�鶹Ů��

Monday was a busy day for the Supreme Court, which closed its current term by handing out major rulings on abortion, corruption, and gun control. All three were landmark cases, but the court’s ruling on abortion, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, was the most hotly anticipated. The case stemmed from a 2013 Texas law mandating that only abortion clinics that employ doctors with admitting privileges at local hospitals and meet outpatient surgical center standards would be allowed. Enforcing this law would have likely closed around 30 of the state’s 40 abortion providers, and left large swathes of the state entirely without access to abortion services. (Melissa Batchelor Waruke, 6/28)

Yesterday’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt finally answered a question almost 15 years in the making: How do you know if a law unduly burdens a woman’s right to choose abortion? Before answering this question, Hellerstedt addressed the constitutionality of two parts of Texas’s abortion law. One provision required doctors performing abortions in the state to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and a second regulation mandated that abortion clinics comply with the regulations applied to ambulatory surgical centers. In a 5 to 3 decision, the court struck down both measures. Most obviously, the decision matters because clinics in Texas will stay open, and the constitutionality of similar laws on the books in other states is now far from a sure thing. But Hellerstedt also makes a difference because it sends the clearest message in decades about where abortion jurisprudence is going: toward a battle over facts. (Mary Ziegler, 6/28)

The ratchet turned on the last day of the term in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. The court struck down Texas laws requiring doctors in abortion clinics to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals nearby and mandating that the clinics satisfy standards demanded of ambulatory surgical facilities. The requirements would likely have resulted in the closing of three-quarters of the state’s clinics, leaving a swath as large as California without an abortion provider. In an opinion that Kennedy, as senior justice in the majority, assigned to Justice Stephen Breyer, the five-justice majority rejected the state’s health justifications and cited the prohibition on measures that place an “undue burden” on access to reproductive services. The decision may now be used to block similar restrictions adopted by a number of states. (William Yeomans, 6/28)

Rejecting Texas' latest effort to do away with abortion rights, the Supreme Court served the antiabortion movement some very bad news Monday. The justices didn't believe Texas was just trying to help its poor, hapless women out. Instead, according to Justice Stephen Breyer's majority opinion: "In the face of no threat to women's health, Texas seeks to force women to travel long distances to get abortions in crammed-to-capacity superfacilities." (Linda Hirshman, 6/29)

If I had to describe the relationship between abortion rights advocates, critics of abortion rights, and so-called Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws, I'd say it's like this: You know what you're doing, and I know what you're doing, but you're pretending that you don't know that I know what you're doing. (Nancy Kaffer, 6/28)

At least Iowa state Sen. Jake Chapman didn’t try to disguise his motivation for proposing to make abortion a hate crime against the unborn this spring. The Adel Republican made it clear he prioritizes fetuses over pregnant women. (Rekha Basu, 6/28)

From now on lawmakers in Kentucky and other states will have to base abortion laws on scientific fact and medical necessity, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling striking down restrictions that closed more than half of the abortion providers in Texas. The 5-3 decision exposed the favorite anti-choice pretense — “we’re only trying to protect women’s safety” — for the sanctimonious sham that it is. (6/28)

This week, the "mob" was vindicated. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down H.B. 2, the bill that eventually became law and led to the shuttering of dozens of clinics and loss of access to abortion services across the state. The ruling came after years of wasting taxpayer dollars. After years of state officials assuring us that they were motivated not by politics, but because they wanted to protect the health of Texas women. (Lisa Falkenberg, 6/28)

If you’ve never been to an abortion clinic, here’s what you can expect: Protesters outside will gather as close to the clinics as state laws allow, some right outside the door. Their voices grow louder the closer you get to the clinic. Your jaw will tense for the few minutes it takes for the clinic staff to unlock the door after they assess you through the security cameras. You will check over your shoulder many times before you are safely inside. (Dawn Porter, 6/29)

With the announcement in April that the Zika virus spreading across Latin America can cause microcephaly in the womb, leaders across the region have come under increased pressure to relax some of the world’s most restrictive laws against abortion. Only two countries in Latin America have made abortion legal and widely available. Cuba was the first, in 1979; Uruguay the second, in 2012. But it’s the experience of the latter, one of the most democratic countries in Latin America, that offers a lesson in reform — or at least a picture of what is possible. (Adams, 6/28)

A lot has changed in the 11 months since the Executive Council voted against accepting $639,000 in federal funds that would be distributed to the state’s five Planned Parenthood health clinics. That vote split 3-2 along party lines. For Councilor Chris Sununu, now a candidate in a five-way primary to become the Republican nominee for governor, it was a break from his past votes to support Planned Parenthood funding. Not only is Sununu a pro-choice Republican, he long recognized that the clinics serve the needs of many constituents who might otherwise not get health care. (6/29)