Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
| Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 2, 2016 Decided June 27, 2016 |
|
| Full case name | Whole Woman's Health; Austin Women's Health Center; Killeen Women's Health Center; Nova Health Systems d/b/a Reproductive Services; Sherwood C. Lynn, Jr., M.D.; Pamela J. Richter, D.O.; and Lendol L. Davis, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, petitioners v. John Hellerstedt, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in their official capacities |
| Docket nos. | 15–274 |
| Citations | 579 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Prior history | granting injunction, 46 F. Supp. 3d 673, (W.D. Tex. 2014), staying injunction, 769 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.), vacated in part, 135 S. Ct. 399 (2014), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 790 F.3d 563 (5th Cir.), mandate stayed pending judgment 135 S. Ct. 2923 (2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 499. |
| Holding | |
| Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution. The judgement of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reversed and remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case decided on June 27, 2016, when the Court ruled 5-3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.
It has been called the most significant abortion rights case before the Supreme Court since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
In 2013, Texas passed a law, H.B. 2, placing a series of restrictions on abortion clinics within the state. In November 2013, one of H.B. 2's requirement that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles took effect. In the time since the admitting privileges requirement took effect, the number of abortion clinics in Texas declined from 42 to only 19.
The law also required abortion providers to meet the same standards as ambulatory surgical centers and to upgrade their building, safety, parking, and staffing to meet the standards of a hospital room. Whole Woman's Health, however, has deemed these requirements unnecessary and expensive as well as an attempt to limit abortion access rather than provide safety to women. This part of the law was enforced in Texas beginning in October 2014, but its enforcement was suspended pending the outcome of this case. Texas had waived some or all of the surgical-center requirements for 336 of the 433 (78%) licensed ambulatory surgical centers in Texas, but had not waived any part of the surgical-center requirements for any of the abortion clinics in the state.
A group of plaintiffs including Whole Woman’s Health sued, bringing a facial challenge to the admitting-privileges provision. On October 28, 2013, the day before the law was to take effect, Judge Earl Leroy Yeakel III of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in Austin, Texas granted the plaintiffs an injunction invalidating the provision.
...
Wikipedia