Supreme Court Strikes Down Anti-Abortion Measures

As SCOTUS makes a decision pertaining to a 2013 anti-abortion law, protestors gather outside to protest restrictions against Texas clinics. © Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

On Monday morning’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court debated whether the regulations Texas has imposed on its abortion clinics are an “undue burden” for women seeking services. In a final 5-3 ruling, it was found that these restrictive laws were, in fact, unconstitutional—a surprising decision considering their past inaction when it comes to state anti-abortion restrictions. In fact, the Supreme Court hadn’t taken on a noteworthy abortion case in years until now.

While Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, Justice Anthony Kennedy united with the liberal majority—aiding in the court’s reversal of a Texas law, referred to as HB2, which imposed hospital-like standards on all Texas abortion clinics. In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer states that the provisions of HB2 “close most of the abortion facilities in Texas and place added stress on those facilities able to remain open.”

The law’s standards include requirements for doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic despite most doctors’ inability to meet the minimum number of admittances required in order to gain such privileges, as well as several unattainable building and equipment standards for the clinics.   Though advocates of the law argue that these regulations are necessary in order to ensure that women are being protected from unsafe conditions at these facilities, those who oppose maintain that they are merely meant to make it entirely too difficult to run an abortion clinic. As a result of HB2, many practices were forced to shut down—overnight, even. Before there were over 40 clinics in Texas whereas now, there are only 19 remaining. With so few available facilities, women are forced to travel further, wait longer, and pay more for abortions, among other trials and tribulations.

The court’s decision marks a huge moment for pro-choice advocates. Now, with parts of the law being blocked, the clinics that are still up and running can continue to provide services for those in need of them. Not only is this a victory for Texas women, but this recent ruling will have a nationwide impact—especially when you consider how many other states have passed similar restrictions. Since the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, 1,074 abortion restrictions have been passed nationwide. 288 of those restrictions have been enacted since 2010 alone. Lawsuits have already been filed over rulings that jeopardize abortion facilities in Wisconsin, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Oklahoma.

The decision is also noteworthy because the conversation surrounding it focuses on the well-being of women, rather than fetuses. Breyer notably writes in the majority opinion that the HB2 provisions “vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women’s health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny.” For years, the pro-life movement has advocated for anti-abortion laws on the grounds that the fetus is to be protected above all; however, the Whole Woman’s Health decision could become a catalyst for a significant shift in how future abortion cases are approached.

The magnitude of Whole Woman’s Health could play a part in other political outcomes if you consider the high-stakes of this upcoming presidential election. Following the ruling, Hillary Clinton stated, “We need a President who will defend women’s health and rights and appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law. We must continue to protect access to safe and legal abortion — not just on paper, but in reality.” While Clinton may use this as another platform to gain votes, it is speculated that anti-abortion supporters will use this as an opportunity to advocate for Trump because of the expectation that he will appoint pro-life justices following his election. Keeping in mind all these things, this decision has the capacity to influence a lot.

Featured Image via Pixabay