Wading into the Abortion Debate: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Art credits to Julia Sun!

Art credits to Julia Sun!

Ruiyan Wang ‘17, School News Editor

Washington D.C.—Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court’s first abortion case in twenty years, examines the constitutionality of recent Texas laws regulating the controversial procedure. Specifically, the Justices will decide whether the legislation places an “undue burden” on women’s right to abortions, as upheld by Roe v. Wade in 1973. Whole Woman’s Health, a women’s reproductive healthcare provider and the plaintiff in this case, is expecting a decision by June 2016.

HB2, the Texas legislation in question, dictates numerous sweeping “reforms” to abortion procedures. Claiming only patients’ best interests and safety in mind, Texan lawmakers not only require abortion facilities to be within thirty miles of a hospital but also regulate clinic staffing, anesthesia, room dimensions, and doorway sizes, among other things. Since its implementation in 2013, the law has effectively closed twenty-three clinics, leaving only nineteen facilities to serve twenty-seven million Texan residents- of which five and a half million are women of reproductive age.

Proponents of HB2 argue that only standardized clinics in adherence with the law can provide truly safe and healthy abortions to their patients. By requiring facilities to mirror other “operative” medical locations, like ambulatory surgical clinics (ACS’s), supporters hope to ensure women’s wellbeing and quell any existing fears about the daunting procedure.

Despite proponents’ claims of goodwill and compassion, HB2 faces strong opposition. Many censure the legislation as a thinly-veiled attempt to undermine the Roe v. Wade decision, by denying women their right to abortions by rendering the treatments virtually inaccessible. Whole Woman’s Health charges that the law is not only unnecessary but also hugely obstructive. If upheld, HB2 will leave only nine clinics to provide abortions within the entirety of Texas.

The American Medical Association and College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also contend that HB2 exchanges women’s rights and health for baseless red tape measures. Further, the law seemingly fits the bill for unconstitutional “undue burden” on women’s abortion rights, which the Supreme Court’s 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey defined as having “the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.”

According to Austin Gao ‘17, “I firmly believe that making clinics uphold the same standards as surgery centers fits ‘undue burden’. These legal requirements make it hard for abortion centers to even exist. Also, the fact that women have to travel great distances, even upwards of a hundred miles, to their nearest centers indicates too heavy a burden.”

Moreover, the case is especially influential in the precedent it sets for states with similar laws regulating abortion facilities. Some fourteen states require abortion clinics to affiliate with a nearby hospital, while even more demand access to ambulatory surgical centers. Staunch advocates for women’s right to abortions have criticized states for finding loopholes to impede on women’s reproductive health. The abortion debate has become inextricably connected to American federalism. For example, state abortion requisites necessitating ultrasounds and extended wait times render the issue not only one of women’s rights but also of states’ rights.

Zoe Pan ‘18 opines on these delicate checks and balances: “Generally, the Supreme Court should have the power to overrule state laws. The country as a whole is more important than any one state. Further, state laws can become biased whereas the Supreme Court is usually less so.”

In light of Justice Antonin Scalia’s unprecedented passing, the Supreme Court will likely have a split-vote along political ideologies, leaving HB2 intact. Unlikely to gain senatorial approval to appoint a new justice within the Republican-dominated Congress, President Obama can only leave the political leanings and values of the Supreme Court in the hands of his successor.

A highly contentious issue, abortion remains a popular talking-point for both dominant parties in the current presidential race. Thus, the next oval office-holder will certainly wield considerable clout in determining the fate of American women’s health.

From the public perspective, the case reflects a larger societal rift within American society. As highly disputable as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is, citizens’ views are just as divided; in essence, the case captures national sentiment. In 2015, 44% of American citizens identified as “pro-life,” barely trailing a 56% “pro-choice” bloc, according to Gallup Polling. Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt also shines light on the recent trend of hostility towards abortion providers, as evidenced in last November’s shooting at a Colorado Planned Parenthood location, which resulted in three deaths.

As this complicated and delicate case unfolds, it is bound to create waves in its wake, shifting our understanding of states’ rights, executive rights, women’s rights, and reproductive rights. Operating on manifold levels and policy arenas, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt is the case to watch.