The Supreme Court agrees to hear the biggest abortion case since 1992

[GennGreymane]

The Supreme Court agrees to hear the biggest abortion case since 1992, in the middle of the presidential election

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...entialelection

TWO and a half years ago, Wendy Davis (pictured above) stood in pink running shoes for 11 hours on the floor of the Texas Senate to speak against a bill that would shutter most abortion clinics in her state. “The alleged reason for the bill is to enhance patient safety,” Ms Davis said early in her presentation, but it “treat[s] women as though they are not capable of making their own medical decisions.” The bill violates “women’s constitutional rights to control their bodies,” she argued.

On November 13th, the Supreme Court announced that it will decide whether House Bill 2—which withstood Ms Davis’s extraordinary filibuster and passed the Senate 17 days later—is indeed unconstitutional. Whole Woman’s Health v Cole, the justices’ first foray into the blazingly divisive issue since 2007, is the most consequential abortion case to arrive on their docket since 1992.

Texas contends that HB 2 “raise[s] the standard of care for all abortion patients” and “will improve the health and safety of women”. But the petitioner, a self-described “privately-owned feminist organisation, committed to providing holistic care for women”, says these are sham justifications. The legislature’s real aim, the clinic says, is to make it more difficult for Texas women to gain access to abortion. Up to three-quarters of the abortion clinics in Texas would be forced to close, the petitioner says, under the law’s requirements that clinics must have surgical facilities and that doctors performing abortions must have admitting privileges at a hospital not more than 30 miles away. The law will, Whole Woman’s Health says, “drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion facilities in Texas”.

In June, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the provisions in question, ruling that it is not the job of the judiciary to second-guess the legislature’s determination that a law promotes the public health. “[M]edical uncertainty underlying a statute is for resolution by legislatures, not the courts”, the appeals court concluded. And the Fifth Circuit ruled that whittling the number of abortion clinics in Texas from 42 to fewer than 10 does not pose an “undue burden” on the right to abortion. If El Paso loses its two abortion clinics, for example, women can always drive a mere 12 miles over the border to a clinic in Santa Teresa, New Mexico. Many already do, the court wrote.

The Supreme Court will ask whether the Fifth Circuit was correct to defer to the judgment of the Texas legislature and will review the meaning and application of the “undue burden” analysis coming from the most important post-Roe v Wade case the justices have issued: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey. Casey, decided in 1992, laid down a moderate principle defining when an abortion restriction is constitutionally permissible. It is no undue burden, the Court concluded, for states to require women to give “informed consent” before having an abortion. It is also fine for minors to be required to get parental consent. But it is unconstitutional to force women to notify their spouses before ending their pregnancies. Such a requirement, the Court ruled, goes too far: “We must not blind ourselves to the fact that the significant number of women who fear for their safety and the safety of their children are likely to be deterred from procuring an abortion”, the opinion reads. “It does not merely make abortions a little more difficult or expensive to obtain; for many women, it will impose a substantial obstacle”.

When the justices consider Whole Women’s Health, they will first ask whether the Court is the proper tribunal for a fine-grained factual analysis of the impact of HB 2 on Texans. (The district court undertook this analysis; the Fifth Circuit demurred.) If they see it as their role to dive into the weeds, the challenge becomes conceptual. Where is the line between making abortions “a little more difficult or expensive to obtain” (perfectly constitutional) and imposing a “substantial obstacle” (patently unconstitutional) on women who want them?

The Court’s answer will resonate well beyond the borders of the Lone Star state. For decades, states have been chipping away at the right to abortion first recognised 42 years ago in Roe v Wade. In the past four years alone, 231 new regulations have been enacted, including restrictions on abortions performed after a certain point in the pregnancy, waiting periods, ultrasound laws and limits on minors’ access to abortion. If Whole Woman’s Health comes out for the petitioners, the Court will affirm the continued relevance of the “undue burden” standard as a limit on how far states can go to reduce abortions. But if the Court finds no constitutional problem with the Texas law, Roe v Wade will be profoundly curtailed and the tide of abortion restrictions in America will likely continue to flow. Either way, the constitutional and political stakes are huge: the justices’ decision will arrive on the eve of the final trimester of the presidential campaign. The ruling will amplify concerns about the justices Barack Obama’s successor will appoint to a bench that, a year from now, will be occupied by three octogenarians.

[Hooked]

The supreme court is swinging wildly left, it would be a great time for you lefties to push through all of your anti American legislation. They are all getting rescinded though when trump takes over, bet on it.

[fengosa]

The supreme court is swinging wildly left, it would be a great time for you lefties to push through all of your anti American legislation. They are all getting rescinded though when trump takes over, bet on it.

Citizens United disagrees and I'd hardly call issues like health care or gay rights wildly left. SCOTUS decided in those cases because the laws were on their side.

[Ryme]

Wait, what are they doing? "Shutter clincs"? Do they mean shut? Why would they shut them.

I need context. House Bill 2 seems to be this: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2/id/871872 which seems entirely reasonable, what's her issue with the bill?

[Hooked]

Citizens United disagrees and I'd hardly call issues like health care or gay rights wildly left. SCOTUS decided in those cases because the laws were on their side.

I would hardly care what you hardly thought. They are getting rescinded, case closed.

[McCulloch]

I would hardly care what you hardly thought. They are getting rescinded, case closed.

That's not how it works, but I'm hardly surprised you don't know the basics of government.

[Orbitus]

The supreme court is swinging wildly left, it would be a great time for you lefties to push through all of your anti American legislation. They are all getting rescinded though when trump takes over, bet on it.

LOL You still think Trump is going to get elected. I feel sorry for you.

[Hooked]

LOL You still think Trump is going to get elected. I feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for your outdated opinion. The world has passed you by and you are stuck in the past at such a young age.

[Orbitus]

Wait, what are they doing? "Shutter clincs"? Do they mean shut? Why would they shut them.

I need context. House Bill 2 seems to be this: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2/id/871872 which seems entirely reasonable, what's her issue with the bill?

Probably because it shuts down over half of the clinics for no reason other than partisan bullshit politics.

[McCulloch]

I feel sorry for your outdated opinion. The world has passed you by and you are stuck in the past at such a young age.

If the future is loud-mouth know nothing, then I'll happily be stuck in the past. He has thought out no policies because apparently the presidency is something you can wing.

[Orbitus]

I feel sorry for your outdated opinion.

Just because he is leading the Republican side of things doesn't mean anything. He gets beat handily by both Sanders and Clinton. He's an asshole, not to mention pretty much everyone with a working brain knows his policies will not work. A $12 Trillion tax plan, a wall that will not be paid for by Mexico, so tack on at least another $1 trillion to that, then if he manages to try, he won't get the 11 million illegals out of the country. If he did, he would basically destroy the agricultural economy in 4 years and we would then have Kanye as a president.

[Hooked]

If the future is loud-mouth know nothing, then I'll happily be stuck in the past. He has thought out no policies because apparently the presidency is something you can wing.

Whatever, we have heard it all before and you know what your line of thinking got us?. Misery.

[Ryme]

Probably because it shuts down over half of the clinics for no reason other than partisan bullshit politics.

Really? How though? Too many people getting abortions post 20 week?

[Hooked]

Just because he is leading the Republican side of things doesn't mean anything. He gets beat handily by both Sanders and Clinton. He's an asshole, not to mention pretty much everyone with a working brain knows his policies will not work. A $12 Trillion tax plan, a wall that will not be paid for by Mexico, so tack on at least another $1 trillion to that, then if he manages to try, he won't get the 11 million illegals out of the country. If he did, he would basically destroy the agricultural economy in 4 years and we would then have Kanye as a president.

Keep thinking that and put back on your ear buds.

[McCulloch]

Whatever, we have heard it all before and you know what your line of thinking got us?. Misery.

Whatever is not a valid response. Low information voter at its finest.

[Shiny212]

The supreme court is swinging wildly left, it would be a great time for you lefties to push through all of your anti American legislation. They are all getting rescinded though when trump takes over, bet on it.

My my, did you not pay attention at school, or didn't you go at all?

[Hooked]

My my, did you not pay attention at school, or didn't you go at all?

Sorry I missed the indoctrination class that you aced.

[Shiny212]

Sorry I missed the indoctrination class that you aced.

Yes...I was indoctrinated to believe there's a separation of powers in the US. You're right, the president CAN unilaterally "rescind all the anti-american leftie legislation" as you put it. (This is called sarcasm)

[Orbitus]

Really? How though? Too many people getting abortions post 20 week?

Not nearly as the Republicans want everyone to think but that isn't what the bill is saying. Its not just that. It says that all the abortion doctors must have admitting privileges in a hospital. The abortion clinic cannot be located more than 30 miles from a hospital. Considering most of the Western Part of Texas doesn't have hospitals due to it being sparsely populated but still populated enough to need a women's health clinic. Not to mention I think this also requires the clinic to have the ability to land a helicopter if needed. I am not sure but I am not going to go through the entire bill.

[Masark]

Wait, what are they doing? "Shutter clincs"? Do they mean shut? Why would they shut them.

I need context. House Bill 2 seems to be this: https://legiscan.com/TX/text/HB2/id/871872 which seems entirely reasonable, what's her issue with the bill?

1. That is what "shuttering" means.

2. It's medically unnecessary regulations regarding clinic buildings (requirements on ceiling height, hallway sizes, bathroom sizes, janitorial closets, etc.) and requiring doctors at them to have admitting privileges at a local hospital (which they wouldn't be able to obtain if the hospital is Catholic-owned, for example) created specifically so that most clinics do not and cannot meet them, forcing them to close. They're called TRAP laws and are basically trying to revert Roe v. Wade through the back door.