The Supreme Court of the United States of America (SCOTUS) just issued a 5-3 ruling in Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Hellerstedt (2016), striking down abortion restrictions in the state of Texas.
The court found that the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements (which caused the majority of abortion clinics in Texas to close) are unconstitutional, as they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment..
Here is the specific argument from the majority opinion (page 2 - my emphasis added):
Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Hellerstedt (2016) wrote:
We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, Casey, supra, at 878 (plurality opinion), and each violates the Federal Constitution. Amdt. 14, §1.
Source:
Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Hellerstedt.
BTW, this ruling is more clear than the last major abortion ruling by SCOTUS in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) (mentioned in the quote above), since we now have an actual majority opinion. In Casey, there was a plurality in favor of upholding
Roe v. Wade, but the justices could agree on a common majority opinion.
Breyer delivered the opinion of the court, and was joined by Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kennedy. Ginsburg issued a concurrence (Summary: U MAD BRO?). Thomas issued a dissent (Summary: Yep, He Mad!) and Alito issued a lengthy 43-page dissent joined by Roberts and Thomas.
It is interesting to note that
Stephen Breyer delivered the majority opinion, and that Kennedy didn't even offer any concurrence of his own. Since the majority opinion is often written by the most reluctant Justice in the majority, this would suggest that Kennedy is significantly more in agreement with the Liberal justices on abortion than his "Conservative" status might otherwise suggest.
Notwithstanding the significance of the subject matter itself, I found a specific passage of the ruling to be highly relevant, as it may likely foreshadow rulings on a range of highly controversial issues (my emphasis added - except for the last part):
Whole Woman's Health et al. v. Hellerstedt (2016) wrote:
The statement that legislatures, and not courts, must resolve questions of medical uncertainty is also inconsistent with this Court’s case law. Instead, the Court, when determining the constitutionality of laws regulating abortion procedures, has placed considerable weight upon evidence and argument presented in judicial proceedings. In Casey, for example, we relied heavily on the District Court’s factual findings and the research-based submissions of amici in declaring a portion of the law at issue unconstitutional. 05 U. S., at 888–894 (opinion of the Court) (discussing evidence related to the prevalence of spousal abuse in determining that a spousal notification provision erected an undue burden to abortion access). And, in Gonzales the Court, while pointing out that we must review legislative “factfinding under a deferential standard,” added that we must not “place dispositive weight” on those “findings.” 550 U. S., at 165. Gonzales went on to point out that the “Court retains an independent constitutional duty to review factual findings where constitutional rights are at stake.” Ibid. (emphasis added).
Or to put it more simply:
Science > LawPlease discuss.
27 Jun 2016, 11:36 am
