Supreme Court Strikes Down TX Abortion Restrictions

The Supreme Court ruled today that a Texas law limiting access to abortions was unconstitutional:

The Supreme Court’s 5 to 3 decision ruled unconstitutional a 2013 Texas law that required all abortion providers to meet ambulatory surgical standards and physicians to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Supporters of the regulations under House Bill 2 said they aimed to protect women’s health. Abortion advocates called the mandates unnecessary, expensive and an “undue burden” on women’s rights.

...In the court opinion, the justices said lawmakers couldn’t prove the rules actually protected women’s health. The move suggested restrictive abortion measures won’t stand unless policy designers prove they keep women from harm.

The opinion is here. [More...]

The regulations at issue:

1) a requirement that any clinic performing abortions meet all standards for an “ambulatory surgical center,” where invasive minor operations can be performed without requiring hospitalization; and (2) a requirement that any physician performing abortions have “admitting privileges”—the ability to order a patient admitted without an initial examination by another doctor—at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.

The dissenters were Justices Alito, Roberts and Thomas.

If Texas is so gung ho on the right to life, why don't they end the death penalty?

< Supreme Court Vacates Conviction of VA Ex-Gov McDonell
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Also I always thought (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 09:04:51 PM EST
    It ironic that the people most hung ho on forcing a woman to have a child are almost always the one most against providing any support for feeding clothing or educating it once it's born.    They only seem passionate about caring for children until they are born.  After that they are on their own.

    If you missed arguments in March, read this (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Towanda on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 10:15:23 PM EST
    wonderful reporting from Slate on the day that this decision was won.  

    I see commentary today that the 5-3 vote means that Scalia's death didn't matter.  I disagree, as he likely would have had a fit about Roberts allowing Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer to ignore the clock so as to ask the crucial questions -- especially Ginsburg's questioning of the argument that Texas women could just go to another state.  That was the moment that, I think, the case was won.

    Forget it, Jeralyn - it's Texas. (none / 0) (#1)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 08:14:20 PM EST
    And for many conservatives, it simply wouldn't be Texas without the death penalty. Of course, to some of us on the left, Texas is the land of political blowhards and pinheads - Austin and Houston excepted.

    It is my earnest hope that one of these days, Texans will finally wake up and accept the fact that Anne Richards, Molly Ivins and Wendy Davis were right.


    im confused (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 11:39:28 PM EST
    i dont understand why the death penalthy in texas relevant

    When your adversaries have to base their actions (none / 0) (#3)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    on a set of blatant lies, like these "protect women's health" measures (better known as TRAPs), you know you are on the right side of the issue.

    curious (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Mon Jun 27, 2016 at 11:59:43 PM EST
    why did breyer "deliver the opinion of the court" ?

    why not ginsburg or sotomayor or kagan?

    has ginsburg (et al) ever written the opinion for the court? is the opinion delivered by the person with the stongest argument or is it senority based?