Following the Top Court on Monday struck lower his state’s law that will have shuttered a large number of abortion treatment centers, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) condemned the choice by quarrelling it jeopardizes the state’s objective “to safeguard innocent existence.”
In acknowledging the law, HB 2, was designed to limit abortions, Abbott deviated in the state’s initial justification for that law, as presented throughout the case’s dental arguments. Lawyers for that condition noted the law was developed to be able to “safeguard women’s health” and improve safety at abortion treatment centers. When pressed through the justices, they was adamant that “abortion is legal and accessible” in Texas.
In Monday’s ruling, a legal court confirmed the law presents “a considerable obstacle within the road to women seeking a previability abortion” and “an undue burden on abortion access.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg authored a concurring opinion eviscerating the state’s argument the law was passed to safeguard women’s health.
Find out more around the situation, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, and also the Supreme Court’s ruling here.
“[I]its beyond rational thought that H.B. 2 could genuinely safeguard the healthiness of women, and sure that what the law states ‘would just make it harder to allow them to obtain abortions,’” she authored. “When a Condition seriously limits use of safe and legal methods, women in desperate conditions may turn to unlicensed rogue practitioners … at potential risk for their safety and health.”
HB 2 imposes obstacles on abortion treatment centers by needing they purchase costly building upgrades to satisfy the greater stringent standards of ambulatory surgical centers, or small-hospitals. Additionally, it necessitates that abortion doctors obtain acknowledging rights at nearby hospitals. Because the law’s passage in 2013, the amount of abortion providers within the condition has plummeted from 42 to 19.
Reuters Staff / Reuters
Advise a correction