The challengers to the law say it will “delay or prevent thousands of women from obtaining abortions and lead some to resort to unsafe or illegal methods of ending an unwanted pregnancy.”
“There would be no licensed abortion facilities west of San Antonio,” the challengers’ brief said.
Opponents to the Texas law say the regulations are unnecessary and expensive, and some say they are designed to weed out abortion clinics.
“Women’s access to high-quality, evidence-based abortion care should not be limited by laws enacted under the guise of patient safety but that, in fact, harm women’s health,” the brief, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, says.
“Today the Supreme Court took an important step toward restoring the constitutional rights of millions of women, which Texas politicians have spent years dismantling through deceptive laws and regulatory red tape,” said Center for Reproductive Rights official Nancy Northup.
Proponents of the law say the provisions are necessary to ensure women’s health and safety.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a fervent supporter of the 2013 law, believes the Supreme Court should not hear the case because the high court, he said, is not qualified to become a “ex officio medical board” that determines national medical standards.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case is expected to have far-reaching implications on the issue of abortion nationwide.
The Supreme Court’s willingness to hear the challenge comes at a time when abortion is receiving renewed attention — partially due to the controversy oversupposed “undercover” videos that depict Planned Parenthood personnel discussing the sale of fetal tissue.
Lawmakers have been investigating the videos, and some have attempted to strip the organization of its federal funding. Some Democrats and Planned Parenthood’s president, though, maintain that the videos are edited and not an accurate representation of the organization’s operational principles.
