State's abortion law gets review
U.S. Supreme Court accepts appeal by doctors, abortion clinics.
Setting the stage for its most significant decision on abortion rights since the 1990s, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Friday that it will review Texas regulations that are expected to leave 10 clinics open, down from more than 40 that were operating 2½ years ago.
Amid increasing pressure to regulate abortion clinics in Texas and other states, the case could set new standards on the thorny question of how much regulation is too much when it comes to laws that could limit access to abortion.
Abortion providers are seeking to overturn two provisions in the Texas law known as House Bill 2 — passed during the second of two tense special legislative sessions in 2013 — arguing that the rules were intended to close clinics in an unconstitutional attempt to limit women’s access to abortion.
State officials, led by Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, argued that the regulations were meant to protect women’s health by requiring all abortions to be performed in accredited surgical centers and all abortion doctors to gain admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
The Supreme Court accepted the appeal by abortion clinics and doctors without comment.
Oral arguments have yet to be scheduled, and a deci-
sion is expected before the court’s current term ends, typically in late June — about when the presidential election will begin heating up.
Had the court declined the case, Texas could have begun enforcing the surgical center rule — currently on hold while appeals continue — leading to the closure of 10 licensed clinics that don’t meet regulations that call for fully equipped operating rooms, sterile ventilation systems, emergency power and other requirements found in 117 pages of state regulations.
Ten clinics currently meet the standards — four in San Antonio, two in Houston, two in Dallas and one apiece in Austin and Fort Worth. One of the San Antonio clinics might have recently stopped offering abortions, a state health official said Friday.
The admitting privileges rules have been in force since November 2013, prompting about a dozen clinics to close when doctors were unable to gain privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of their facilities — although courts have since temporarily waived that regulation for facilities in McAllen and El Paso.
Paxton said he looked forward to defending the regulations.
“The state has wide discretion to pass laws ensuring Texas women are not subject to substandard conditions at abortion facilities. The advancement of the abortion industry’s bottom line shouldn’t take precedence over women’s health,” he said.
Abortion rights supporters hailed the court’s action as an important step toward protecting access to a procedure that, they said, was adequately regulated by rules that were in place before HB 2 was passed.
“Medically unnecessary restrictions on health care providers like the (surgical center) requirement advance politicians’ ideological agenda, but at the expense of women’s health,” said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.
The Texas case will give the Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify when state abortion laws pose an “undue burden” on access to abortion — a nebulous standard the court created in 1992 that forbids health regulations placing a “substantial obstacle” in the path of women seeking an abortion.
In their appeal, abortion providers told the court that HB 2 would leave 10 clinics concentrated in the state’s largest cities, down from more than 40 when then-Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law in June 2013.
“The failure to find that the abrupt closure of more than 75 percent of Texas abortion clinics would create substantial obstacles to abortion access makes a mockery of the (undue burden) standard,” the providers said.
The regulations also increase health risks for women, the clinics argued. Many rural Texas women, having to drive more than 150 miles to the nearest clinic, would be forced to delay abortions, raising their risk of complications. Low-income women would be particularly hard hit, with some having to forgo the procedure, the providers said.
Paxton disagreed, arguing that the rules don’t impose an unconstitutional burden on women even though they are expected to close abortion clinics.
“Effects alone cannot prove unconstitutional motive,” he said, adding that the vast majority of Texans wouldn’t be substantially burdened because they live within 150 miles of a surgical center that provides abortions.