The court ruled 5-3 that it’s too much of a burden to force doctors to get hospital admitting privileges or hold clinics to similar standards as surgical centers before they can perform abortions.
Advertisement
The Supreme Court effectively slapped down these so-called TRAP laws (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) in Monday’s ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
“Certainly I think it’s an important law, but it doesn’t affect the number of abortions, the number of late-term abortions, in the degree some of the other legislation would”, Taylor said. The law mandates doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion clinic.
“I’m hoping this decision reaches far beyond Texas and many other legislatures where they put unfair burdens and blocks in women’s way”, Kopel said.
The dissenting justices sharply disagreed.
This week, Planned Parenthood also will be in court to try to stop the state’s new “first trimester” definition from taking effect July 1.
In the U.S., the society is divided over abortion, an issue that continues to stir controversy in conservative sectors.
“Abortion is already one of the most heavy regulated and safest medical procedures in the U.S.”, Wilder said. “If women are able to geographically access that care without tremendous costs or burdensome travel then we’ll be back to where we need to be”.
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down some of the nation’s toughest restrictions on abortions. For example, the law specifies the minimum size of treatment rooms (110 square feet) and clarifies that the closest hospital must be 15 minutes away or less.
“The five month ban, protecting the little baby at five months inside her mother’s womb, that is still the law, the Supreme Court did not strike that down”, said Hughes. “As the brief filed by the Solicitor General makes clear and as the Court affirmed today, these restrictions harm women’s health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman’s reproductive freedom”, he said.
That deference to the states shouldn’t apply in all cases, but it should have applied in this particular case, Silecchia clarified.
Texas Republican leaders, who championed HB 2 in 2013, reacted with anger, frustration and sadness. In Illinois, it will likely hinder any new regulations from being passed.
Gov. Greg Abbott also responded to the statement, saying it “erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost”.
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton on Twitter called the ruling “a victory for women in Texas and across America”.
Advertisement
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes”, Breyer wrote of the “admitting-privileges requirement” and the “surgical center requirement”.
