FuzzyLumpkins
03-02-2016, 06:49 PM
A Texas law strictly regulating abortion clinics appears to be in danger of being struck down, judging by exchanges Wednesday during oral arguments at the Supreme Court.
Justice Anthony Kennedy — the likely swing vote in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion case to reach the court in a generation — questioned whether the burdens imposed by the law might be unconstitutional because they outweigh medical benefits. The state law makes abortion clinics meet surgical center requirements and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospitals.
The case addresses how far states can go in regulating abortion — and it comes after several years of heightened state restrictions. It unfolds in the middle of a volatile presidential campaign where abortion rights and Planned Parenthood funding have emerged as central issues.
In the oral arguments that lasted more than the scheduled hour, a lawyer representing Texas said the state had wide latitude to impose regulations aimed at protecting women's health, but Kennedy appeared to argue that the purported benefits had to be assessed by the courts.
"Doesn't that show the undue burden test is weighed against what the state's interest is?" asked Kennedy, who was one of the authors of a landmark 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs Casey that said states could not impose an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
Texas officials have said these rules were enacted specifically to protect women's health. Many leading medical organizations including the main national obstetrics and gynecology groups say they are not medically necessary.
But Kennedy's stance was far from clear based on his questions. At one point he raised the prospect of sending the case back to a lower court for more evidence of the link between the law and clinic closures across Texas.
“Would it be A) appropriate and B) helpful for this court to remand [the case] for further findings on clinic capacity?" Kennedy asked.
Returning the case to a lower court could allow both sides to submit more evidence about the law’s impact. But it seems unlikely the liberal justices would allow that without keeping in place a temporary stay that has blocked some of the law from taking effect.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also wanted to see evidence on whether the law had actually limited women's access to abortion. They said the record did not establish that any clinic closures were directly related to the new law, and if so which parts of the legislation were responsible. They also appeared to find a lack of evidence that clinics remaining open couldn’t take up the slack.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/abortion-supreme-court-deadlock-220070#ixzz41nCJXRU4
Justice Anthony Kennedy — the likely swing vote in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the most significant abortion case to reach the court in a generation — questioned whether the burdens imposed by the law might be unconstitutional because they outweigh medical benefits. The state law makes abortion clinics meet surgical center requirements and requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospitals.
The case addresses how far states can go in regulating abortion — and it comes after several years of heightened state restrictions. It unfolds in the middle of a volatile presidential campaign where abortion rights and Planned Parenthood funding have emerged as central issues.
In the oral arguments that lasted more than the scheduled hour, a lawyer representing Texas said the state had wide latitude to impose regulations aimed at protecting women's health, but Kennedy appeared to argue that the purported benefits had to be assessed by the courts.
"Doesn't that show the undue burden test is weighed against what the state's interest is?" asked Kennedy, who was one of the authors of a landmark 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood vs Casey that said states could not impose an "undue burden" on a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.
Texas officials have said these rules were enacted specifically to protect women's health. Many leading medical organizations including the main national obstetrics and gynecology groups say they are not medically necessary.
But Kennedy's stance was far from clear based on his questions. At one point he raised the prospect of sending the case back to a lower court for more evidence of the link between the law and clinic closures across Texas.
“Would it be A) appropriate and B) helpful for this court to remand [the case] for further findings on clinic capacity?" Kennedy asked.
Returning the case to a lower court could allow both sides to submit more evidence about the law’s impact. But it seems unlikely the liberal justices would allow that without keeping in place a temporary stay that has blocked some of the law from taking effect.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also wanted to see evidence on whether the law had actually limited women's access to abortion. They said the record did not establish that any clinic closures were directly related to the new law, and if so which parts of the legislation were responsible. They also appeared to find a lack of evidence that clinics remaining open couldn’t take up the slack.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/abortion-supreme-court-deadlock-220070#ixzz41nCJXRU4