Texas shot down by the Supreme Court

Abortion has always been a highly sensitive and controversial topic. Since Roe v. Wade occurred and women were given the constitutional right to decide whether or not to terminate their pregnancy, conservative pro-life supporters and liberal pro-choice supporters have remained divided on the subject. However, as the matter currently stands, the law says that women have a constitutional right to privacy, and therefore, laws cannot be made that inhibit these right and prevent women from seeking abortion for whatever the reason may be.

Recently Texas attempted to pass laws they claimed would help to protect the health and safety of women, while in actuality, the laws were meant to restrict access to abortion, resulting in the number of clinics offering safe, legal abortion procedures dropping from over 41 to only 19. This significantly limits access to abortion for women because fewer clinics means fewer doctors, increased crowding, and increased distance that most patients live from the clinic. The laws required that clinics performing abortions must have admitting privileges to hospitals no more than 30 miles away, and to also meet minimum requirements for ambulatory surgical centers under Texas law. With over 25 million people in Texas, roughly 50% being women; having only 19 abortion clinics throughout the state makes it significantly difficult to access abortion services.

Under the 14th amendment, states are forbidden to restrict a citizen’s basic rights. In the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood  of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, it was ruled that state laws restricting legal abortion violated these constitutional rights. The Supreme Court ruled that the laws passed by Texas had the same effect. The laws were detrimental to safe, legal abortion access. Prior to the laws being passed, abortion clinics had records of safe procedures with few complications. Therefore, the laws were simply a way to create hoops for women to jump through in the event they sought termination of pregnancy.

I interviewed some people to see what they had to say about the Supreme Court ruling:

Michele Pothen, Junior

“Personally, I think this decision is a huge step forward ever since Roe V. Wade because it allows for the legality of abortion and a woman’s right to choose to actually be practiced. SCOTUS finally took a stand against states finding ways to limit that choice and gave women their bodies back. I think RBG captures the arguments so well in her opinion and addresses that the lack of an option of a safe abortion could force women to turn to unsafe means, which directly contradicts the supposed purpose of H.B. 2. She also mentions how there are so many more procedures that occur multiple times daily that are more dangerous than abortions, and yet don’t have the same restriction H.B. 2 tried to impose.”

Travis Cabbell, Junior

“So far it seems that this court ruling is like the Roe v. Wade of a new generation. The argument mainly relied on the undue burden standard previously established in another Supreme Court case. It makes me think of the argument about how men in power continue to make decisions for women when they’ll never understand what it is like to carry a child. Women have the power and the right to decide to keep a baby regardless of what the man wants, so why has society continually allowed men to have a say?”

Kayleigh Yerdon, Junior

“It seems like the standards they were trying to pass for the clinics were good in theory and would be nice to implement in all future clinics but pretext to try and close down existing clinics at the moment.”