Texas rules require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and force clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient care. Before the court’s ruling, this would have forced 10 of the 19 clinics (only 19 in the entire state of Texas!) to shut down. Unusual said Monday that his office will dismiss an appeal of that decision.
Advertisement
Attorney Bob Eye, who represents Trust Women, said the ruling provides “state legislators a good deal more guidance on just exactly what the court will consider to be an undue burden and hopefully legislators will avoid enacting laws that constitute and undue burden” on women’s right to abortions. However, he said Alabama could no longer make a “good faith argument” that the law was constitutional. “We believe the least they could do is have doctors at abortion clinics who have admitting privleges at local hospitals and that their facilities are upgraded to hospital standards”.
The Texas regulations, which also required abortion providers to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, had been copied in some other states but not in SC, though some S.C. lawmakers had proposed similar measures.
With today’s ruling in favor of those who support abortion, people from the community, on both sides of the issue, are sharing their opinions.
It has been hours and Donald Trump has not said a word about today’s Supreme Court decision on abortion.
“Our movement exists when there is adversity and this is a grave adversity”, said Joe Pojman, Texas Alliance for Life Executive Director. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-3 against that law Monday.
He also said many hospitals require doctors to admit a certain number of patients a year to gain admitting privileges.
Abortion clinics challenged the law that already cut the number of abortion providers in half, to roughly 20. And in a surprisingly successful show of civil disobedience, they worked to stop a last-minute vote on the abortion restrictions by yelling at the top of their lungs as the clock struck midnight.
After Monday’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned two abortion restrictions in Texas, a Kentucky lawmaker said he’s considering proposing a similar measure again during next year’s General Assembly.
Hernandez, inspired by Davis’ action, a year ago camped out in front of the governor’s mansion to protest a provision in the state budget that prevented Planned Parenthood from participating in the joint state-federal Breast and Cervical Cancer Services program, which provides cancer screening for poor, uninsured women in Texas.
“Neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes”, wrote Justice Stephen Breyer in the court’s majority opinion.
Johnson said the court’s ruling will have “a chilling effect on state efforts to protect women from unsafe providers”.
Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women’s health. “We think that those are put into place to block women’s access to a safe and legal procedure”, said Coffield.
Proponents of the requirements have disingenuously cited women’s safety as justification. Herrod, whose organization crafted numerous measures that Liggett said are now questionable, said the court “gives abortion industry a free pass” from health and safety regulations.
Advertisement
“It’s a major victory for the Supreme Court to acknowledge that such legislation interferes with women’s legal right to abortion, and sets a good precedent for our work in IN and Kentucky”.
