
That sounds scary, and I admit it is concerning, but 1 in 50 amounts to 2% of the children. So my question is: If 7.7% of the total number of deaths are attributed to a certain ailment and that constitutes an epidemic, or if there is so much concern over the well being of 2% of a given population, then how can it be said that 17% is not a "large fraction" of the given population in Texas?
It seems very large.
Seventeen percent of just about anything would be a cause of great concern.
Except for abortion rights in Texas.