You may recall the firestorm: Then-Texas State Senator Wendy Davis (in pink Mizuno sneakers), filibustering the law, HB2, which in part mandates that abortion clinics in the state be certified “ambulatory surgical centers” and have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. “I’m hopeful that the Supreme Court will put the interests of Texan women over the political interests of Texas legislators and strike down this risky law before any more clinics close”, Terri Burke, executive director of the Texas branch of the ACLU, said.
Advertisement
Whatever the justices decide next spring will help clarify the court’s 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, when a deeply divided court upheld the right to abortion while letting states impose restrictions that do not block women from obtaining services.
So far, such measures-referred to by opponents as targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP) laws-have been remarkably successful at shutting abortion clinics down. Given his credentials – Hawley successfully argued before the U.S. Supreme Court that Hobby Lobby stores had the right to refuse to pay for contraception services – Schaefer sees him as a credible threat, according to the Kansas City Star.
If the result of that is that many miles of Texas would go unserviced by any abortion clinic, that’s the fault of the clinic operators themselves for running the clinics in the finest tradition of Kermit Gosnell, but Wendy Davis and her allies don’t care. The court declined to hear a case involving federal funds for Planned Parenthood and the organization’s privacy in the face of continued probes by anti-abortion activists.
Supporters of the clinics note that when the laws were passed in 2013, there were more than 40 clinics in the state. If the Supreme Court agrees that medical and scientific evidence doesn’t matter when evaluating the validity of medical restrictions, that will open the door for states to basically ban abortion through red tape, claiming that it’s all being done for “women’s health”.
Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group, has draft legislation that it encourages states to adopt.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the court’s decision not to take up the case, saying that a review of the exemption on trade secrets and confidential information is needed.
But medical groups have lined up behind the Center for Reproductive Rights, which is challenging the law, to say the requirements aren’t necessary. Currently, 29 states prescribe health and safety standards for abortion facilities, and 15 states require abortionists to maintain hospital admitting privileges or a written patient transfer agreement with a physician who maintains such privileges.
Planned Parenthood won’t turn away patients if it loses the grants, Kight said, but would have to find other ways to pay for services, like charging client fees or using philanthropic dollars.
“Abortion is a very safe procedure and complications requiring hospital admission are extremely rare”.
Late next June, when each party will nearly certainly have its presidential nominee in place and voters other than party stalwarts start paying real attention to the 2016 race, the U.S. supreme court will likely hand down a ruling that will change the course of the race and many American women’s lives.
“When the justices consider Whole Women’s Health, they will first ask whether the Court is the proper tribunal for a fine-grained factual analysis of the impact of HB 2 on Texans”, explains The Economist.
Advertisement
“The state has wide discretion to pass laws ensuring Texas women are not subject to substandard conditions at abortion facilities”, Paxton said.
