Supreme Court of the U.S. Rules Against Abortion Business Regulations

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down a Texas law (H.B.2) that sought to protect women’s health by requiring abortion clinics follow minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers and that abortionists have surgical privileges at a hospital within 30 minutes of the abortion clinic. In a 5-3 decision, SCOTUS decided in Whole Woman’s Health V. Hellerstedt that the Texas law posed “[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purĀ­pose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right”. The case was filed by an abortion business operating in Texas. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Alito, with Chief Justice Roberts concurring, expressed disbelief that the five justices opposed sections of H.B. 2 that imposed reasonable safety measures on abortion sites. Justice Alito wrote, “Provisions that are indisputably constitutional–for example, provisions that require facilities performing abortions to follow basic fire safety measures–are stricken from the books. There is no possible justification for this collateral damage. The Court’s patent refusal to apply well-established law in a neutral way is indefensible and will undermine public confidence in the Court as a fair and neutral arbiter.” Justice Thomas in a separate dissent quoted the late Justice Scalia on the pro-abortion leaning of the Court, “Today the Court strikes down two state statutory proviĀ­sions in all of their applications, at the behest of abortion clinics and doctors. That decision exemplifies the Court’s troubling tendency “to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.” Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914,...