By a vote of 5-3, the U.S. Supreme Court today struck provisions of HB2, a Texas law requiring abortion clinics to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case of medical emergencies (with certain exceptions.) The Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals previously rejected facial attacks on both provisions.
“How shabby are these abortion clinics that they cannot meet the minimum standards other outpatient surgical centers are required to meet, and just how bad are these abortionists that they can’t get admitting privileges at a local hospital?,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life. “As we saw with Kermit Gosnell in Philadelphia, it’s clear that the lucrative abortion industry is not able or willing to police itself and allows filthy, deplorable conditions to go unchecked.”
The provisions struck by the Court today were part of a broader pro-life omnibus package passed by the Texas legislature in 2013. Texas HB2 also included National Right to Life model language to protect unborn children who are capable of experiencing great pain when being killed by dismemberment or other late abortion methods. An unborn child is capable of feeling pain by 20 weeks after fertilization and earlier. That provision of the law was unchallenged in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
“In the years following Roe v. Wade, the Court exhibited extreme hostility to regulation of abortion as a medical procedure,” said Tobias. “However, in its 1992 Casey decision, the Court turned a corner, rejecting the idea of it being ‘the country’s ex officio medical board’. Today, they reversed course and decided that they know better than representatives duly elected by the people of the United States.”
National Right to Life’s Brief of Amicus Curiae in the case is available here.
National Right to Life (NRL) has long been at the forefront of advocating for the protection of unborn life in the United States. With its unwavering commitment to defending the rights of the unborn, NRL plays a pivotal role in shaping the discourse surrounding abortion laws and regulations. One of the most significant recent developments in this arena is the Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that has far-reaching implications for abortion rights and access across the country.
In June 2016, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a landmark case concerning the constitutionality of a Texas law known as HB2. This law imposed stringent regulations on abortion providers, requiring them to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and to meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers. Proponents of HB2 argued that these regulations were necessary to protect the health and safety of women seeking abortion services. However, opponents, including Whole Woman’s Health, contended that the regulations placed an undue burden on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to abortion.
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of HB2 placed an undue burden on women seeking abortion services without providing any significant health benefits. Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer emphasized that the regulations imposed by HB2 did little to advance the state’s interest in protecting women’s health while imposing substantial obstacles to accessing abortion services. The Court’s decision was hailed as a victory by reproductive rights advocates, who argued that it would help safeguard access to abortion services for women across the country.
However, for NRL and other pro-life organizations, the decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was met with disappointment and concern. NRL had supported the implementation of HB2 as part of its broader efforts to promote policies that protect the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. The Court’s decision was seen as a setback in the ongoing struggle to enact meaningful restrictions on abortion and to ensure that unborn children are afforded legal protection.
In responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, NRL reaffirmed its commitment to advocating for policies that respect the dignity and value of every human life. While acknowledging the challenges posed by the Court’s ruling, NRL vowed to continue working tirelessly to promote a culture of life and to enact laws that protect both mothers and their unborn children. NRL remains steadfast in its belief that every human life is precious and deserving of protection under the law.
Looking ahead, NRL will continue to monitor developments in the legal and political landscape surrounding abortion rights in the United States. With the composition of the Supreme Court likely to evolve in the coming years, NRL recognizes the importance of engaging in advocacy efforts aimed at shaping the future direction of abortion jurisprudence. Through grassroots mobilization, legislative initiatives, and public education campaigns, NRL will continue to be a leading voice in the fight to defend the rights of the unborn and to promote a culture that cherishes and respects all human life.
Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.
Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.
