Last week, in the case of Whole Womenâ??s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the question of whether Texasâ?? statute raising safety standards at abortion clinics, and requiring abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges, is justified on the grounds of protecting the health of women. As with all matters where abortion law is concerned, logic and calm reflection are not the first responses on the scene; every lawsuit concerning abortion surfaces the entire, noisy and persistent abortion debate as it is lived in the United States.
The Plaintiffs in the caseâ??a collection of abortion clinics and doctors â??claim that the statutes violate the current constitutional standards for evaluating abortion regulations, i.e. that they place an â??undue burdenâ? or â??substantial obstacleâ? in the path of a womanâ??s choice to obtain an abortion. They suggest that many or perhaps all Texas abortion clinics could fail to meet the new statutory standards such that pregnant Texas women would be dramatically underserved, consigned to drive long distances, or forced to postpone an abortion until a later week of pregnancy when abortion poses greater dangers to the mother. They further assert that the laws were born of animosity toward abortion and towards women exercising the choice to abort.
Read Full Article »