Support NeoGAF

[cameron]

BBC:

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments in a controversial abortion case that may have implications for millions of women across the country.

It considered a challenge to a Texas law that imposes strict regulations on abortion doctors and clinics.

But the court's eight justices so far appear divided on the hot button issue.

It is the court's first major abortion case in decades and the first big case since its most conservative justice, Antonin Scalia, died in February.

His death leaves the court evenly split between liberals and conservatives, with all eyes on Justice Anthony Kennedy who holds a swing vote on the highly charged issue.

Wednesday's case focuses on a part of the law that has yet to go into effect requiring abortion clinics in Texas to have hospital-grade facilities - a requirement that would require costly upgrades at many providers' offices.

It also focuses on a mandate within the law already gone into effect that requires doctors to have the ability to admit patients to hospitals within 30 miles (50km) of their clinic.

Opponents to the law say it would leave just 10 abortion clinics in America's largest state, making it harder for women there to obtain the procedure. But the law's proponents argue it is necessary to protect women's health.

Justices at the court must decide whether such restrictions on clinics hampers a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.

But after 90 minutes of arguments, they failed to show a unified front on the issue. In their questions, liberal judges voiced hostility towards the law while the conservatives appeared more sympathetic.

Justice Kennedy did not give a clear indication of which way he stood, however he did suggest sending the case back to the lower court to allow more evidence to be gathered on the law's impact.

A ruling is not expected until the end of June, although experts say this is likely to end in deadlock with a 4-4 split in the case. Without a majority verdict, the Texas law would be implemented but the court will not set a nationwide legal precedent.

Los Angles Times:

Aware of the stakes, the three women on the court took a lead role and said it was obvious to them that the Texas lawmakers had singled out abortion clinics for unduly strict regulations that would hurt women rather than protect them, as state officials had claimed.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that one provision requires women to visit an outpatient surgical center even when they are simply taking a pill to induce a medical abortion. Many women would have to travel hundreds of miles to get there, Ginsburg said.

"I can't imagine what is the benefit of having a woman take those pills in an ambulatory surgical center when there is no surgery involved,'' she said. "Even if a complication arises, it will be after the woman is back home."

Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said Texas does not similarly regulate other medical procedures that are more risky, including dental surgery and colonoscopies. Doctors can perform those procedures safely in a doctor's office, not a well-equipped surgical center, they said.

Justice Stephen Breyer, the court's fourth Democratic appointee, also said he could not see a reasonable basis for upholding the restrictions.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., appointees of former President George W. Bush, led the defense of the Texas law. They questioned whether abortion-rights advocates had shown that the new regulations had indeed shut down many clinics and would leave women with limited options.

Since there would be well-equipped abortion facilities in the state's major metropolitan areas, Roberts said it was not clear the law posed a "substantial obstacle" for women who seek an abortion.

Kennedy asked one question that hinted he may lean in favor of the challengers. He said the law's restrictions have led to an increase in surgical abortions and a drop in the number of medically induced abortions. That is "not medically wise," he told Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller, a former law clerk for Kennedy.

The justices will meet Friday to vote on the Texas case. There are at least four possibilities, given the recent death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. If Kennedy votes with the four liberal justices, they could decide that the Texas law is unconstitutional.

Also this week, the justices will likely decide on whether to allow Louisiana to enforce a similar law that is expected to close all but one abortion clinic there. Abortion-rights advocates filed an emergency appeal asking the high court to put the Louisiana law on hold.

 

[Wilsongt]

Gonna be a 4-4 split...

 

[Ogodei]

The silver leaning of Scalia being gone is that 4-4's don't set precedent, so women's health would take an L on this one but someone in another state could just as easily sue and send pretty much the same case back up the pipeline.

 

[GPsych]

But...but...the supreme court appointee decision is so important that we should wait 11 months before we do anything about it.

 

[Ekdrm2d1]

Opponents to the law say it would leave just 10 abortion clinics in America's largest state, making it harder for women there to obtain the procedure. But the law's proponents argue it is necessary to protect women's health.

10 clinics in the state of Texas. It should be 10 clinics per city!

NOTE: This map has been updated to reflect clinic closures due to HB2’s restrictions. For the LIST of clinics, including ones that have been deleted off this map, see below.

Closure history:

11/1/2013 – The first round of clinic closures caused by HB2’s implementation took effect, leaving 22 clinics.
11/25/2013 – Planned Parenthood South Austin reinstated. Now, there are 23 clinics.
12/6/2013 – Whole Woman’s Health in Fort Worth reinstated. Now, there are 24 clinics.
1/13/2014 – Planned Parenthood in Fort Worth reinstated. Now, there are 25 clinics.
2/14/2014 – Houston’s A Affordable clinic has been suspended indefinitely. Now, there are 24 clinics.
February 2014 – Abortion Advantage in Dallas resumed services, and Aalto Women’s Clinic in Houston closed. Now, there are 24 clinics.
3/11/2014 – Whole Woman’s Health in Beaumont closed. Now, there are 23 clinics.
4/17/2014 – Reproductive Services in El Paso closed. Now, there are 22 clinics.
6/6/2014 – Coastal Birth Control Center in Corpus Christi closed. Now, there are 21 clinics.
7/23/14 – Whole Woman’s Health in Austin closed. Now, there are 20 clinics.
August 2014 – Planned Parenthood in Dallas opened. International Healthcare Solutions in Austin closed. Now, there are 20 clinics.
10/3/14 – All clinics except 8 closed.
10/14/14 – Supreme Court allows a hold on HB2’s surgical center requirement. Clinics reopen. Fifth Circuit final ruling expected in January 2015.
6/9/15 – Fifth Circuit upholds constitutionality of HB2 except as applied to Whole Woman’s Health McAllen. All clinics except 9 closed.
6/9/15 – Alamo Women’s Clinic in San Antonio became an ambulatory surgical center. (We learned of this on 6/12/15.) Total number of clinics left in Texas by HB2: 10.

http://fundtexaschoice.org/resources/texas-abortion-clinic-map/

 

[entremet]

Gonna be a 4-4 split...

Kennedy and Roberts can be wildcards.

 

[Team Alucard]

Gonna be a 4-4 split...

Yep. And yet people think Obama should cave to the GOP and nominate a Kennedy-type justice to the court.

 

[kirblar]

Yep. And yet people think Obama should cave to the GOP and nominate a Kennedy-type justice to the court.

The (deliberately leaked) GOP name was pro-choice.

 

[HK-47]

But...but...the supreme court appointee decision is so important that we should wait 11 months before we do anything about it.

Thats precisely why they want to wait 11 months. Anyone Obama would realistically nom would swing this.

 

[LiquidSword]

Really disappointed if this is a 4-4 split. Like these regulations are such a transparent attempt to close abortion clinics. Do the conservative judges oppose abortion so much that they will gladly ignore the facts and just vote pro life? On the radio they were interviewing a Texas lawmaker and asked him what he would say to a women who has to make a 200 mile round trip to go to a clinic and he said that maybe women should be more preventative. Scumbag

 

[Team Alucard]

The (deliberately leaked) GOP name was pro-choice.

I know. But I have seen numerous users on GAF saying they would be fine with a justice similar to Kennedy replacing Scalia.

Anthony Kennedy is not a moderate. He is a conservative who has a heart when it comes to gay people. Obergefell does not erase decades of damaging decisions he has been a part of.

I would much rather take my chances with the election in order to see Hillary appoint a liberal or at least a center-left justice that would actually flip the balance of the court than have Obama compromise and appoint a conservative to appease the GOP senate.

 

[Matt_]

Lets hope kennedy pulls through

 

[SlimySnake]

Gonna be a 4-4 split...

I thought Kennedy always voted for women's right or was it gay rights?

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Really worried about this decision. TX's new abortion laws are horseshit designed only to limit options for women in need.

 

[massoluk]

But it sounds like there may be hope for Kennedy yet

 

[silvermember]

Kennedy and Roberts can be wildcards.

Kennedy maybe. Roberts is a tool and just like being part of history, sometimes.

 

[Anoregon]

Really worried about this decision. TX's new abortion laws are horseshit designed only to limit options for women in need.

It's infuriating how utterly transparent it is, yet they are able to continue to hide behind the bullshit of "protecting women's health"

They want it to be so hard to get abortions that people are unable to do so, plain and simple. Any other argument is disingenuous.

 

[cameron]

More info about the Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt case via The Guardian:

The case centers on an expansive anti-abortion law passed in Texas in 2013, which has already shuttered more than half the state’s 41 abortion clinics since taking effect. If the abortion providers who are challenging the law do not prevail, it could ultimately shut down all but nine or 10.

In Texas alone, there are 5.4 million women of reproductive age. With only a handful of clinics left, researchers have estimated that nearly 2 million women would live more than 50 miles from the nearest abortion clinic. Three-quarters of a million women would live more than 200 miles away. And because wait times for an abortion would skyrocket, the number of second-trimester procedures, which are more expensive, invasive and time-intensive, could double.

The plaintiffs are challenging two pieces of the law that subject abortion providers to onerous procedural standards most of them cannot meet. Such laws are often justified by legislators as an attempt to protect women’s health, even though abortion is exceedingly safe in the US.

The stakes in this case are especially high because the supreme court has never explicitly spelled out how far states can go in restricting abortion ostensibly to protect women’s health.

One part of Texas’s abortion law up for review is a requirement that all doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic. Under this law, abortion providers must gain status akin to hospital staff and be able to bring patients to the hospital for treatment in an emergency.

Texas legislators have called this a “common sense” measure that protects women’s health. But mainstream medical groups have uniformly said that admitting privileges are unnecessary. In the rare circumstances that complications do arise from abortion procedures, doctors can – and already do – send patients to hospital emergency rooms, which are required to treat all patients whether admitted by a doctor or not.

While experts say the law does nothing to make abortion safer than it already is, it has been effective at closing clinics. When Texas’s admitting privileges requirement went into effect in November 2013, nearly half of the state’s 41 clinics closed almost overnight.

Abortion providers have struggled to gain admitting privileges because hospitals aren’t required to grant them. Especially in conservative and rural areas, many hospitals fear political fallout from giving official status to an abortion provider. Religiously-affiliated hospitals – especially Catholic ones, which represent 12.4% of all hospitals across the country – are also unlikely to grant privileges.

Some hospitals also require doctors with privileges to admit a certain number of patients per year, but because abortion has a low complication rate, abortion providers struggle to meet this quota. Abortion doctors who travel to provide care often aren’t eligible to admit patients at all.

Admitting privilege requirements have already shut down abortion providers in several states in the US south and midwest, and they threaten to close the last clinic in Mississippi. Louisiana is facing closure of three of the state’s four clinics after its own version of the law was allowed to take effect by a lower court last week.

A second requirement in Texas’s omnibus abortion law mandates all abortions clinics meet the same building standards as ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs), mini-hospitals that handle higher-risk outpatient surgical procedures.

Abortion providers and pro-choice supporters argue the requirement is medically unnecessary, financially burdensome and serves little purpose other shutting down more clinics.

“There is no medically sound reason to assume that abortions performed in a hospital or ASC setting are safer than those performed in a clinic or office,” the American Medical Association wrote in a joint supreme court brief with five other medical groups.

Upgrading existing facilities to surgical center standards is prohibitively expensive for many providers, requiring major construction, from wider hallways (able to fit two gurneys, side by side) to hospital-grade ventilation systems and more.

After a series of opposing rulings from lower courts, Texas’s ASC requirement was put on hold by the supreme court pending a full hearing. But at least six other states have a similar, highly burdensome law on the books, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that studies reproductive rights.

Report last week by Bloomberg Business: "Abortion Clinics Are Closing at a Record Pace - At least 162 providers have closed since 2011."

Abortion access in the U.S. has been vanishing at the fastest annual pace on record, propelled by Republican state lawmakers’ push to legislate the industry out of existence. Since 2011, at least 162 abortion providers have shut or stopped offering the procedure, while just 21 opened.

At no time since before 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion, has a woman’s ability to terminate a pregnancy been more dependent on her zip code or financial resources to travel. The drop-off in providers—more than one every two weeks—occurred in 35 states, in both small towns and big cities that are home to more than 30 million women of reproductive age.

Bloomberg’s reporting shows that the downward trend has accelerated to the fastest annual pace on record since 2011, with 31 having closed or stopped performing the procedure each year on average.

State regulations that make it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove more than a quarter of the closings. Industry consolidation, changing demographics, and declining demand were also behind the drop, along with doctor retirements and crackdowns on unfit providers.

Texas stands as a case study in the way abortion opponents have changed strategies, opting for legislative action over the clinic blockades and violence of the past.

 

[Valkyr Junkie]

This was a sick burn

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

 

[Pai Pai Master]

This was a sick burn

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

Ginsburg is the best

 

[Wilsongt]

This was a sick burn

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

Doing the work of sane people everywhere. Too bad it won't amount to much.

 

[Fuchsdh]

I know. But I have seen numerous users on GAF saying they would be fine with a justice similar to Kennedy replacing Scalia.

Anthony Kennedy is not a moderate. He is a conservative who has a heart when it comes to gay people. Obergefell does not erase decades of damaging decisions he has been a part of.

I would much rather take my chances with the election in order to see Hillary appoint a liberal or at least a center-left justice that would actually flip the balance of the court than have Obama compromise and appoint a conservative to appease the GOP senate.

If you have two Kennedy moderates on the Court that's still a 3v4 with two swing votes instead of one. Not the greatest but an improvement on our previous status quo.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Disgraceful this is even up for debate.

 

[GPsych]

Thats precisely why they want to wait 11 months. Anyone Obama would realistically nom would swing this.

But in the meantime the Supreme Court can't really do the work that it's supposed to do when faced with difficult cases such as this.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Abortion Laws (HBO)

Very important video to watch about this. I can't believe 19 percent of Americans believe that abortion is still wrong in the case of rape or danger to the mother's life. Everyone else, a whopping 81 percent, please watch this video.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Sounds like Kennedy is leaning towards common sense.

 

[Anoregon]

Doing the work of sane people everywhere. Too bad it won't amount to much.

Exactly. Like, Ginsburg's point is totally iron-clad. It irrefutably shows that the Texas law is bullshit. But because conservatives gonna conservative it doesn't matter. Abortion is bad so any chance to make it less viable/available takes precedent over actually caring about things like reason or legal legitimacy.

 

[jet1911]

Disgraceful this is even up for debate.

But it's good for the health of women.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Curious as to whether they will strike down the law following the "undue burden" standard of Casey or set a new standard/precedent altogether.

 

[Anoregon]

Curious as to whether they will strike down the law following the "undue burden" standard of Casey or set a new standard/precedent altogether.

Upholding it would be a pretty catastrophic precedent. It would basically mean that any state can have unreasonable restrictions on abortion providers given that a neighboring state doesn't. Nevermind that making a teenage girl who can't even drive yet travel hundreds of miles multiples times is the fucking definition of "undue burden."

 

[Deleted member 80556]

Question, if Kennedy votes in favor of women, would this lead to the 4-4 split?

 

[Anoregon]

Question, if Kennedy votes in favor of women, would this lead to the 4-4 split?

No, Kennedy doing the right thing would be a 5-3 vote for great justice.

4-4 would be if he decides to be a bastard.

 

[Team Alucard]

Question, if Kennedy votes in favor of women, would this lead to the 4-4 split?

No, if Kennedy sides with the liberals it will be 5-3 decision striking down the law.

 

[Deleted member 80556]

No, Kennedy doing the right thing would be a 5-3 vote for great justice.

4-4 would be if he decides to be a bastard.

No, if Kennedy sides with the liberals it will be 5-3 decision striking down the law.

Very good. Hopefully you guys are right and he is actually steering more towards the right answer.

 

[foxtrot3d]

Upholding it would be a pretty catastrophic precedent. It would basically mean that any state can have unreasonable restrictions on abortion providers given that a neighboring state doesn't. Nevermind that making a teenage girl who can't even drive yet travel hundreds of miles multiples times is the fucking definition of "undue burden."

All the same, this will be a very interesting case. Casey does appear to grant great deference to the state when it comes to the purpose of any abortion law they pass for safety reasons, the "undue burden" standard seems more concerned with the effect and not the state's reason for a law. If the Court finds that a woman's access to abortion is not unduly burdened by the State's new law then they might just uphold it. However, they could go a step further and actually analyze the purpose of the State's law, actually questioning whether it does protect a woman's health or is simply an abortion restriction in disguise.

Like I said this will be very interesting and could add a fundamentally new element to abortion law as we know it.

 

[KarmaCow]

This was a sick burn

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

Wow, that's a pretty concise dismantling of the supposed concern for women's health that this law is meant to be based in.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

But it's good for the health of women.

It's still disgraceful this is even happening, that a state is legislating against women having access to abortion/sexual health clinics and that this needs to be debated before it's hopefully struck down.

It's just...ugh.

 

[LProtag]

It's so odd how so much has rested in the hands of Kennedy for so long.

 

[studyguy]

This was a sick burn

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat..._important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html

“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,” to clinics with more lenient standards, “and that’s perfectly all right.”

“Well,” Ginsburg concluded, with just a hint of pique in her voice, “If that’s all right for the women in the El Paso area, why isn’t it right for the rest of the women in Texas?”

NOTORIOUS RBG

 

[WedgeX]

It was crazy in front of the Supreme Court today.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Really disappointed if this is a 4-4 split. Like these regulations are such a transparent attempt to close abortion clinics. Do the conservative judges oppose abortion so much that they will gladly ignore the facts and just vote pro life? On the radio they were interviewing a Texas lawmaker and asked him what he would say to a women who has to make a 200 mile round trip to go to a clinic and he said that maybe women should be more preventative. Scumbag

Yes

 

[adj_noun]

But the law's proponents argue it is necessary to protect women's health.

After which flocks of birds appeared to land on their long, long noses.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes

It's such fucking garbage.

The argument for these restrictions is that it is needed to protect women's health, but the actual reason is to close clinics to limit abortions. It's so transparent and the conservative justices are anti American irrational theocrats

I mean. Let's at least have an honest debate. Say abortion is wrong, not all this crap about women's health.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Kennedy will rule against this bs, I have faith in him.

 

[ScottSullivan]

Americas largest state my ass! Alaska is 3x the size of texas! #FuckYouTexas

 

[Drek]

Question, if Kennedy votes in favor of women, would this lead to the 4-4 split?

No, Kennedy would have to side with the state. The division is basically this.
Left leaning:
RBG
Sotomayor
Beyer
Kagan

Right leaning:
Roberts
Kennedy
Alito
Thomas

The political lean is already 4-4. On this issue I'm willing to bet that we'll see both Kennedy and Roberts side with the left leaning group. Kennedy because he is, as others have said, a conservative with a heart. Roberts because his biggest concern at this point is avoiding a 4-4 split on major issues and letting the court viewed as even more divided entirely on party lines. He did similar with the ACA, tough questions but in the end sided with the left leaning justices.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If Kennedy and the other 3 conservatives agree to send it back to the courts, but the 4 liberals don't agree what happens?

I'm guessing it just goes into effect since that was the lower court ruling....

Hmm wonder if the conservative judges agree to send it back rather than vote to affirm with the idea of convincing Kennedy not to swing and then one or all of the liberal judges join in to prevent it from fully going in to place?

Is that a possible outcome?

 

[Commanche Raisin Toast]

"I can't imagine what is the benefit of having a woman take those pills in an ambulatory surgical center when there is no surgery involved,'' she said. "Even if a complication arises, it will be after the woman is back home."

Justices Sotomayor and Elena Kagan said Texas does not similarly regulate other medical procedures that are more risky, including dental surgery and colonoscopies. Doctors can perform those procedures safely in a doctor's office, not a well-equipped surgical center, they said.

This, ladies and gents, is what we call the smoking gun.

This is the first time I've been aware that they're requiring this for pill-based abortion, and also that they don't require those same "standards" for other operations.

I think if they can prove that Texas intentionally singled out abortion providers to essentially put the squeeze on them, then there's no way Kennedy can honestly rule against.

That means he'll just say he thinks it should be sent back, which is cowardly, but still. This is becoming more and more clear cut the more I read about it. Thank you for posting.

 

[Marvie_3]

Kennedy will rule against this bs, I have faith in him.

I hope so. Ita such a bullshit law.

 

[old]

A ruling is not expected until the end of June, although experts say this is likely to end in deadlock with a 4-4 split in the case. Without a majority verdict, the Texas law would be implemented but the court will not set a nationwide legal precedent.

Nice of them to bury that key little paragraph all the the way at the end of the story. I don't think they even named the case anywhere in the story. I was looking for it so I could google the case and see the lower court ruling to see what would be upheld in a tie.

For those of us who know the rules and know ties uphold the lower court ruling, one of the most important pieces of any Supreme Court story is what the lower court ruled. It should be one of the first and most prominent facts in the story. Not buried at the end.