The state contends the Republican-backed 2013 law protects women’s health. Texas lawmakers, she said, were “only targeting abortion”.
Advertisement
As Nina reported earlier today, the law requires all abortions – either surgical or medical, meaning with pills – to be done in ambulatory surgical centers.
The plaintiffs challenged these laws, and they won in the trial court. “And the justification for it is far weaker than anything that this Court has countenanced”, Verrilli said.
Abortion advocates argue against such privileges because they claim abortion is safe enough without them. As usual, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask any questions. At one point Kennedy suggested that the Court might remand the case back to the lower court to develop a fuller record.
The Supreme Court legalised abortion more than 40 years ago in a landmark ruling, but some states have since endeavoured to pass laws placing restrictions on a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy.
If Kennedy joins the liberals to make a five-member majority, it will have national implications, cutting off what abortion opponents had seen as a promising way to make abortion more rare. However, the argument that won at the appellate level was that the court doesn’t have a role in criticizing the policy created by the state legislature when it comes to regulating issues such as abortion, only that the policy created serves a legitimate state interest and is rational to the issue at hand. He could side with his four more liberal colleagues to rule for the clinics and roll back the regulations.
But some oppose to the law saying it’s a way to restrict access to abortions.
The justices “appeared sharply and perhaps evenly divided” during the oral arguments, the New York Times reports. It’s possible that another version of Hellerstedt will return to the Supreme Court when a successor to Scalia is appointed.
Texas argues that its 2013 law was a logical response to the shocking indictment of Philadelphia abortion provider Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted that year of first-degree murder in the deaths of three infants born alive and involuntary manslaughter in the death of a woman undergoing the procedure in his under-regulated clinic.
The hearing took place in the middle of a raucous presidential campaign, and the scene outside the court on Wednesday had the feel of a campaign rally.
Texas H.B. 2 totally managed to skirt Roe v. Wade by not targeting the women receiving abortions, but rather, the physicians and facilities that provide abortions. It’s important to “do all we can to protect it”, he said in an interview after speaking.
If Kennedy rules with the liberals to strike down the law, then other abortion restrictions across the U.S. may also come into the crosshairs.
It considered a challenge to a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinics.
It’s the Court’s first controversial case since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, but the questions from the justices were no less intense – and reflected deep divisions.
The court put the surgery center requirement on hold while it considers the case.
Close to 2 million women would live more than 50 miles away from the nearest abortion clinic should the law take effect, according to the Guardian.
Texas Right to Life helped craft HB2, and was among a number of organizations that filed amicus briefs supporting the law.
“So many medical treatments have disproportionately higher complications”, Kagan said, “but lawmakers targeted abortion”.
Advertisement
After Stephanie Toti, the attorney representing abortion practitioners, used up almost all of her allotted 20 minutes addressing justices’ questions on a procedural issue, Ginsburg asked Chief Justice John Roberts to give her more time to discuss the meat of the case: whether the law unduly burdens women.
