THW construct additional abortion clinics in populated areas where there are few

1. QualityPro argues that government control of abortion would not diminish the quality of abortion services or at least cause stagnation. I disagree. Not only could these problems happen with abortion, but it is already happening with other government controlled businesses, namely Amtrak. Amtrak is a government owned train system which dominates the country in a way such that it practically creates a monopoly on railroad transportation. If government got into the abortion business, it would have the power to regulate and control the abortion business enough to the extent that the government would crush all of its opposition in the free market. According to NR,"In 2008, Congress passed the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), which endowed Amtrak with the powers of a regulatory agency that makes decisions, in conjunction with the Department of Transportation, about scheduling, uses of available tracks, maintenance, and other metrics and standards that compel certain behavior by the entire U.S. rail industry. Freight rail entities, which actually are private, understandably objected, and the D.C. Circuit agreed with them that PRIIA was an unconstitutional delegation of governmental regulatory power to a private entity."[1]Furthermore, see a picture of an amtrak train here: http://essexsteamtrain.com...That hardly looks like a technologically advanced train. Compare this to Japan, which has privatized train systems instead.[2] Just look at this picture of a train from Japan: http://www.seat61.com...I'm no train expert, but I have a feeling that the japanese train shown is more technologically advanced than any government controlled amtrak train.2. TaxationPro says two things in response to my criticism on taxes for abortion: firstly, pro says that taxes would not burden the poor because the united states runs on a progressive tax. Okay; but the poor would still be taxed extra for this. Pro specifically says "our current taxtion system is cutting taxes on the poor..." but cutting taxes is not the same as removing taxes. The poor would still be taxed to pay for government abortion clinics. Like I said, even dollars and change can mean the world to people who live eating only one meal a day while living paycheck to paycheck, and the government would literally be stealing those dollars and change from the poor in order to pay for the abortions of rich people who just didn't feel like wearing a condom one day.Pro continues to say that it is immoral to stop the government from forcing people to pay for things against their will. This makes absolutely no sense; for one, this is in defense of government aggression. Two, this defense of government aggression is outright authoritarianism. It is absolutely not moral in the slightest to be in favor of either of these things. Pro goes on to essentially say that the government threatens people with fines/violence/imprisonment to pay for a lot of other things they don't like anyway, so why not have the government threaten people with fines/violence/imprisonment to pay for abortion clinics too? This is an absurd and downright sociopathic way of perceiving the government. Sure, pro didn't explicitly say that the government would threaten people with fines/violence/imprisonment in order to make them pay for abortion clinics, but I say, how else would the government get people to pay for things if they refuse? With drum circles? Singing kumbayah? I don't think so in the slightest.3. Free MarketBasically my opponent eschews that government controlled abortion clinics would be better than free market abortion clinics. Again, I point the audience to the example I provided for the usa's government controlled amtrak business versus japan's privatized train business.Pro says:"In addition, when we build government clinics in places with fewer clinics, we cause private businesses to also expand into these areas to capture the sales that the government is siphoning from their existing places. It’s a win-win for the consumer."No, that's not going to happen. Again, look at amtrak; if the government is controlling the commoddity (trains, abortion, etc) then it would be in the best interest of the government to create a monopoly for itself with cumbersome regutions and licensing so that they can make more money. People generally tend to do what is in their best interest, and the government being made of people, when can safely predict that the government would create an abortion monopoly which would shun all competition.[1] - http://www.nationalreview.com...[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org...