>"saying that something is "illegal by design" is not usually an effective defense."
Is it though? Putting onerous requirements on something is an excellent de-facto way to effectively outlaw something when there isn't enough political will to directly ban it.
Edit: Look no further than what Texas is trying to do with abortion access. They can't directly outlaw abortion but they can add a bunch of inane requirements that make getting one prohibitive. Alabama continually passes laws that put additional requirements on the staff of abortion clinics and most of them are not reasonable, unless the reason is to make operation increasingly difficult. https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/state-law/alabama/
Well, I guess it boils down to whether the requirements are still reasonable or not? If yes I guess the grandparent comment stands, if not I suppose there might be reason to review them. But just because something inherently can’t comply with laws and regulations doesn’t mean it should be given exemptions.
Is it though? Putting onerous requirements on something is an excellent de-facto way to effectively outlaw something when there isn't enough political will to directly ban it.
Edit: Look no further than what Texas is trying to do with abortion access. They can't directly outlaw abortion but they can add a bunch of inane requirements that make getting one prohibitive. Alabama continually passes laws that put additional requirements on the staff of abortion clinics and most of them are not reasonable, unless the reason is to make operation increasingly difficult. https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/state-law/alabama/