For the first time in almost a decade, the Supreme Court will take up a case on abortion rights. Restrictions on abortions were allowed by the Supreme Court under the 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. As we previously reported, the stay was temporary.
Advertisement
These states have pursued restrictions including bans on certain types of abortion procedures, regulatory standards imposed on clinics and abortion doctors, waiting periods, ultrasound requirements and others.
The case concentrates on a piece of the law that has yet to become effective requiring fetus removal centers in Texas to have healing center evaluation offices – a necessity that would require unreasonable redesigns at numerous suppliers’ workplaces.
One clause states doctors can only perform the procedure at clinics if they have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
The challenge takes on a Texas law passed in 2013 that has reduced the number of abortion providers in Texas from about 40 to about 10.
Texas has been one of several states governed by Republicans which have pushed through new laws that effectively circumscribe the ability of women to seek terminations and challenge the broad current legal status quo that was laid down in the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling.
But the justices will be asked again in coming months to take up the broader issue, with appeals coming that concern bans in Arkansas and North Dakota, both of which were struck down by lower courts.
Twenty-two states have surgical-center requirements for abortion clinics, according to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports legal access to abortion.
In June, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans, largely upheld the contested provisions.
The challengers also argued in their brief that the law “would delay or prevent thousands of women from obtaining abortions and lead a few to resort to unsafe or illegal methods of ending an unwanted pregnancy”. Upgrades included widening doorways to enable paramedics to bring in stretchers to transport patients to the hospital, and having equipment that can properly sterilize surgical instruments to ensure the health and safety of patients. The state says it is meant to “improve the health and safety of women” while leaving at least one clinic operating in every population center – though the Rio Grande Valley would see reduced services, and El Paso residents would have to get abortions in New Mexico.
NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, wrote in a brief on behalf of those states that courts should not automatically uphold abortion restrictions purely because a state says it is a legitimate health measure.
The court agreed to review a sweeping law from Texas.
The dispute now before the Supreme Court focuses on whether what the court calls an undue burden on constitutional rights of a woman to abortion is imposed by the law. Of course, mentioning that would underscore that Texans by and large favor the abortion-clinic regulation law and reject the arguments of pro-choice absolutists like Ms. Davis.
Advertisement
Information for this article was contributed by Adam Liptak of The NY Times and by Mark Sherman of The Associated Press.
