Supreme Court decision could spell end of Pa. abortion clinic law
- Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women’s health.
- The ruling will likely impact a similar law, Act 122 of 2011, in Pennsylvania.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that heavily regulated abortion clinics and shares similarities with a Pennsylvania law passed about five years ago.
The Pennsylvania law, Act 122 of 2011, requires that abortion clinics are held to the same standards as free-standing ambulatory, or outpatient, surgical centers.
During a conference call with the media, supporters of women's rights said the court's ruling on the Texas law will have far-reaching effects on similar abortion laws in other states, including Pennsylvania.
"Today's ruling is a game-changer," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the clinics. "The impact will be felt beyond Texas."
The hospital-like outpatient surgery standards are in place in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri and Virginia, and they are blocked in Tennessee and Texas, according to the center.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood, told reporters her organization will go state-by-state to challenge and repeal similar laws.
The court's ruling doesn't automatically strike down Pennsylvania's law, said Sar Stevens, executive director of Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania Advocates, in a phone interview.
Attorneys for Planned Parenthood are reviewing the decision, and it could lay the groundwork for restrictions in other states, such as Pennsylvania, to be challenged in the courts, she said.
The ruling: The Supreme Court's opinion on the Texas law issued Monday was its biggest abortion case in nearly a quarter century.
The justices voted 5-3 in favor of Texas clinics that had argued the regulations were only a veiled attempt to make it harder for women to get abortions in the nation’s second-most-populous state.
Justice Stephen Breyer’s majority opinion for the court held that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman’s right to an abortion.
Texas had argued that its 2013 law and subsequent regulations were needed to protect women’s health. The rules required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
Pennsylvania state Rep. Kevin Schreiber, D-York City, said there had been efforts in the Legislature to impose similar admitting privilege requirements.
"But that never got across the finish line," he said.
Breyer wrote that “the surgical-center requirement, like the admitting privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”
Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined Breyer.
Ginsburg wrote a short opinion, noting that laws like Texas’ “that do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, cannot survive judicial inspection” under the court’s earlier abortion-rights decisions. She pointed specifically to Roe v. Wade in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Dissent: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
Thomas wrote that the decision “exemplifies the court’s troubling tendency ‘to bend the rules when any effort to limit abortion, or even to speak in opposition to abortion, is at issue.’” Thomas was quoting an earlier abortion dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February. Scalia has not yet been replaced, so only eight justices voted.
Alito, reading a summary of his dissent in court, said the clinics should have lost on technical, procedural grounds. Alito said the court was adopting a rule of, “If at first you don’t succeed, sue, sue again.”
Abortion providers said the rules would have cut the number of abortion clinics in Texas by three-fourths if they had been allowed to take full effect.
When then-Gov. Rick Perry signed the law in 2013, there were about 40 clinics throughout the state. That number then dropped to fewer than 20 and would have been cut in half again if the law had taken full effect, the clinics said.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the law “was an effort to improve minimum safety standards and ensure capable care for Texas women. It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly elected representatives.”
Northup, head of the reproductive rights group, said, “The Supreme Court sent a loud and clear message that politicians cannot use deceptive means to shut down abortion clinics.”
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called the decision “a victory for women in Texas and across America.”
Texas is among 10 states with similar admitting-privileges requirements, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. The requirement is in effect in most of Texas, Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee. It is on hold in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Wisconsin.
Texas passed a broad bill imposing several abortion restrictions in 2013. Texas clinics sued immediately to block it, contending it interfered with a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The clinics won several favorable rulings in a federal district court in Texas. But each time, the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the state, at first allowing challenged provisions to take effect and then upholding the law with only slight exceptions.
The Supreme Court had allowed the admitting-privileges requirement to take effect in most of the state but put the surgical-center provision on hold pending the court’s resolution of the case.
The justices split largely along liberal-conservative lines in their emergency orders, with the court’s conservative justices voting repeatedly to let the law be enforced.
Separate lawsuits are pending over admitting-privileges laws in Louisiana and Mississippi, the other states covered by the 5th circuit. The laws are on hold in both states, and a panel of federal appellate judges has concluded the Mississippi law probably is unconstitutional because it would force the only abortion clinic in the state to close.
A separate appeal is pending at the Supreme Court from Wisconsin, where federal judges have struck down that state’s admitting-privileges law.
Pennsylvania abortion bill: The court's ruling on Texas' law won't have a direct impact on Pennsylvania's latest abortion bill, House Bill 1948, which passed the House last week.
The controversial measure — introduced by Rep. Kathy Rapp of Warren County in April — would ban abortions after 20 weeks, or five months, of gestational growth. The current limit is 24 weeks, or six months.
The bill also would criminalize dilation and evacuation abortions, which have been characterized as causing the deaths of fetuses by removing their body parts.
"One would hope this (the ruling on the Texas law) would send a message on the constitutionality of limiting women's health care," said Schreiber, who voted against House Bill 1948. "I'm sure it gives some momentum to those who oppose 1948."
— Staff reporter Greg Gross contributed to this report. Reach Greg Gross at firstname.lastname@example.org or on Twitter at @ggrossyd.