The US Supreme Court
this week ruled unconstitutional a 2013 Texas law requiring hospital-grade
facilities in abortion clinics and hospital admitting privileges for their
physicians within 30 miles of the clinic citing “an undue burden on women abortion
access” guaranteed under the constitution. In his comment, Justice Stephen Breyer noted that
the law did not offer evidence that it protected women’s health or led to
better treatment. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg opined that it was “beyond rational belief“ that these provisions were
designed to protect women’s health, let alone withstand careful judicial
scrutiny under Roe v. Wade. The Court also rejected appeals from Wisconsin
and Mississippi that sought to overturn lower court rulings blocking
restrictions on doctors who perform abortions.
In an attempt to restrict abortions, a
number of states have instituted measures such as banning certain types of
procedures, prohibiting abortions after a certain number of weeks of gestation,
requiring parental consent or notification for minors seeking abortions, and
enforcing waiting periods, mandatory counseling, transvaginal ultrasounds, and listening to the fetus's heartbeat. Whether the Court’s most recent ruling will encourage
pro-choice activists to challenge these and other restrictive state laws or motivate
the pro-life community to develop new strategies to limit abortions remains to
be seen. But, if history is any guide,
both sides in this controversial issue will likely continue to battle it out.
Photo credit:
KEVIN
LAMARQUE / Reuters
Judith Wolf, MD
Associate Director, WHEP
