Pro-abortion rights protesters rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday.
Advertisement
A closely divided Supreme Court struggled with its biggest abortion case in years on Wednesday, with pivotal Justice Anthony Kennedy voicing concerns about a restrictive Texas law yet stopping short of signaling he would strike it down. Texas State Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, listens, third from left.
The Texas law requires abortion doctors to have a formal affiliation at a hospital within 30 miles (48 km) of the clinic.
That same day, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a forceful response to Breyer in which he wrote that Breyer promised to show why the appeals court was wrong, “but that promise goes unfulfilled”. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is a challenge to HB 2, the Texas law that requires abortion facilities meet the standards of surgical centers and abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. The expenses involved in complying with the law have forced about half of Texas’ 41 abortion clinics to close, with the possible closure of another 10 that are reportedly not in compliance. Kagan began, asking if Texas could require all abortion providers to adhere to the standards of the nation’s top hospitals, such as Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s.
“What is the legitimate interest in protecting their health?”. Donald B. Verrilli Jr., solicitor general of the US, who supported the argument of Whole Woman’s Health, said the regulations actually increased the risks for women.
MR. KELLER: Justice Kagan, this bill was passed in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal that prompted Texas and many other States to reexamine their abortion regulations.
Since those decisions, she says, anti-abortion forces have aimed “to put so many holes in the right across the United States that while the right can exist on paper, the right simply doesn’t exist in fact”.
Pressed by Ginsburg, Keller acknowledged that was a complication rate of less than 1 percent of the state’s 70,000 or so abortions a year, but said the state still could act to make abortion safer.
“Basically, your argument is that the law took effect, and after that point, there was a decrease in the number of clinics”, Alito said.
Meanwhile inside the Court, eight Justices heard arguments for and against House Bill 2 that passed in 2013 with two key provisions. Rather, the case asks whether politicians can strip constitutional rights by stealth, using laws that say one thing but do another.
Justice Samuel Alito actively challenged Toti’s claim as to why the clinics closed. “What is the evidence in the record that the closures were related to the legislation?” As usual, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask any questions.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious groups submitted a joint friend of the court brief in the case supporting the Texas law. The best pro-lifers can hope for is a 4-4 split, which would uphold a lower court’s ruling in favor of the law. Supporters of the law argue that it serves to protect women’s health, while opponents see it as a veiled attempt at limiting access to abortion.
The clinics are backed by President Barack Obama’s administration. The clinics contended that the Supreme Court is likely to side with the Texas clinics and would reverse any action against the Louisiana clinics. Kennedy gave little clue on how he would rule the decision.
An opinion in the case, which is Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, is expected before the court ends its term in late June or early July.
Advertisement
Stay on topic – This helps keep the thread focused on the discussion at hand. “You have to look only to the women for whom this is a problem”.
