How the Texas abortion ruling will affect access across the US

Providers across the country have heaved a sigh of relief following the supreme court’s decision, but hundreds of restrictions are insulated from its effects

Hours after a monumental supreme court ruling declared one of the US’s harshest abortion restrictions to be unconstitutional, abortion rights activists were already jubilant over the prospect that many more restrictions could be struck down in its wake.

“Without question, today’s ruling was a game changer,” said Nancy Northup, the president of the legal group the Center for Reproductive Rights, whose attorneys argued for the clinics before the court. “This decision will be critical in the many, many legal challenges taking place around the country.”

The ruling on Monday in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt struck down a Texas law that required abortion clinics to meet expensive, hospital-like building requirements and required abortion providers to have patient-admitting privileges with local hospitals.

Anti-abortion legislators said the rules were necessary to safeguard women’s health. But they put up little hard evidence, and the law was widely viewed as a gambit to shut clinics down. On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the court ruled that two measures – and by extension, the many copycat laws in other states – were an unconstitutional burden on women’s right to access abortion.

The south and midwest will feel the impact of Monday’s rulings in short order. Alabama has bowed out of its fight to impose admitting privileges on providers, which would have closed four out of five clinics. One day after the ruling, the supreme court declined to hear the case for a similar admitting privileges law out of Wisconsin – which would have shut one of the state’s three clinics – in effect striking the measure down.

In the coming weeks and months, lower courts are likely to strike down nearly identical measures in Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, where the laws threatened to close all but one clinic, and Mississippi, where the law threatens the only clinic operating in the entire state.

Almost instantly following Monday’s ruling, providers in those states began breathing easier. “I felt like nothing was certain until it was a done deal at the court,” said Willie Parker, the chair of Physicians for Reproductive Health. Parker, who performs abortions in Mississippi – where he is the only provider – and Alabama, has struggled in both states to obtain admitting privileges. “Today, I’m extremely pleased.”

There are even a few plans to immediately restore abortion access where it was in limbo. In Columbia, Missouri, where the Planned Parenthood clinic is licensed to offer abortions but its physicians don’t have the admitting privileges required by state law, the group signalled that it was ready to mount a legal challenge. A new facility in Oklahoma – where an admitting privileges law is all but certain to be struck down – will bring the number of clinics there to three. Its physicians do not have admitting privileges.

In the wake of Monday’s decision, anti-abortion activists vowed that their efforts to pass new clinic regulations were not over.

“We don’t read today’s decision as foreclosing all clinic regulations and admitting privilege requirements,” said Clarke Forsythe, the senior legal counsel for Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group that fuels the movement with model legislation, speaking at the nonpartisan National Constitution Center on Monday night. “But it clearly puts a greater burden on the states to give the justices more evidence.”

Indeed, a key part of why the supreme court struck down HB 2 was that Texas provided scarce evidence to justify the law. “We have found nothing in Texas’s record evidence that shows that, compared to prior law … the new law advanced Texas’s legitimate interest in protecting women’s health,” read one section of the majority opinion.

One legacy of the opinion, then, could be that the anti-abortion movement strives to produce a larger body of research, said Mary Ziegler, a Florida State University legal historian who also spoke at the center, as its opponents did to illustrate the harms of HB 2. Much of the research produced by anti-abortion groups is of a scientifically dubious nature.

For now, the fight will turn to the countless laws on the books which may now be deemed unconstitutional in light of the court’s decision.

“There are literally thousands of laws regulating abortion,” said Michael Dorf, a Cornell Law School professor. “And now you have a huge category, purported health regulations, that are going to be highly vulnerable based on this decision.” Laws that regulate doctor certification and onerous record-keeping may be two examples.

“This victory gives us the opportunity to march state by state, legislature by legislature, rule by rule, bill by bill, and reclaim women’s health and rights across the country, 100%, no burdens on any woman, anywhere,” said Dawn Laguens, the executive vice-president of Planned Parenthood.

But the impact of Monday’s ruling will not be automatic or even imminent in every state that restricts abortion providers.

Emotions run high after supreme court ruling on abortion

It remains to be seen how courts will apply the decision when the laws at issue are not nearly as destructive as HB 2 to abortion access. In Florida, for example, a law will take effect this summer that requires admitting privileges or transfer agreements and could close an unknown number of the state’s clinics. Florida, though, has about 60 clinics – at its height, Texas had about 40, and HB 2 threatened to cut the number of Texas clinics by three-quarters.

And while several states have active litigation affected by the court’s ruling, many other states have had requirements like those in Texas on the books for years. All seven providers in Tennessee and the sole provider in North Dakota, for example, have managed to comply with requirements for providers to have hospital admitting privileges. Clinics in Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina and Michigan, with some exceptions, meet building requirements that are comparable to those of other major surgery centers.

Overturning these older restrictions would be more complicated, said Priscilla Smith, a professor at Yale Law School, because as long as the clinics can operate, they may not have standing to bring a lawsuit. It may take a precipitating event – a physician without admitting privileges desiring to perform abortions, or a provider trying to open a new clinic without the expensive building requirements, or even a patient challenge – for those laws to come into play.

Anti-abortion activists, though, are worried about the durability these longtime measures. Denise Burke, AUL’s vice-president of legal affairs, made it clear on Monday that the group considered much of its handiwork to be imperiled. “Twenty-nine states regulate (to widely varying degrees) abortion facilities,” and another fifteen require providers or an affiliate to have admitting privileges, she said in a statement. “As a result of today’s decision, many of these protective laws may be in jeopardy, subject to legal challenges brought by an increasingly predatory abortion industry more motivated by profit margins than by protecting the very women it claims to champion.”

Hundreds of abortion restrictions are nonetheless insulated from the court’s monumental ruling. Those laws broadly include measures that mandate certain information be provided to women – even slanted information – laws to dissuade women from abortion, and so-called fetal protective laws.

Burke noted that AUL continued to push many bills that would easily survive Monday’s ruling, such as bans on abortion after 20 weeks and laws that require minors to have permission from their parents for an abortion.

Abortion waiting periods that stretch up to 72 hours, and bans on the most common method of second-trimester abortion, are also not immediately implicated by the court’s latest decision. (Both are laws that anti-abortion groups have moved aggressively to enact in recent years.) The same is true for one of the biggest barriers to abortion access in the US: a perennial amendment in Congress that lets states ban Medicaid coverage for abortion.

And no one who celebrated Monday’s ruling is discounting the chances of an anti-abortion counter-attack.

“I full well expect that people who are convinced ideologically that they are right to restrict access to abortion, they will not stop because of this setback,” said Parker, the Mississippi abortion provider. “I think that they will find other ways to impair abortion access. In fact, I count on it.”

Contributor

Molly Redden

The GuardianTramp

Related Content

Article image
Clinton hails Texas abortion decision as 'victory for women', Trump stays silent
A woman’s control over her body will be a defining issue for female voters in November, Planned Parenthood says after landmark supreme court ruling

Lauren Gambino

27, Jun, 2016 @11:50 PM

Article image
Texas abortion providers ask supreme court to halt unprecedented abortion law
Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood turn to justices in final bid to block near-total ban

Mary Tuma

30, Aug, 2021 @8:05 PM

Article image
Biden condemns US supreme court’s ‘unprecedented assault’ on abortion rights
President denounces justices for failing to block Texas law and vows to ‘ensure woman have access to safe and legal abortions’

Lauren Aratani

02, Sep, 2021 @4:51 PM

Article image
Biden vows to protect abortion rights after ‘devastating’ Texas ruling – as it happened
President pledges federal effort to ‘ensure that women in Texas have access to safe and legal abortions’ – follow all the latest news

Dani Anguiano in Portland (now) and Joanna Walters in New York (earlier)

03, Sep, 2021 @12:17 AM

Article image
Biden ‘concerned’ over supreme court’s Texas abortion ruling, says White House – as it happened
President is ‘deeply committed’ to Roe V Wade, says Psaki, after supreme court doesn’t stop Texas law – follow all the latest

Sam Levin (now) and Gloria Oladipo (earlier)

11, Dec, 2021 @1:12 AM

Article image
Abortion access still strained even after landmark US supreme court ruling
Clinics including Whole Woman’s Health, the plaintiff in the case, face financial obstacles and infrastructure problems after years of crippling anti-abortion laws

Molly Redden

29, Jun, 2016 @10:30 AM

Article image
Texas doctor protests abortion law by admitting he carried out procedure
Alan Braid writes column for Washington Post describing the hardships and deaths he has witnessed among patients

Martin Pengelly in New York

19, Sep, 2021 @12:13 PM

Article image
Supreme court appears open to allowing challenge to Texas abortion law
Justices, in oral arguments, seem skeptical of law that gives private citizens right to sue to enforce six-week abortion ban

Jessica Glenza

01, Nov, 2021 @9:07 PM

Article image
Supreme court refuses to block Texas abortion ban but will hear challenges
Justices will hear arguments on 1 November and said they will decide whether the federal government has the right to sue

Jessica Glenza and agencies

22, Oct, 2021 @6:08 PM

Article image
Women can say no to sex if Roe falls, says architect of Texas abortion ban
Jonathan Mitchell writes in supreme court brief that ‘women can “control their reproductive lives” without access to abortion’

Stephanie Kirchgaessner and Jessica Glenza

17, Sep, 2021 @3:16 PM