USSC: States can't de facto ban abortion with unnecessary regulation

nomix

True Viking
Joined
May 26, 2005
Messages
7,293
Location
Norway
Car(s)
Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Strange to see there was not thread about the subject, so let's:

NYT: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions


"WASHINGTON ? The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional protections for abortion rights, striking down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have drastically reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state, leaving them only in the largest metropolitan areas.

The 5-to-3 decision was the court?s most sweeping statement on abortion since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. It found that Texas? restrictions ? requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and clinics to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers ? violated Casey?s prohibition on placing an ?undue burden? on the ability to obtain an abortion.

If Casey limited the right established in Roe, allowing states to regulate abortion in ways Roe had barred, Monday?s decision effectively expanded that right. It means that similar requirements in other states are most likely also unconstitutional, and it imperils many other kinds of restrictions on abortion. It is also sure to energize anti-abortion forces and make abortion a central issue in the presidential campaign.

The decision concerned two parts of a law that imposed strict requirements on abortion providers in Texas signed into law in July 2013 by Rick Perry, the governor at the time.

One required all clinics in the state to meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other required doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

?We conclude,? Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote for the majority, ?that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.?

Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined the majority opinion. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented."


Excellent. Some common sense at last. Now it's more or less clear that you can't de facto ban a legal medical procedure by showering it in legal mumbo jumbo.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,341
Location
Michigan USA
I am impressed that this was the outcome with a court still short a member. Nice to see that common sense prevail in a climate that is still most often very partisan.
 

Firecat

Politically Charged
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
5,730
But what do we conclude about the 3 dissenters? That they actually thought this law protected women's health and was not an undue burden? Or that they are just partisan hacks and not worthy to sit on the bench and preside impartiality, unbiased, fair and well-thought out logical, rational decisions
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
20,341
Location
Michigan USA
That is why scholars read the decisions to understand what was going through the mind of the Justices.
 
Top