Supreme Court Overturns Texas Abortion Clinic Restrictions
The justices rule, 5-3, that the provisions requiring doctors to have admitting privileges to a hospital and for abortion clinics to meet hospital-like standards create an "undue burden" for women who are trying to obtain the procedure. Meanwhile, the decision is a setback to abortion opponents' state-based strategy, and it highlights the significance of Antonin Scalia's open seat on the 2016 election.
The New York Times:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional protections for abortion rights, striking down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have drastically reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state, leaving them only in the largest metropolitan areas. The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. (Liptak, 6/27)
The Washington Post:
Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Restrictions
The Texas provisions required doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and ordered clinics to meet hospital-like standards of surgical centers. (Barnes, 6/27)
Los Angeles Times:
Supreme Court Strengthens Right To Abortion, Strikes Down Texas Restrictions On Clinics
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Breyer wrote in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellderstedt. “Each places substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.” (Savage, 6/27)
Los Angeles Times:
Supreme Court Ruling Is Likely To Change The Landscape Of 'Abortion Desert'
Texas abortion clinics at risk of being closed by a restrictive state law will remain open and some of those shuttered will probably be able to reopen in the wake of a landmark Supreme Court ruling Monday that could block similar laws in other states across the so-called abortion desert of the South and Midwest. Opponents of abortion said they plan to defend those laws in the interest of women's health, while shifting to pursue new laws to protect fetal health. (Hennessy-Fiske, 6/27)
The New York Times:
Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision Reverberates In Presidential Campaign
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of a restrictive abortion law in Texas rippled through the presidential campaign after its release on Monday, with Democrats and Republicans looking to rally voters with reminders that the future of the court was at stake in November. The next president looks to have at least one and potentially several vacancies to fill in the next four years, and Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump have both warned that the fate of laws on immigration, guns and abortion will probably be determined by who gets to fill those openings. (Rappeport, 6/27)
Politico:
Supreme Court's Abortion Ruling Will Have Nationwide Impact
The decision’s political ramifications are significant. It will galvanize both sides of the divisive abortion debate as the presidential campaign builds toward the national party conventions, and intensify the political focus on the Supreme Court’s vacancy, which has been frozen in the Senate. The Whole Women’s Health decision is sure to be cited as the two sides in the debate remind voters that the next president will almost certainly name several justices to the bench, providing a rare opportunity to cement the court’s political stance for years to come. (Haberkorn, 6/27)