The US Supreme Court has agreed to take on its first abortion case in almost a decade.
Advertisement
The challenge to the Republican-backed Texas law focuses in part on a provision that has not gone into effect yet requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities, Reuters reported.
Under the law, Alabama abortion clinics were held to the same standards as other medical facilities, and any physician who performed an abortion was required to have staff privileges at a local hospital.
The case may lead to the reversal of a controversial court ruling issued last June that would have resulted in the closure of all but 10 clinics in the state of Texas, allowing the requirements to immediately take effect. Similarly, the ambulatory surgical center requirement applies even in abortion clinics that do not perform surgeries – many abortions are induced by medication alone. One requires abortion facilities be constructed like surgical centers. The only clinic south of San Antonio, in McAllen, it added, would have “extremely limited capacity”.
The case is Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, 15-274. Other cases the court is slated to hear address affirmative action in higher education, the constitutionality of mandatory contributions to public sector unions and the application of the so-called “contraception mandate”. They have turned to the states to chip away at abortion rights by imposing restrictions and waiting periods, making it harder for a pregnant woman to obtain one.
In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that states could impose a few restrictions on abortion, provided they did not pose an undue burden on a woman’s access to the procedure.
House Bill 2 has been a favorite target of pro-abortion supporters because its strict standards have shuttered about half of the abortion clinics in Texas. There are two more in Austin.
The measures were modest and sensible, Ken Paxton, Texas’ attorney general, said Friday.
After the announcement, Steven Aden, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, said the Texas law provides “common-sense protections that ensure the maximum amount of safety for women”. The 5th Circuit was on firm ground to uphold this law, and therefore, the Supreme Court should affirm that decision. “This law does not advance women’s health and in fact undermines it”, Northup said.
But Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said the clinics are more interested in preserving their cash flow than protecting women.
But the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in largely reversing the trial judge, said a restriction must be upheld if “any conceivable rationale exists” for imposing it. That’s what the court calls an “undue burden” on a constitutional right.
Backers of the regulations say they are common-sense measures meant to protect women. The state appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court, but the lawsuit was dismissed early past year after Sanford Health granted admitting privileges to the clinic’s doctors.
Advertisement
Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito voted to deny the application for stay.
