What Supreme Court questions reveal about Texas abortion law

The three women justices and Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly questioned why Texas needed to enact the 2013 abortion law. 

(AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Pro-abortion rights protester Lauren Rankin of New York City, left, gets a high five from Sarp Aksel of New York City, as they and anti-abortion protesters, left, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, March 2, 2016. The abortion debate is returning to the Supreme Court in the midst of a raucous presidential campaign and less than three weeks after Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. The justices are taking up the biggest case on the topic in nearly a quarter century and considering whether a Texas law that regulates abortion clinics hampers a woman’s constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

A Supreme Court deeply split over abortion wrestled Wednesday with widely replicated Texas regulations that could drastically cut the number of abortion clinics in the state. As ever, Justice Anthony Kennedy appeared to hold the outcome in his hands on a court operating with eight justices since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

The court's most significant abortion case since the early 1990s crackled with intensity during 85 minutes of pointed questions from liberal and conservative justices that suggested little common ground in resolving the clinics' claim that the regulations are medically unnecessary and unconstitutionally limit a woman's right to an abortion.

Texas says it is trying to protect women's health in rules that require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and force clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. The rules would cut the number of abortion clinics in the state by three-fourths,abortion providers say.

The three women justices and Justice Stephen Breyer repeatedly questioned why Texas needed to enact the 2013 law. "But what is the legitimate interest in protecting their health? What evidence is there that under the prior law, the prior law was not sufficiently protective of the women's health?" Ginsburg asked Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.

More than 210 women are hospitalized annually as a result of complications from abortions, Keller said. Pressed by Ginsburg, Keller acknowledged that was a complication rate of less than 1 percent of the state's 70,000 or so abortions a year, but said the state still could act to make abortion safer.

The clinics, backed by the Obama administration, argue that the regulations already have closed half the roughly 40 clinics that existed before the law was enacted and that only about 10 clinics would remain if it is allowed to take full effect.

The high court, again divided between liberals and conservatives, has blocked the surgical center requirement from taking effect.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. urged the court to offer a new endorsement of the abortion right it last affirmed in 1992. "If that right still does retain real substance, then this law cannot stand. The burdens it imposes, the obstacles, are far beyond anything that this Court has countenanced. And the justification for it is far weaker than anything that this Court has countenanced," Verrilli said.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito pressed the lawyer for the clinics, Stephanie Toti, to cite evidence showing that the regulations have had the drastic effect she claimed. Both Alito and Roberts questioned whether some clinics closed for reasons independent of the regulations.

"What evidence is there that ties the closures to the requirements?" Roberts asked. Only Justice Clarence Thomas, who broke 10 years of silence at arguments on Monday, did not ask any questions.

Even with the outspoken abortion rights opponent Scalia on the court, Kennedy would have held the decisive vote. He provided the margin of victory in the 1992 case that bolstered the abortion right the court declared in Roe v. Wade in 1973. He wrote the majority opinion in another 5-4 case in 2007 that upheld a federal ban on the procedure known as partial-birth abortion.

Kennedy's questions Wednesday did not make clear where he is headed. But he holds the key to whether the court splits 4-4, a result that would leave the regulations in place, but not resolve the issue nationally. He could side with his four more liberal colleagues to rule for the clinics and roll back the regulations.

Kennedy also suggested another outcome that would in essence put the issue on hold for a time to see whether the remaining clinics in Texas are able to accommodate the demand for abortion in the nation's second-most-populous state.

If the court is evenly divided, the justices could decide to rehear the case once a new colleague joins them. President Barack Obama says he will nominate a successor to Scalia. But Senate Republicans, backed by the party's presidential candidates, have pledged to keep Scalia's seat empty so that the next president can fill it after taking office in January 2017.

Kennedy appeared concerned that one effect of the 2013 Texas law is that it has lowered the number of abortions resulting from women taking pills and increased the number of more invasive surgicalabortions, which he said "may not be medically wise."

The hearing took place in the middle of a raucous presidential campaign, and the scene outside the court on Wednesday had the feel of a campaign rally.

Dozens of anti-abortion protesters chanted "pro-life, pro-woman" while hundreds of abortion rights advocates nearby shouted "abortion is a human right."

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., showed up at one point and briefly addressed the abortionopponents. "We are the pro-life movement that is here to stand up for the women. We are here to stand up for the unborn and we are here to stand up for the rule of law," Ryan said.

A decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 15-274, is expected by late June.


Associated Press writer Sam Hananel contributed to this report.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.