Skip to content

Archive site notice

You are viewing an archived copy of Christian Concern's website. Some features are disabled and pages may not display properly.

To view our current site, please visit christianconcern.com

US Supreme Court rules against protective abortion regulations

Published: June 27th, 2016
Printer-friendly version
The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling against protective abortion regulations in Texas, which require that hospital-like standards are met at abortion clinics.
 
In March this year, it considered a challenge brought forward by pro-abortion activists, who argued that the implementation of these regulations would shut down many abortion clinics in the state. 
 
The court’s decision on whether this law "placed an undue burden on women exercising their constitutional right to abortion" was one of three remaining cases for the court to decide on Monday, the last day of its term.
 
This is the most significant abortion ruling in 20 years, with the 8 Supreme Court justices ruling 5-3.
 

Challenge to abortion regulations

 
The case centred around a challenge by pro-abortion activists to two particular regulations, that were passed by the Texas Legislature in 2013 and were due to come into effect last July.
 
One part requires that doctors performing abortions must be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital, while the other requires all abortion facilities in the state to meet the standards for "ambulatory surgical centers."
 
The part of the law that requires hospital admitting privileges had already come into effect – but the requirement for clinics to have hospital-grade facilities had not.
 
Last summer, a number of Texan abortion facilities were due to close after failing to meet these requirements, but the Supreme Court intervened at the last minute, voting 5-4 to suspend the provisions until an appeal was heard.
 
At the time, Texas Governor Greg Abbott defended the regulations, saying:
 
"Texas will continue to fight for higher-quality healthcare standards for women while protecting our most vulnerable – the unborn, and I'm confident the Supreme Court will ultimately uphold this law."
 

‘Substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions’

 
Justice Stephen Breyer wrote the majority opinion in today’s ruling, which was joined in full by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
 
"There was no significant health-related problem that the new law helped to cure," Breyer wrote. 
 
"We agree with the District Court that the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so."
 

‘Bending the rules’

 
Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have upheld the law, strongly criticised the Court’s decision in his written dissent. 
 
“Today the Court strikes down two state statutory provisions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any 
effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue,’” he wrote.
 

‘Reducing constitutional law’

 
He continued: “Eighty years on, the Court has come full circle. The Court has simultaneously transformed judicially created rights like the right to abortion into preferred constitutional rights, while disfavouring many of the rights actually enumerated in the Constitution. 
 
“But our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others. A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate. 
 
“A law either infringes a constitutional right, or not; there is no room for the judiciary to invent tolerable degrees of encroachment. Unless the Court abides by one set of rules to adjudicate constitutional rights, it will continue reducing constitutional law to policy-driven value judgements until the last threads of its legitimacy disappear.”
 

‘Subjects more innocent life to being lost’

 
Gov. Abbott also decried the ruling. "The decision erodes States' law-making authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost," he said in a statement. "Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women."
 
The ruling against the protective measures could prevent other states from employing similar regulations. 
 
 
 
Sources:
 
 
  • Share this