Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued March 2, 2016
Full case name Whole Woman's Health; Austin Women's Health Center; Killeen Women's Health Center; Nova Health Systems D/B/A Reproductive Services; Sherwood D. Lynn Jr., M.D.; Pamela J. Richter, D.O.; and Lendol L. Davis M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients v. John Hellerstedt, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Health Department of State Health Services; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in their Capacity
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is a case the Supreme Court of the United States heard on March 2, 2016.[1] Notably, this is the largest abortion case put before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,[2] and the Court's decision will impact several other states' similar restrictions on abortion access.[3]

Background

<templatestyles src="Module:Hatnote/styles.css"></templatestyles>

Main article: Texas House Bill 2

In 2013, Texas passed a law, H.B. 2, requiring a series of restrictions on abortion clinics within the state.[1]

H.B. 2's abortion restrictions

In November 2013, one of H.B. 2's restrictions went into effect, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles.[2]

The second restriction imposes the same standards of ambulatory surgical centers on abortion providers.[4] The law requires abortion clinics to upgrade the building, safety, parking, and staffing to meet the standards of a hospital room.[2] Whole Woman's Health, however, has deemed these requirements unnecessary and expensive as well as an attempt to limit abortion access rather than provide safety to women.[1] This part of the law was enforced state-wide in October 2014 until being put on hold while awaiting the outcome of this case.[2]

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

In 2014, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a per curiam decision that upheld the majority of the Texas law.[5][fn 1] The panel held that the law was constitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey's undue burden standard because the law "does not place a substantial obstacle in path of those women seeking an abortion".[8]

Supreme Court

Before H.B. 2 could take effect the petitioners asked for a stay from the Supreme Court. On June 29, 2015 the court granted temporary stay by a 5-4 vote, and a stay was granted indefinitely. The Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Samuel Alito would have denied the stay. On November 13, 2015 the court officially granted a writ of certiorari to review the 5th Circuit's holding. Oral arguments were held on March 2, 2016.[9]

During the questioning phase of the oral arguments, the liberal side of the court including Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer scrutinized the true intention of the law.[10] Ginsberg in particularly undermined the sound structure of the justification for the Texas Abortion law H.B.2 that Texas women's health must be protected through rigorous health standards in abortion clinics, despite the minuscule risk of injurious complications during the procedure.[11] When Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued that women living far away from Texas abortion clinics, due to the closure of many abortion clinics struggling to keep up with the unrealistic standards, were not under an undue burden to get access to abortions because they could access the clinics in New Mexico, a state with more lenient standards, across the border, Ginsburg pointed out that “So if your argument is right,” Ginsburg continued, “then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico... and that’s perfectly all right.”[10]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ When the Fifth Circuit issued its decision, the caption of the case was Whole Woman's Health v. Cole.[6] The name of the defendants was later changed to "John Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, et al." when Hellerstedt assumed the role of Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services.[7]

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  3. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  4. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  5. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, No. 14-50928, slip. op. at 56 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
  6. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, slip. op. at 1 (5th Cir. 2015).
  7. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Docket for Case No. 14-50928.
  8. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Cole, slip. op. at 55 (5th Cir. 2015).
  9. ↑ Mark Walsh, A “view” from the Courtroom: Extra time to weigh a divisive issue, SCOTUSblog (March 2, 2016, 3:17 PM).
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.
  11. ↑ Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

Further reading

  • Lua error in package.lua at line 80: module 'strict' not found.

External links

Retrieved from "https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Whole_Woman%27s_Health_v._Hellerstedt&oldid=717775483"