Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in a statement called the ruling “disappointing” and insisted the decision was passed “to improve patient safety and raise the standard of care for women at abortion facilities”. A year ago, he, along with three other conservative members of the court, opposed issuing an order delaying enforcement of the Texas law while the case was being appealed.
Advertisement
But the U.S. Supreme Court issues a stay, temporarily blocking enforcement of the law, as it considers the case.
The Texas legislature approved the law in 2013 and it has already resulted in the closure of half of the 40 abortion clinics in Texas, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights that represents Whole Woman’s Health. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg asked Keller how many women would live 100 or more miles from a clinic under the Texas law.
Breyer wrote that “the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an “undue burden” on their constitutional right to do so”. The Texas restrictions, which threatened to close all but nine clinics capable of complying with the tough new standards, would leave the state unable to handle an estimated 65,000 to 70,000 abortions a year. In this particular instance, the Texas legislature is now requiring that doctors who opt to perform abortions have “admitting privileges” at hospitals within 30 miles of an family planning clinic which provides abortions as well as the requirement of said clinics to have hospital-grade equipment which can be very costly. The need to regulate abortion facilities is necessary to protect women against cut-and-run abortionists at shoddy abortion facilities.
The Huffington Post goes on to note that Texas is one of several more conservative states in which access to abortion has been challenged in spite of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
“One can not be pro-woman and stand for the substandard facilities that many abortion centers operate which risk women’s lives”.
Pro-choice advocates (left) and anti-abortion advocates (right) rally outside of the Supreme Court, March 2, 2016 in Washington, DC. And for that reason, they impose an undue burden on the right to abortion. “The Supreme Court sent a loud and clear message that politicians can not use deceptive means to shut down abortion clinics”. Keller answered 25 percent, but said that did not include a clinic in neighboring New Mexico, which does not have the same requirements as the Texas law. The normally nine-justice court was one member short after the February 13 death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed abortion in past rulings.
Advertisement
I was serving with Walter at the Office of Legal Counsel in 1996 when the court overruled a prior decision to require demanding strict scrutiny of federal programs created to benefit historically disadvantaged minorities, which required many thousands of hours, across many departments and agencies, in a very complicated review. Those provisions are now invalidated across the United States, based on the Court’s decision Monday.
