The law required that abortion providers meet the same design standards as other surgical facilities, and that doctors working at abortion clinics have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.
Advertisement
Advocates gathered outside the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 to await a major court decision on abortion rights in Texas.
The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the high court on behalf of several pro-life organizations urging the court to uphold the Texas law, arguing that “abortion is a procedure fraught with hazards”.
She said that after past court decisions involving abortion “sometimes it takes years to rebuild the access that we had”. The justices didn’t believe Texas was just trying to help its poor, hapless women out.
Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter said the court “showed an utter disregard for women’s health” with Monday’s decision.
Instead, many women throughout Texas, especially poor women and those living in rural areas, would see their access to safe, legal abortions guaranteed by the Constitution practically eliminated, the evidence at the trial revealed. “She dismisses Texas” argument about its interest in protecting “the health of women who experience complications from abortions”, by countering that “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely unsafe”.
A lower court found that the pharmacists could not seek a religious exemption to valid laws which are applicable to everyone and do not target a specific group.
Critics of the ruling say it will make clinics less safe.
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its strongest defense of abortion rights in a quarter-century by striking down Texas rules that sharply reduced abortion clinics in the nation’s second-most-populous state. The law’s requirements were commonsense protections that ensured the maximum amount of protection for women, who deserve to have their well-being treated by government as a higher priority than the bottom line of abortionists.
In main, the court upheld the Casey standard: regulations added exclusively for the objective of limiting access to abortion are unacceptable – and that has clear implications for other state laws that restrict access to abortion, including laws on the books in MI.
Needing Kennedy’s vote in the Texas decision, Breyer emphasized that even Gonzales didn’t say the court always had to defer to the legislature on factual matters.
The ruling removes medical practice regulations placed on abortion clinics so restrictive that, since they were enacted in 2013, half of the clinics in Texas were forced to close their doors. Justice Alito summed it up best with his dissent: “‘The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter'”.
Advertisement
The Democrat from Fort Worth stood in the Texas Senate for 11-plus hours three years ago, temporarily blocking tough abortion restrictions. He called the decision a devastating blow for women’s safety and health. “But our fight to protect women’s health & promote life will not stop here”, tweeted House Speaker Paul Ryan.
