Local leaders celebrate the June 27 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt at the plaintiffs' former Austin center.[/caption]

Updated June 27 at 3:52 p.m. to include report from 2 p.m. Whole Woman's Health Clinic press conference and the dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, U.S. Supreme Court, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

  State Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, joined other House Bill 2 opponents June 27 to provide information on the day's U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. "This is a meaningful victory with tangible results," said Kathy Miller, executive director of Texas Freedom Network. "It should be celebrated because justice was served today." Texas Freedom Network is an activist group centered on religious freedom and individual liberty. Howard said she anticipates the issue of abortion rights will be discussed during the upcoming 2017 legislative session. "We can expect some legislation will be filed but we will be prepared to work with all of our advocates, to work with the people, to work with medical professionals to make sure that the policies we pass are evidence based and in the best interest of Texas women and their families," she said. Howard said she will be working on legislation aimed at improving family planning to "reduce the need for abortion while also maintain its availability and access for those who need it." "I'm going to specifically be looking at legislation that will allow us to have 12-month supplies of birth control [and] allow greater use of what's called 'LARCs'—the long-acting reversible contraceptives—which have been so effective. And to make sure that Texas, like most other states, ensures  our young people who are on the [Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP] program actually can get reimbursed for contraceptives. "So, if lawmakers, if some of my colleagues, choose to continue their assault on the access that women have to this safe, legal, medical procedure, then we know, as we saw in 2013, that the public will show up, the public will fight this. And, we know after today's Supreme Court decision, that the courts are also on our side." Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, addresses members of the local media during a June 27 press conference focused on the day's high court abortion rights ruling.[/caption]

Published June 27 at 1:30 p.m.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down June 27 two portions of a Texas law, House Bill 2, that imposed restrictions on abortion providers. The 5-3 vote in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justices Samuel A. Alito, Jr. and Clarence Thomas dissenting, prevented numerous abortion centers from closing within the state as a result of the statute’s requirement that the clinics comply to a higher standard of care. “Today's ruling is a victory for women throughout Texas,” State Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, said in an exclusive to Community Impact Newspaper. “It was clear from the get-go that HB 2 did nothing to protect the health and safety of women, and [the Supreme Court of the United States] just beat back a return to wire hangers and back-alley abortions for women across the state. “Locally, this decision means that Travis County clinics will not be overwhelmed by clients from throughout Texas whose access to services would have been undermined by HB 2.” The July 2013 law mandated that abortion providers must meet the higher care standards of ambulatory surgical centers—including building dimensions, equipment and staffing—as well as requiring that its physicians maintain admitting privileges at area hospitals within 30 miles of the center. U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said in a statement the decision was not driven by the constitution, but by the "left-leaning ideological bias of the Supreme Court." "Why else would they reject higher medical standards and women's safety for lower, less safe health care for women?" he said. "This is a sad day for Texas and for those who fight to protect the sanctity of life." U.S. Rep. Roger Williams, R-Austin, agreed with Brady regarding the Court's rejection of Texas' statute. "I am disappointed by the court’s decision to do away with the health measures Texas put in place to protect the well-being of the mother and the unborn," he said in a news release. "However, I will continue to promote and work to protect the sanctity of life, as all of us, including the unborn, are created in the image of God.” The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements of HB 2 place a “substantial obstacle” in the path of women seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable, constituting an “undue burden” on a woman’s access to such an abortion and violates the U.S. Constitution." In writing the majority opinion for the court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer found “the admitting-privileges requirement does not serve any relevant credentialing function.” He stated this requirement resulted in the closure of about half of Texas’ abortion clinics. “Those closures meant fewer doctors, longer waiting times and increased crowding,” Breyer wrote. The opinion also found that the surgical-center requirement did not provide a benefit when abortion complications arise and disagreed with the state’s argument that the few remaining clinics could handle the number of patients that had been seen at the previous 40 clinics. “Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center- or hospital admitting-privileges requirements,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her concurring opinion. “Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that HB 2 could genuinely protect the health of women and certain that the law would simply make it difficult for them to obtain abortions. “When a state severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners … at great risk to their health and safety.” Austin leaders lauded the high court’s ruling. “The U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld the right to accessible and safe reproductive health care for women,” State Sen. Kirk Watson, D-Austin, said in a news release. "And for that, we have a cavalry of strong Texas women to thank. For too long, the women of this state have been collateral damage in a political battle. “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.” However, in his dissent, Thomas stated the Court erred in allowing an abortions provider plaintiff—WWH—to sue on behalf of the patients it represents. "Ordinarily, plaintiffs cannot file suits to vindicate the constitutional rights of others," he stated. "The Court has erroneously allowed doctors and clinics to vicariously vindicate the putative constitutional right of women seeking abortions." Thomas also cited that the decision to allow an abortion provider to file suit for its patients' rights amounted to the Court providing a preference of one constitutional right—abortion—over another resulting in a heightened judicial scrutiny of Texas' abortion law. "Our Constitution renounces the notion that some constitutional rights are more equal than others," he stated. "A plaintiff either possesses the constitutional right he is asserting, or not—and if not, the judiciary has no business creating ad hoc exceptions so that others can assert rights that seem especially important to vindicate."

The road to the U.S. Supreme Court

Two legal cases were among the evidence relied upon by the U.S. Supreme Court in its June 27 decision Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. In Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that a state must ensure that women’s abortions are performed with the “maximum safety” precautions. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court found that states may not pass a statute that is an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to an abortion before the fetus is viable and has the effect of placing “a substantial obstacle” to a woman seeking such an abortion. The Texas Legislature enacted HB 2 in July 2013 and mandated abortion clinics must meet the stricter standards of ambulatory surgical centers or small hospitals as well as required its physicians to maintain admitting privileges at area hospitals within 30 miles of the clinic. Abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health sued John Hellerstedt, the commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services, in Federal District Court on April 6, 2014. The District Court, or lowest level federal court, ruled in favor of WWH and found that

• After HB 2 was enacted, the number of facilities providing abortions dropped in half—from about 40 centers to about 20 centers
• The effect of the law would be to leave abortion facilities only in five state metropolitan areas
• Abortion was an extremely safe procedure
• The cost of complying with the surgical-center requirement would be more than $1.5 million-$3 million per clinic
• The court stated, when taken together, these findings show the provisions of HB 2 impose an “undue burden” and “impermissible obstacle” to all women seeking an abortion.

The case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans that reversed the lower court, or district ruling, in part. In June 2015, this court held that the state law was constitutional since Texas had “a compelling state interest in protecting women’s health,” and the regulation was not a substantial obstacle to a woman’s right to an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted writ of certiorari—or agreed to hear the lawsuit— from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Attorneys for both sides argued the case March 2.