Supreme Court Gives Pro-Choice Movement Victory In Texas Abortion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas abortion law Monday that would have shut down 75 percent of clinics across the state, a major win for pro-choice advocates in the fight for abortion access.

The eight-justice court voted 5-3 to invalidate the state's 2013 law that mandated clinics providing abortion services meet the same standards as surgical centers, some of the strictest requirements for care in the United States.

Writing for the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer said that the provisions in the Texas law "vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women’s health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny."

Proponents of abortion access, including Hillary Clinton, hailed the decision:

President Obama praised the ruling.

"These restrictions harm women's health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman's reproductive freedom," Obama said in the statement. "We remain strongly committed to the protection of women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future. Women’s opportunities are expanded and our nation is stronger when all of our citizens have accessible, affordable health care."

Pro-choice groups across the country also celebrated the decision. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which helped finance the court case, described the high court's ruling as a "game changer in in what has been an unrelenting assault on women's rights."

"This tremendous victory renews the promise of Roe v Wade for the next generation. We will not stop fighting until access is restored for all women in the US," Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, wrote.

Texas Democrats also praised the ruling with state Sen. Kirk Watson (D-Austin) characterized the ruling as a tremendous victory for women.

"For too long, the women of this state have been collateral damage in a political battle," Watson wrote. "I'm hopeful we can now get to work on policies that truly do protect women's health, such as improved access to birth control and breast and cervical cancer screenings as well as medically accurate sex education."

At issue was whether the restrictions put an 'undue burden' on a woman's constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy before the fetus attains viability.

Opponents of the law said women in Texas already have a tough time getting abortions because the number of clinics has been drastically reduced. Should the law have been upheld, they argued, Texas would have been left with only nine functioning abortion clinics for a state with 13.5 million women and girls.

Texas argued that it was bolstering safety at these clinics. Justice Clarence Thomas argued in his dissent that the same scrutiny was not applied when the court upheld the University of Texas's race-conscious admissions policy just last week.

"Yet the same State gets no deference under the undue-burden test, despite producing evidence that abortion safety, one rationale for Texas’ law, is medically debated," Thomas wrote.

But Breyer said the court found no such evidence.

"We add 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," he wrote.

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick in a statement called the decision "a devastating blow to the protection of the health and safety of women in Texas."

"Now abortion clinics are free to ignore these basic safety standards and continue practicing under substandard conditions," he continued. "By its ruling, the Court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open – even under substandard conditions –outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first."

Patrick's interpretation of the law was a talking point among pro-life politicians in the months after the law's passage. In July 2015, state Rep. Molly White (R-Belton) told a Central Texas Tea Party group that Texas is "now the safest state in the country to get an abortion."

Want more Houston news? Click here for our free daily newsletter and breaking news alerts.

Want more information on the Supreme Court? Click Here

Texas Governor Greg Abbott also issued a statement bemoaning the Supreme Court decision.

“The decision erodes States’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women and subjects more innocent life to being lost," Abbott wrote. "Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women."

In the aftermath of the passage of the law, pro-life politicians across Texas rarely talked about the barriers to family planning services the law created.

An October 2015 study conducted by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project found that clinic wait times in Dallas increased from an average of five days before the passage of the bill to an average of 20 days after its passage.

A follow-up study found that at least 100,000 Texas women of reproductive age have attempted to terminate a pregnancy without medical assistance.

Since no study on the rate of self-induced pregnancy termination was conducted prior to the passage of the law, it is impossible to definitively state whether the rate of home abortions increased after the law went into effect.

The law, known as House Bill 2, was considered an omnibus anti-abortion bill that took various pro-life proposals introduced in the 2013 legislative session and wrapped them up in one package.

Among the provisions included the bill were prohibitions on abortions 20 weeks after conception and increased restrictions on the availability of a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol, the so-called abortion pill. Those regulations were not challenged in the suit.

The two sections of the bill that were challenged were also the two sections that drew the most controversy. One required that any doctor providing abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where he or she practices.

Additionally, any clinic that offered abortion services must have met the same building standards as an ambulatory surgical center, such as having hallways and elevators wide enough to accommodate a full-size gurney.

When adopted, the new requirements put a particular hardship on abortion providers in rural areas of Texas. Of the state's 254 counties, 63 do not have a hospital, and 27 do not have a primary care physician. There are 16 counties with only one physician for the entire population.

Opponents of the law, such as the Center for Reproductive Rights, claimed that HB 2 unfairly singled out women's health care providers.

They pointed out that clinics and doctors performing other, medically comparable, procedures do not have to abide by the same requirements.

Additionally, prior to the passage of HB 2, more than 40 facilities across Texas provided abortions. After the law went into effect in September 2015, the number dropped to 19. The law received national attention when then-state Sen. Wendy Davis filibustered to prevent its passage.