In this recent case involving abortion rights, the Supreme Court ruled 5 – 3 that mere state interest alone does not satisfy the undue-burden test nor supersede it. The laws in question were Texas state statutes that requires abortion clinics to meet the same regulatory requirements as surgical centers, and that providing physicians also have admitting-privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facility. Upon and even shortly before the laws’ implementation, the state would see its number of abortion clinics decrease drastically. Whole Woman’s Health and various other groups brought suit, challenging the statutes before and after they took effect. After initial legal challenges failed, the Supreme Court ultimately struck down the laws
…show more content…
It is not similarly hard to believe that these laws were a calculated assault on abortion practitioners and women seeking the service. And yet, the ultimate result of these policies is counter-productive both to the goal of protecting women’s health and even towards lowering abortion. Studies reveal that while an immediate uptick in abortion rates may initially follow legalization, “[o]ver the longer term, however, extensive experience of the developed world and the more limited information from developing countries shows that abortion rates often decline” (Henshaw, Singh & Haas, 1999). Additionally (this also noted by the majority), when the medical procedure of abortion is outlawed, many women seeking an abortion do not merely end their search, but instead turn to furtive methods of obtaining one that are invariably more hazardous. Indeed, mortality rates are higher in countries where prohibitions on abortion are strictly enforced, and illegal abortions are more often procured – in fact, such abortions “[make] up a large proportion of maternal mortality, and abortion complications account for as many as half of all admissions to obstetric units of hospitals” in those nations (Henshaw, …show more content…
Additionally, these laws severely burdened those providing and seeking abortion services. Upon the state’s enforcement of the admitting-privileges regulation, half of all abortion centers were forced to close down (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016). To this, the dissent merely supposes that the drastic decline in abortion providers could be attributed to other, unexplained factors; this capricious conjecture is rightly rejected by the majority in favor of the lower court’s factual findings. The few facilities that remained operational would see the demand for its services increase approximately five-fold, well above what these centers could be plausibly accommodate, to say nothing of what additional overhead costs and everyday complications this sharp increase would create (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016). Women, by extension, were also burdened by this legislation. The closure of abortion facilities across Texas would only require many women to travel great distances across or even outside of the already-large state to procure the service, and the facilities themselves were now stretched thin, ill-equipped to provide each patient with careful attention (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016).
A legal team would ideally like to have both the facts and the law on its side. In reality, few cases are that simple, and they often must press whichever
It is not similarly hard to believe that these laws were a calculated assault on abortion practitioners and women seeking the service. And yet, the ultimate result of these policies is counter-productive both to the goal of protecting women’s health and even towards lowering abortion. Studies reveal that while an immediate uptick in abortion rates may initially follow legalization, “[o]ver the longer term, however, extensive experience of the developed world and the more limited information from developing countries shows that abortion rates often decline” (Henshaw, Singh & Haas, 1999). Additionally (this also noted by the majority), when the medical procedure of abortion is outlawed, many women seeking an abortion do not merely end their search, but instead turn to furtive methods of obtaining one that are invariably more hazardous. Indeed, mortality rates are higher in countries where prohibitions on abortion are strictly enforced, and illegal abortions are more often procured – in fact, such abortions “[make] up a large proportion of maternal mortality, and abortion complications account for as many as half of all admissions to obstetric units of hospitals” in those nations (Henshaw, …show more content…
Additionally, these laws severely burdened those providing and seeking abortion services. Upon the state’s enforcement of the admitting-privileges regulation, half of all abortion centers were forced to close down (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016). To this, the dissent merely supposes that the drastic decline in abortion providers could be attributed to other, unexplained factors; this capricious conjecture is rightly rejected by the majority in favor of the lower court’s factual findings. The few facilities that remained operational would see the demand for its services increase approximately five-fold, well above what these centers could be plausibly accommodate, to say nothing of what additional overhead costs and everyday complications this sharp increase would create (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016). Women, by extension, were also burdened by this legislation. The closure of abortion facilities across Texas would only require many women to travel great distances across or even outside of the already-large state to procure the service, and the facilities themselves were now stretched thin, ill-equipped to provide each patient with careful attention (Whole Woman’s Health, 2016).
A legal team would ideally like to have both the facts and the law on its side. In reality, few cases are that simple, and they often must press whichever