It's finally official: limiting abortion in the guise of helping women is a sham
It's finally official: limiting abortion in the guise of helping women is a sham
The supreme court ruled Monday against abortion restrictions that effectively prevent women from being able to secure the procedure
?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=ece6fb96f2883d5d90d01b5b120785f9
Plaintiff celebrates outside the Supreme Court in WashingtonLead plaintiff Amy Hagstrom-Miller, (L), president and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health and Nancy Northup, president and chief executive of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wave in celebration to supporters as they walk down the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court after the court handed a victory to abortion rights advocates, striking down a Texas law imposing strict regulations on abortion doctors and facilities in Washington June 27, 2016. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
In a major victory for American women, the US supreme court sent a powerful message on Monday in its Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt decision: that laws purporting to protect women’s health while limiting access to abortion are an unconstitutional sham. In a 5-3 decision, the court struck down a Texas law, called House Bill 2, responsible for shuttering more than half of the state’s clinics. The restrictions mandated that clinics become ambulatory surgical centers, adhering to wholly unnecessary hospital-like standards, and that doctors have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital even though hospitalization is almost never necessary after ending a pregnancy. The goal wasn’t to make abortion safer, of course, just impossible to obtain.
Ending a pregnancy is such a safe procedure that doctors would never be able to admit enough patients to a hospital in order to keep admitting privileges, and because abortions are so safe and common, maintaining the standards for a surgical center simply drained clinics of their resources. And anti-choice legislators know as much.
The court’s decision made clear the justices were not fooled, noting in the majority decision that “when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case”.
And in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s concurring opinion, she wrote it was “beyond rational belief that HB 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law ‘would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.’”
. . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/supreme-court-abortion-decision-help-womens-rights
= new reply since forum marked as read
