What does today’s Supreme Court ruling on abortion mean to me?

Today, in a 5-3 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state from 40 to about 10. This law had two parts: one part required all clinics in the state to “meet the standards for ambulatory surgical centers, including regulations concerning buildings, equipment and staffing. The other requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital,” as reported by The New York Times.

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion and said, “[we conclude 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.”

By requiring doctors to have admitting privileges to local hospitals, government officials are making the pool of doctors who can legally perform abortions quite small. In practice, these requirements have turned out to be prohibitive for smaller abortion clinics in Texas, forcing many to close since parts of HB 2 went into effect. “Were it not for legal action challenging the two provisions and court intervention along the way, only women living in large metropolitan areas of Texas would have access to safe, legal abortions,” said The Huffington Post.

If the law had been passed, clinics would be clustered in the major cities of Texas—Austin, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston. Women in western Texas might have to travel to New Mexico to have abortions.

There was significant pushback when the bill proposing abortion-clinic closures was brought to the forefront. Women felt their access to safe and legal abortions was being regulated by the government, and, in effect, women had fewer options and felt less safe and protected.

This case — Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt — marks a significant victory for abortion-rights activists. If passed, this law would have violated the ruling of the Planned Parenthood vs. Casey case of 1992, which ruled that “states may not place undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion before fetal viability. Undue burdens, it said, included “unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.” In this way, this case reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling of 1973.

Possibly one of the biggest cases on abortion the Supreme Court has ruled on the past twenty-years, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, allows women in Texas to have access to safe and legal abortions. By voting against “clinic shutdowns,” Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, and Stephen Breyer ruled to keep abortion clinic regulations .

As The Huffington Post reported earlier, “the ruling in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt represents the most significant victory for abortion rights at the high court since the turn of the century, as states have scrambled to pass and defend similar laws across the country, seeking to chip away at the landmark Roe v. Wade.” So, while this is a victory for Texas, it is also a victory for all people who believe in and fight for abortion rights for women.

Undoubtedly, this ruling will greatly impact the presidential election, where the fate of the Supreme Court is one of the most intensely debated topics. Hillary Clinton immediately praised the Supreme Court’s ruling, tweeting, “SCOTUS’s decision is a victory for women in Texas and across America. Safe abortion should be a right—not just on paper, but in reality. –H”

What does this mean for me?

As a young woman growing up in New York City in 2016, I am, quite frankly, saddened and frustrated that abortion rights and regulations are still questioned and fought against. Living in a progressive city, having been raised by liberal parents, and identifying myself as pro-choice, I am a proponent of women’s rights. I believe women have the right to safe and legal abortions, and by trying to shutdown clinics and regulate access, legislators are putting women at risk.

When I hear that legislators and activists are adamantly fighting against these civil liberties, I am angry. However, I am not naïve: I understand that not everyone will agree with my stance on abortion. People will continue to work in order to close clinics, make abortion illegal, and protest pro-choice viewpoints.

I find my beliefs and opinions aligning most closely with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg who, after the ruling, said, “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”