Supreme Court to Hear 'Most Important Abortion Rights Case in 25 Years'
Draconian law already 'causing real harm to women across the state of Texas,' says women's health advocate
Setting the stage for what a leading women's health advocate said will be "the most important abortion rights case in almost 25 years," the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed (pdf) to review a "draconian" Texas law designed to shut down clinics that provide safe, legal abortion services.
| Tweets about #StopTheSham OR #HB2 OR #UndueBurden |
"Today the Supreme Court took an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, which Texas politicians have spent years dismantling through deceptive laws and regulatory red tape," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case on behalf of a coalition of women's health providers. "We are confident the Court will recognize that these laws are a sham and stop these political attacks on women's rights, dignity, and access to safe, legal essential health care."
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, challenges two provisions of a 2013 law known as HB2 that is already "causing real harm to women across the state of Texas," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman's Health.
The first provision requires that all abortion providers obtain local hospital admitting privileges, a mandate which has already forced the closure of over half the clinics in the state. The second provision requires every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services to meet the same hospital-like building standards as an ambulatory surgical center, which can amount to millions of dollars in medically unnecessary facility updates. Such provisions are known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws.
"These laws have nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with creating coercive and nearly impossible-to-navigate hurdles for those who seek abortion," said Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
"By forcing clinics to close, Texas legislators have multiplied the barriers women face when they need an abortion," added Hagstrom Miller. "Texas women are forced to go to multiple and unnecessary visits at clinics that are now farther away, take more days off of work, losing income, find childcare, and arrange and pay for transportation for hundreds of miles. For many women, the process of obtaining safe and legal health care has simply become unfeasible. No one should be denied safe and compassionate care based on her zip code, but that's exactly what this law does."
She added: "Legislators are effectively forcing these women to carry their pregnancies to term against their will."
As the New York Times explains, the case "could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. The court said undue burdens included 'unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion'."
Both of the controversial TRAP provisions in HB2 are opposed by leading medical groups, like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who have filed briefs with the Supreme Court stating that the laws are indeed unnecessary and put women's health at risk.
Meanwhile, USA Today points out: "Coincidentally, the issue will play out during next year's presidential election, just as it did in 1992. Then, the focus on abortion rights and restrictions helped Bill Clinton against President George H.W. Bush, polls and studies suggest. The latest Gallup polls show 80% support for legal abortion in at least some circumstances, so a renewed focus could help Democrats next year."
The Court also on Friday agreed to review a similar law in Mississippi that reproductive rights advocates say is designed to shutter the last abortion clinic in the state. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled for both cases in 2016.
Urgent. It's never been this bad.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just four days to go in our Spring Campaign, we are not even halfway to our goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Setting the stage for what a leading women's health advocate said will be "the most important abortion rights case in almost 25 years," the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed (pdf) to review a "draconian" Texas law designed to shut down clinics that provide safe, legal abortion services.
| Tweets about #StopTheSham OR #HB2 OR #UndueBurden |
"Today the Supreme Court took an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, which Texas politicians have spent years dismantling through deceptive laws and regulatory red tape," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case on behalf of a coalition of women's health providers. "We are confident the Court will recognize that these laws are a sham and stop these political attacks on women's rights, dignity, and access to safe, legal essential health care."
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, challenges two provisions of a 2013 law known as HB2 that is already "causing real harm to women across the state of Texas," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman's Health.
The first provision requires that all abortion providers obtain local hospital admitting privileges, a mandate which has already forced the closure of over half the clinics in the state. The second provision requires every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services to meet the same hospital-like building standards as an ambulatory surgical center, which can amount to millions of dollars in medically unnecessary facility updates. Such provisions are known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws.
"These laws have nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with creating coercive and nearly impossible-to-navigate hurdles for those who seek abortion," said Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
"By forcing clinics to close, Texas legislators have multiplied the barriers women face when they need an abortion," added Hagstrom Miller. "Texas women are forced to go to multiple and unnecessary visits at clinics that are now farther away, take more days off of work, losing income, find childcare, and arrange and pay for transportation for hundreds of miles. For many women, the process of obtaining safe and legal health care has simply become unfeasible. No one should be denied safe and compassionate care based on her zip code, but that's exactly what this law does."
She added: "Legislators are effectively forcing these women to carry their pregnancies to term against their will."
As the New York Times explains, the case "could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. The court said undue burdens included 'unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion'."
Both of the controversial TRAP provisions in HB2 are opposed by leading medical groups, like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who have filed briefs with the Supreme Court stating that the laws are indeed unnecessary and put women's health at risk.
Meanwhile, USA Today points out: "Coincidentally, the issue will play out during next year's presidential election, just as it did in 1992. Then, the focus on abortion rights and restrictions helped Bill Clinton against President George H.W. Bush, polls and studies suggest. The latest Gallup polls show 80% support for legal abortion in at least some circumstances, so a renewed focus could help Democrats next year."
The Court also on Friday agreed to review a similar law in Mississippi that reproductive rights advocates say is designed to shutter the last abortion clinic in the state. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled for both cases in 2016.
Setting the stage for what a leading women's health advocate said will be "the most important abortion rights case in almost 25 years," the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed (pdf) to review a "draconian" Texas law designed to shut down clinics that provide safe, legal abortion services.
| Tweets about #StopTheSham OR #HB2 OR #UndueBurden |
"Today the Supreme Court took an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, which Texas politicians have spent years dismantling through deceptive laws and regulatory red tape," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which brought the case on behalf of a coalition of women's health providers. "We are confident the Court will recognize that these laws are a sham and stop these political attacks on women's rights, dignity, and access to safe, legal essential health care."
The case, Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, challenges two provisions of a 2013 law known as HB2 that is already "causing real harm to women across the state of Texas," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, founder and CEO of Whole Woman's Health.
The first provision requires that all abortion providers obtain local hospital admitting privileges, a mandate which has already forced the closure of over half the clinics in the state. The second provision requires every reproductive health care facility offering abortion services to meet the same hospital-like building standards as an ambulatory surgical center, which can amount to millions of dollars in medically unnecessary facility updates. Such provisions are known as Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers, or TRAP, laws.
"These laws have nothing to do with protecting women, and everything to do with creating coercive and nearly impossible-to-navigate hurdles for those who seek abortion," said Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.
"By forcing clinics to close, Texas legislators have multiplied the barriers women face when they need an abortion," added Hagstrom Miller. "Texas women are forced to go to multiple and unnecessary visits at clinics that are now farther away, take more days off of work, losing income, find childcare, and arrange and pay for transportation for hundreds of miles. For many women, the process of obtaining safe and legal health care has simply become unfeasible. No one should be denied safe and compassionate care based on her zip code, but that's exactly what this law does."
She added: "Legislators are effectively forcing these women to carry their pregnancies to term against their will."
As the New York Times explains, the case "could provide the Supreme Court with an opportunity to clarify its 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which said states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. The court said undue burdens included 'unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion'."
Both of the controversial TRAP provisions in HB2 are opposed by leading medical groups, like the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who have filed briefs with the Supreme Court stating that the laws are indeed unnecessary and put women's health at risk.
Meanwhile, USA Today points out: "Coincidentally, the issue will play out during next year's presidential election, just as it did in 1992. Then, the focus on abortion rights and restrictions helped Bill Clinton against President George H.W. Bush, polls and studies suggest. The latest Gallup polls show 80% support for legal abortion in at least some circumstances, so a renewed focus could help Democrats next year."
The Court also on Friday agreed to review a similar law in Mississippi that reproductive rights advocates say is designed to shutter the last abortion clinic in the state. Oral arguments are expected to be scheduled for both cases in 2016.