Backers of the law, HB2, say it is meant to support women’s health, particularly if there are any complications after an abortion. But supporters say the strict regulations will make abortions safer.
Advertisement
The case is being heard by only eight members after the death last month of Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative who did not believe that the Constitution protected the right to abortion.
On the other hand, the court’s four liberal justices indicated they believed the law interferes with a woman’s constitutional right to end a pregnancy established in a 1973 ruling. Some justices challenged the plaintiffs’ claims that the law would put abortion out of reach and also wondered if the state law was the reason so many clinics had closed, and others questioned the state’s motivation for imposing such requirements on abortion clinics and their doctors.
But Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO of the abortion clinic challenging the law, said that was a smokescreen.
“We’ve been getting a five and six-fold increase in the number of callers who are coming from more than a hundred miles away to schedule an appointment”, Sarah Wheat with Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas said at a news conference at the University of Texas. If it remains deadlocked in a 4-4 vote, the Texas law would remain on the books, thanks to a lower court ruling in favor of the legislation. 2 imposes an “undue burden” on the right to obtain an abortion, meaning that “its objective or effect is to place substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability”.
Befitting the first abortion argument since November 2006, crowds of sign-toting demonstrators outside spilled beyond the sidewalk that fronts the Supreme Court, onto the street that separates it from the Capitol. And there is a third possibility – that the chief justice could hold the case over for re-argument some time next term, when the court may have a ninth justice in place. He wants to see more information on how the Texas law would affect the number of abortions performed in clinics that remain open should the law become fully effective. The first time, the justices divided 5-4 in November 2013 to allow the law’s admitting privileges requirement to take effect. He also asked if the state law may have persuaded women to seek surgical abortions rather than ones induced by drugs.
The case concerns a Texas law, HB2, that requires abortion provider facilities to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers (ACS) and mandates that doctors who perform abortions must have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
The court appeared to be narrowly divided during arguments over a law that was passed in Texas, which placed tougher restrictions on abortion providers.
Dr. John Hellerstedt, the Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services – the agency that enforces the challenged laws – argues in response that Texas is just trying to ensure patient safety and improve standards of care. “If that’s all right for the women of the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”
The case will likely be decided in June.
But Amanda Quigley, 22, who came to the Supreme Court with her mother, said she hopes the law is upheld, and that it has reasonable requirements for women’s health. “But the extent to which it can be done is what this case is going to impact”.
Advertisement
“I’m sure there’s medical evidence that if every facility was as good as Massachusetts General, they would (be) better facilities”, Kagan said.
