View source for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

{{Use mdy dates|date=July 2016}}
{{For|the 2021 decision on the [[Texas Heartbeat Act]]|Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson}}
{{Infobox SCOTUS case
| Litigants = Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
| ArgueDate = March 2
| ArgueYear = 2016
| DecideDate = June 27
| DecideYear = 2016
| FullName = Whole Woman's Health; Austin Women's Health Center; Killeen Women's Health Center; Nova Health Systems d/b/a Reproductive Services; Sherwood C. Lynn, Jr., M.D.; Pamela J. Richter, D.O.; and Lendol L. Davis, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, petitioners v. John Hellerstedt, M.D., Commissioner of the [[Texas Department of State Health Services]]; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the [[Texas Medical Board]], in their official capacities
| USVol = 579
| USPage = 582
| ParallelCitations = 136 S. Ct. 2292; 195 [[L. Ed. 2d]] 665
| Docket = 15-274
| OralArgument = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274
| OralReargument =
| OpinionAnnouncement = https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274
| Related =
| Prior = ''Injunction granted'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16984873954220059412&hl=en&as_sdt=2006, 46 F. Supp. 3d 673], (W.D. Tex. 2014), ''staying injunction'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3575825538574664485&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 769 F.3d 285] (5th Cir.), ''vacated in part'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18174212808257184075&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 135 S. Ct. 399] (2014), ''aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part'', [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14192682821420050675&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 790 F.3d 563 (5th Cir.)], ''mandate stayed pending judgment'' 135 S. Ct. 2923 (2015), ''cert. granted'', 136 S. Ct. 499 (2015).
| Subsequent =
| Holding = Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability [[abortion]], constitute an [[Undue burden standard|undue burden]] on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.
| Majority = Breyer
| JoinMajority = Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan
| Concurrence = Ginsburg
| JoinConcurrence =
| Concurrence2 =
| JoinConcurrence2 =
| Concurrence/Dissent =
| JoinConcurrence/Dissent =
| Dissent = Thomas
| JoinDissent =
| Dissent2 = Alito
| JoinDissent2 = Roberts, Thomas
| LawsApplied = [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|U.S. Const. amend. XIV]]<br />[[Texas House Bill 2]]
| Superseded = ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' (2022)
}}
'''''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt''''', 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a [[List of landmark court decisions in the United States|landmark decision]]<ref>{{cite web |author1=Jane S. Schacter (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Stanford Law School) |title=SCOTUS Whole Woman's Health Decision: Casey Endures |url=https://law.stanford.edu/2016/06/27/scotus-whole-womans-health-decision-casey-endures/ |publisher=[[Stanford Law School]] |access-date=May 23, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230523164700/https://law.stanford.edu/2016/06/27/scotus-whole-womans-health-decision-casey-endures/ |archive-date=May 23, 2023 |date=June 27, 2016|quote="In a landmark opinion, Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court weighed in and took some important steps toward better aligning its decisions (“the law on the books”) with the reality of what is going on in the country (“law in action”). [...] Justice Breyer’s opinion for a 5-justice majority in Whole Women’s Health is an explicit course correction. The forgiving rational basis test, the Court said, has no role in Casey’s undue burden inquiry. To opponents of abortion who had found support for that deferential approach in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision upholding the federal ban on “partial birth” abortion, the Court said: such a conclusion misreads Gonzales. Further, states like Texas that say they are regulating abortion to protect women’s health must be able to point to actual health benefits for women, and courts should independently assess this evidence—and not simply accept unsupported assertions—as part of the undue burden inquiry."}}</ref> of the [[US Supreme Court]] announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.
The decision in ''Hellerstedt'' has not been good law since the Supreme Court repudiated ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' and the right to abortion in ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'', 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
== Background ==
{{Main|Texas House Bill 2}}
In 2013, [[Texas]] passed a law, H.B. 2, placing a series of [[Types of abortion restrictions in the United States|restrictions]] on [[abortion clinics]] within the state.<ref name="US News" /> In November 2013, one of H.B. 2's requirements that abortion providers have [[admitting privileges]] at a [[hospital]] within 30 miles took effect.<ref name=Atlantic>{{cite news|last1=Green|first1=Emma|title=A New Supreme Court Challenge: The Erosion of Abortion Access in Texas|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/a-new-supreme-court-challenge-the-erosion-of-abortion-access-in-texas/415929/|access-date=January 26, 2016|work=Atlantic|date=November 13, 2015}}</ref> In the time since the admitting privileges requirement took effect, the number of abortion clinics in Texas declined from 42 to 19.<ref name= "US News" />
The law also required abortion providers to meet the same standards as [[Outpatient surgery|ambulatory surgical centers]]<ref name=ACS>{{cite web|last1=Hill|first1=B. Jessie|title=Whole Woman's Health v. Cole and the Future of Abortion Rights|url=http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/whole-woman%E2%80%99s-health-v-cole-and-the-future-of-abortion-rights|website=ACS Law|publisher=American Constitution Society|access-date=January 26, 2016|archive-date=February 1, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201024705/http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/whole-woman%E2%80%99s-health-v-cole-and-the-future-of-abortion-rights|url-status=dead}}</ref> and to upgrade their building, safety, parking, and staffing to meet the standards of a hospital room.<ref name=Atlantic /> Whole Woman's Health, however, has deemed these requirements unnecessary and expensive as well as an attempt to limit abortion access rather than provide safety to women.<ref name="US News" /> This part of the law was enforced in Texas in the beginning of October 2014, but its enforcement was suspended pending the outcome of this case.<ref name=Atlantic /> Texas had waived some or all of the surgical-center requirements for 336 of the 433 (78%) licensed ambulatory surgical centers in Texas,<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf], slip. op. at 12</ref> but had not waived any part of the surgical-center requirements for any of the abortion clinics in the state.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf], slip. op. at 5</ref>
===First lawsuit===
A group of plaintiffs including Whole Woman's Health sued, bringing a [[facial challenge]] to the admitting-privileges provision. On October 28, 2013, the day before the law was to take effect, Judge [[Earl Leroy Yeakel III]] of the [[United States District Court for the Western District of Texas]] in [[Austin, Texas]] granted the plaintiffs an injunction invalidating the provision.<ref name=YaleLJ>{{cite journal |first1=Linda |last1=Greenhouse |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |first2=Reva |last2=Siegel |author-link2=Reva Siegel |year=2016 |title=''Casey'' and the Clinic Closings: When 'Protecting Health' Obstructs Choice |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=125 |issue=5 |pages=1428–1480 |ssrn=2621839 |url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/casey-and-the-clinic-closings }}</ref><ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2099386983225132349&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott''], 951 F.Supp2d 891 (W.D. Tex. 2013).</ref>
Three days later, a motions panel of the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] made of Circuit Judges [[Priscilla Richman]], [[Jennifer Walker Elrod]], and [[Catharina Haynes]], granted an emergency stay of the injunction, allowing the law to go into effect.<ref name=YaleLJ/><ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11402263624687015759&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott''], 734 F. 3d 406 (5th Cir. 2013).</ref>  On November 19, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to vacate the stay, with Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, writing a concurrence and Justice Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, writing a dissent.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16671270602971563207&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. v. Abbott''], 134 S. Ct. 506, 571 U.S., 187 L. Ed. 2d 465 (2013).</ref>  On March 27, 2014, Circuit Judge [[Edith Jones]], joined by Judges Elrod and Haynes, upheld the challenged provision.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8769661596643845298&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Planned Parenthood of Greater Tex. Surgical Health Servs. v. Abbott''], 748 F. 3d 583 (5th Cir. 2014).</ref><ref name=YaleLJ/>  Whole Woman's Health did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of [[certiorari]].
===Second lawsuit===
On April 6, 2014, Whole Woman's Health filled a new lawsuit, now seeking to block the admitting-privileges provision as applied to the Whole Woman's Health in [[McAllen, Texas]] and the Nova Health Systems in [[El Paso, Texas]], as well as to block the surgical centre provision throughout Texas.  The court held a four-day [[bench trial]] and on August 29, 2014, Judge Yeakel issued a state-wide injunction barring enforcement of both provisions.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16984873954220059412&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey''], 46 F. Supp. 3d 673 (W.D. Tex. 2014).</ref><ref name=YaleLJ/>
On October 2, 2014, Circuit Judge Elrod, joined by Judge [[Jerry Edwin Smith]] and with [[Stephen A. Higginson]] dissenting in part, stayed the lower court's injunction pending appeal.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3575825538574664485&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey''], 769 F. 3d 285 (5th Cir. 2014).</ref><ref name=YaleLJ/>  On October 14, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit, reimposing the injunction blocking the law, over a dissent by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=18174212808257184075&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Whole Woman's Health v. Lakey''], 135 S. Ct. 399, 574 U.S., 190 L. Ed. 2d 247 (2014).</ref><ref name=YaleLJ/>  On June 9, 2015, Circuit Judges [[Edward C. Prado]], Elrod, and Haynes, in an anonymous [[per curiam decision|''per curiam'' decision]], found on the merits that the two provisions were constitutional.<ref>[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14192682821420050675&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 ''Whole Women's Health v. Cole''], 790 F. 3d 563 (''per curiam''), modified, [https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6067323780588279521&hl=en&as_sdt=2006 790 F. 3d 598] (5th Cir. 2015).</ref>
The Fifth Circuit reversed the court order protecting the El Paso clinic but upheld the order protecting the McAllen clinic. The three-judge panel upheld the majority of the Texas law.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Cole'', [http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/14-50928-CV0.pdf No. 14-50928], slip. op. at 56 (5th Cir. 2015) (per curiam).</ref>{{refn|When the Fifth Circuit issued its decision, the caption of the case was ''Whole Woman's Health v. Cole''.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Cole'', slip. op. at 1 (5th Cir. 2015).</ref> The name of the defendants was later changed to "John Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, et al." when Hellerstedt assumed the role of Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-274.htm Docket for Case No. 14-50928].</ref>|group=fn}} The panel held that the law was constitutional under ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'''s undue burden standard because the law "does not place a substantial obstacle in path of those women seeking an abortion".<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Cole'', slip. op. at 55 (5th Cir. 2015).</ref>
== Supreme Court ==
Before H.B. 2 could take effect, the petitioners requested a stay from the Supreme Court. On June 29, 2015, the court granted a temporary stay by a 5–4 vote, and it later granted an indefinite stay. Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Samuel Alito]] would have denied the stay. On November 13, 2015, the court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Fifth Circuit's holding. Over eighty amicus curiae briefs were filed with the Court,<ref> {{Cite news|url=https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/whole-womans-health-v-cole/|title=Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: SCOTUSBlog Coverage|website=SCOTUSBlog|access-date=May 23, 2019}} </ref> including one signed by prominent female lawyers stating that they had each had an abortion and the decision had paved the way for their legal careers.<ref name=EyesOnKennedy> {{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/abortion-supreme-court-women-explain-choices.html|title=Eyes on Kennedy, Women Tell Supreme Court Why Abortion Was Right for Them|date=February 29, 2016|first=Adam| last=Liptak|newspaper=The New York Times | access-date=May 23, 2019}} </ref><ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', Br. Am. Curiae of Janice Macavoy et al., filed Jan. 4, 2016 ("“To the world, I am an attorney who had an abortion, and, to myself, I am an attorney because I had an abortion.”) </ref> A competing brief in support of the Texas law was filed on behalf of women who said they suffered psychological or physical harm due to their abortions. <ref name=EyesOnKennedy /> On February 13, 2016, Justice Scalia died, leaving eight justices to hear the case. Ninety minutes of oral arguments were heard on March 2, 2016, with [[Scott A. Keller]], the [[Solicitor General of Texas]], appearing for the state, Stephanie Toti of the [[Center for Reproductive Rights]] appearing for Whole Woman's Health,<ref>{{Cite news |last=de Vogue |first=Ariane |title=How Ruth Bader Ginsburg steered the court on Texas' abortion law |url=https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-abortion-texas/index.html |access-date=2018-07-20 |work=CNN}}</ref> and [[Donald B. Verrilli Jr.]], the [[Solicitor General of the United States]], appearing as a friend of the court in support of the clinic.<ref name="US News">{{cite news|last1=Cook|first1=Lindsey|title=Explaining the Whole Woman's Health v. Cole Abortion Case|url=https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/11/supreme-court-and-abortion-why-whole-womans-health-v-cole-matters|access-date=January 26, 2016|work=U.S. News|date=January 11, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |first=Mark |last=Walsh |url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/a-view-from-the-courtroom-extra-time-to-weigh-a-divisive-issue/ |title=A "view" from the Courtroom: Extra time to weigh a divisive issue| website = SCOTUSblog |date =March 2, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Eckholm|first1=Erik|title=Young Lawyers Ready to Argue a Major Abortion Case Before the Supreme Court|url=http://nyti.ms/1Qop23D|access-date=July 3, 2016|work=The New York Times|date=March 1, 2016|page=A19}}</ref>
During the questioning phase of the oral arguments, the liberal side of the court, including Justices [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]], [[Stephen Breyer]], [[Sonia Sotomayor]], and [[Elena Kagan]], questioned the true intention of the law<ref name="auto">{{Cite news|url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/03/02/ruth_bader_ginsburg_asks_the_most_important_question_of_oral_arguments_in.html|title=The Most Important Exchange of Wednesday's SCOTUS Abortion Arguments| author-link = Mark Joseph Stern | last = Stern |first=Mark Joseph|date=March 2, 2016|newspaper=Slate|language=en-US|issn=1091-2339|access-date=March 3, 2016}}</ref> and Texas's justification for it. Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued that women living far from Texas abortion clinics––due to the closure of many abortion clinics struggling to comply with the requirement's standards––were not unduly burdened in gaining access to abortions because they could access clinics in New Mexico, a state with more lenient standards. In response, Justice Ginsburg noted: "So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico... and that's perfectly all right."<ref name="auto"/>
===Opinion of the Court===
[[Image:Stephen Breyer, SCOTUS photo portrait.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Justice [[Stephen Breyer]] was the author of the Court's opinion.]]
On June 27, 2016, the Court ruled by a 5–3 vote that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an [[Undue burden standard|undue burden]] for women seeking an abortion, and therefore the sections of Texas law H.B. 2 challenged here are invalid.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.vox.com/2016/6/27/11713644/whole-womans-health-supreme-court-choice|title=Pro-choice advocates just won the biggest Supreme Court abortion case in decades|last=Crockett |first=Emily|date=June 27, 2016|website=Vox|access-date=June 27, 2016}}</ref> In an opinion written by Justice [[Stephen Breyer]], the court struck down key provisions of the law––those requiring doctors who perform abortions to have difficult-to-obtain "admitting privileges" at a local hospital and requiring clinics to have costly hospital-grade facilities––as violating a woman's right to an abortion.<ref name=NYT>{{cite news|last1=Adam Liptak|title=Justices Overturn Texas Abortion Limits: 'Burden' Is Found - 10 Clinics to Stay Open|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/us/supreme-court-texas-abortion.html?_r=0|access-date=July 3, 2016|work=The New York Times|date=June 28, 2016|page=A1|author1-link=Adam Liptak}}</ref> Observing that these provisions do not offer medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes, the majority concluded: "Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution."<ref name="20160627Reuters">{{Cite web|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-abortion-idUSKCN0ZC0JL|title=Supreme Court firmly backs abortion rights, tosses Texas law|last=Hurley|first=Lawrence|date=June 28, 2016|website=Reuters|access-date=June 29, 2016}}</ref> The majority opinion struck down both provisions "facially", that is, the very words of the provisions are invalid, irrespective of how they might be implemented or applied.<ref name="20160627SCOTUSDenniston">{{Cite web|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/opinion-analysis-abortion-rights-reemerge-strongly/|title=Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt - Opinion analysis: Abortion rights reemerge strongly|last=Denniston|first=Lyle|date=June 27, 2016|website=SCOTUSblog|access-date=June 29, 2016}}</ref> According to the ruling, the task of judging whether a law puts an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to abortion rests with the courts and not the legislatures.<ref name="20160627SCOTUSDenniston" />
Justice Breyer wrote, "We have found nothing in Texas’ record evidence that shows that, compared to prior law (which required a “working arrangement” with a doctor with admitting privileges), the new law advanced Texas’ legitimate interest in protecting women's health." He noted that, when asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf], slip. op. at 23</ref> He found that, if H.B. 2 were allowed to take full effect, the number of Texan women living more than 200 miles from the nearest abortion clinic would increase from 10,000 to 750,000.<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf], slip. op. at 6</ref>
Justice Breyer dismissed the state's claim that the Pennsylvania case of [[Kermit Gosnell]] justified additional regulation: "Gosnell's behavior was terribly wrong. But there is no reason to believe that an extra layer of regulation would have affected that behavior. Determined wrongdoers, already ignoring existing statutes and safety measures, are unlikely to be convinced to adopt safe practices by a new overlay of regulations. Regardless, Gosnell's deplorable crimes could escape detection only because his facility went un-inspected for more than 15 years. Pre-existing Texas law already contained numerous detailed regulations covering abortion facilities, including a requirement that facilities be inspected at least annually."<ref>''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_p8k0.pdf], slip. op. at 27</ref>
===Concurrence===
In a two-page concurrence, Justice Ginsburg wrote, "Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. ... Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law 'would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.' ... When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners. ... [L]aws like H. B. 2 that 'do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion' cannot survive judicial inspection."<ref>{{cite news | access-date = June 27, 2016 | date = June 27, 2016 | title = The Supreme Court Strikes Down the Texas Abortion Law HB2 |url = http://www.houstonpress.com/news/the-supreme-court-strikes-down-the-texas-abortion-law-hb2-8473280 | work = Houston Press | first = Dianna | last = Wray}}</ref>
===Dissents===
Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, stating that the majority "reimagines the undue-burden standard" for abortion access, creating a "benefits-and-burdens balancing test" that courts should have instead deferred to the legislatures to resolve.<ref name="NYT"/> Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, filed a second dissenting opinion, arguing that there is no direct causal link between the Texas law and the closings of abortion clinics, and they may have also been affected by the withdrawal of state funds, declining demand for abortions, and retirements of doctors.<ref name="NYT"/> Alito also stated that Texas might well have been motivated to protect women by the [[Kermit Gosnell]] case in Pennsylvania, in which a doctor had been convicted on three charges of murder and one of manslaughter.<ref name="NYT"/>
==Subsequent developments==
===Reception===
Former U.S. Secretary of State [[Hillary Clinton]] praised the decision as a victory for women, saying "By striking down politically motivated restrictions that made it nearly impossible for Texans to exercise their full reproductive rights, the Court upheld every woman’s right to safe, legal abortion, no matter where she lives."<ref name=Guardian0627>{{cite news | url = https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jun/27/us-supreme-court-abortion-clinton-trump-sanders-november-election |title= Clinton hails Texas abortion decision as 'victory for women', Trump stays silent |work= The Guardian | access-date =June 27, 2016 | date = June 27, 2016 }}</ref> President [[Obama]] issued a statement applauding the Court's decision and reiterating his commitment to "women's health, including protecting a woman's access to safe, affordable health care and her right to determine her own future."<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/06/27/obama-applauds-supreme-courts-abortion-decision/86432184/ |title=Obama applauds Supreme Court's abortion decision |work= USA Today |access-date= June 27, 2016 | date= June 27, 2016 | first = Gregory | last = Korte }}</ref> Senator [[Bernie Sanders]] applauded the decision, calling it a "decisive victory for women across the country."<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sanders-applauds-supreme-court-abortion-ruling/article/2594995 |title = Sanders applauds Supreme Court abortion ruling |work=Washington Examiner | access-date =June 27, 2016 |date= June 27, 2016 |first= Robert | last = King}}</ref>
Senator [[Ted Cruz]] expressed disappointment with the ruling, saying "the Supreme Court sided with abortion extremists who care more about providing abortion-on-demand than they do protecting women’s health." He also vowed to fight for "unborn life."<ref name=Guardian0627/>
A statement issued on behalf of the [[Catholic Church]] bishops in Texas said the decision "puts women at grave risk" because "Surgical abortion is an invasive procedure that poses numerous and serious medical complications.  The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring the maximum level of safety for the woman subjected to the procedure and that viable emergency care is available if complications such as hemorrhage, infection, uterine perforation, blood clots, cervical tears, or allergic reactions occur. It is irresponsible for physicians to perform this procedure without being able to provide follow-up treatment for the associated complications."<ref>{{cite web|title=Texas Bishops highly concerned with ruling that puts women at grave risk|url=http://www.txcatholic.org/#!bishops-denounce-scotus-ruling-on-hb2/c1aii|publisher=Texas Catholic Conference|access-date=June 17, 2016}}</ref>
The decision may impact similar restrictions on abortion access in other states.<ref name="HuffPo">{{cite news|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-abortion_us_5649e312e4b060377349c8ca|title=How A Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion Could Wreak Havoc In The States|date=November 16, 2015|work=Huffpost Politics|publisher=Huffington Post|last1=Hurley|first1=Lawrence|access-date=January 26, 2016}}</ref><ref name="20160627SCOTUSGans">{{cite news|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/06/symposium-no-more-rubber-stamping-state-regulation-of-abortion/|title=Symposium: No more rubber-stamping state regulation of abortion|date=June 27, 2015|work=SCOTUS.blog|author=David H. Gans|access-date=June 29, 2016|quote="[T]he majority held that the “undue burden” standard announced in ''Planned Parenthood v. Casey'' “requires that courts consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer."}}</ref> [[Steve Vladeck]], a professor of law at [[Washington College of Law|American University Washington College of Law]], stated:<ref name="20160627CNN" /> {{quote|By clarifying exactly what [[Planned Parenthood v. Casey#Undue burden standard|the 'undue burden' test]]<ref name="20160627SCOTUSGans" /> requires, I suspect the majority was hoping to dissuade states like Oklahoma from continuing to pass laws that so directly challenge the central premise of ''Roe v. Wade'' -- that the Constitution protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion in a meaningful percentage of cases,}}  Vladeck also added that {{quote|in the process, the Court today has called into question everything from categorical bans on abortions to so-called 'fetal heartbeat' restrictions, and perhaps plenty of other laws in between,}}<ref name="20160627CNN">{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/27/politics/supreme-court-abortion-texas/|title=Supreme Court strikes down Texas abortion access law|date=June 27, 2015|publisher=CNN|first1=Ariane |last1=de Vogue |first2= Tal |last2=Kopan | first3= Dan |last3=Berman |access-date=June 29, 2016}}</ref>
===Other cases===
At the time of the decision, five states required abortion clinics to operate under "hospital-like" standards: Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Tennessee, though in the last of these{{which|date=August 2020}}  a court order prevented enforcement. Nine states required doctors to have hospital admitting privileges, of which three were enforcing that requirement (North Dakota, Missouri, and Tennessee) and six were not (Wisconsin, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama).<ref>{{cite news|last1=Domonoske|first1=Camila|title=Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Restrictions In Texas|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/06/27/483686616/supreme-court-strikes-down-abortion-restrictions-in-texas |access-date=June 27, 2016|publisher=NPR|date=June 27, 2016}}</ref>
A few hours after the Supreme Court announced its ruling, Alabama Attorney General [[Luther Strange]] announced he would drop his appeal of a U.S. District Court ruling that had invalidated the state's hospital admitting privileges requirement for abortion providers.<ref>{{cite news | access-date = June 28, 2016 | date = June 27, 2016 | url = http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/alabama_ag_luther_strange_says.html |publisher = AL.com | title = Alabama AG Luther Strange says state will drop appeal of abortion ruling | first = Mike | last = Cason}}</ref> On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court declined appeals in related cases from Wisconsin and Mississippi. It let stand a ruling that the state of Washington can require pharmacists to fill prescriptions for contraceptives to which they have religious objections.<ref>{{cite news | access-date = June 28, 2016 | date = June 28, 2016 | agency = Associated Press | newspaper = Washington Post | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejects-pharmacists-religious-rights-appeal/2016/06/28/d491befc-3d36-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160629165327/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejects-pharmacists-religious-rights-appeal/2016/06/28/d491befc-3d36-11e6-9e16-4cf01a41decb_story.html | url-status = dead | archive-date = June 29, 2016 | title = Supreme Court rejects pharmacists' religious rights appeal }}</ref> Justice Alito, in a dissent joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, wrote: "If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern."<ref>{{cite news | newspaper = Washington Post | access-date = June 28, 2016 | date = June 8, 2016 | url = https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-wont-hear-challenge-to-rule-that-pharmacies-dispense-emergency-contraception/2016/06/28/dd1f6c50-3d3a-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html | title = Supreme Court won't hear challenge to rule that pharmacies dispense emergency contraception | first = Robert |last =Barnes}}</ref> The court also rejected appeals by Mississippi and Wisconsin that sought to require abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges.<ref>{{cite news | title= Supreme Court Denies Mississippi, Wisconsin Efforts to Reinstate Abortion Laws | work = Wall Street Journal | date= June 28, 2016 | access-date = June 28, 2016 | first = Jess | last = Bravin | url = https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/supreme-court-denies-mississippi-wisconsin-efforts-to-reinstate-abortion-laws-1467124416 }}</ref>
Louisiana had passed Act 620 in 2014, modeled after Texas' law that would require doctors to have admission privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, effectively reducing the number of legal clinics to one at the time of passage. The law was challenged by abortion clinics and doctors in ''[[June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo]]'', and while the District Court ordered an injunction to prevent the law going into effect, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|Fifth Circuit]] reversed the injunction. The plaintiffs obtained an emergency stay of the Fifth Circuit's decision from the Supreme Court while ''Whole Woman's Health'' was under litigation. Following this case's decision, the Louisiana law was declared unconstitutional by the District Court on rehearing on the basis of ''Whole Woman's Health'', but the Fifth Circuit again reversed the decision. Plaintiffs have again sought an emergency stay order from the Supreme Court.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/29/eyes-on-kavanaugh-and-gorsuch-as-supreme-court-weighs-abortion-law.html | title = Eyes on Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as Supreme Court weighs whether Louisiana abortion law can go into effect | first= Tucker | last =Higgens | date = January 29, 2019 | access-date = January 29, 2019 | work = [[CNBC]] }}</ref> On February 7, 2019, the [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] granted a stay and temporarily enjoined the state of Louisiana from enforcing the law while the plaintiffs appeal the decision of the Fifth Circuit.<ref>{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/us/politics/louisiana-abortion-law-supreme-court.html | title = Supreme Court Blocks Louisiana Abortion Law | first= Adam | last =Liptak | date = February 7, 2019 | access-date = February 9, 2019 | work = [[New York Times]] }}</ref> The Supreme Court ruled on June 29, 2020 that the Louisiana law was similarly unconstitutional, with Roberts as the deciding vote. Roberts maintained his position of dissent in the opinion of the court but upheld the judgement of unconstitutionality as found in ''Whole Woman's Health'' as a matter of past court precedent.<ref name="usatoday opinion">{{cite web | url = https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/29/abortion-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-restrictions-clinics/3014787001/ | title = Supreme Court strikes down abortion clinic restrictions in Louisiana, a defeat for conservatives | first = Richard | last=  Wolf| date = June 29, 2020 | access-date = June 29, 2020 | work = [[USA Today]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200701172224/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/06/29/abortion-supreme-court-strikes-down-louisiana-restrictions-clinics/3014787001/|archive-date=July 1, 2020 }}</ref><ref name="nytimes decision">{{cite web | url = https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html | title = Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions | first= Adam | last =Liptak | date = June 29, 2020  |access-date = June 29, 2020 | work  = [[The New York Times]]|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200701052059/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/us/supreme-court-abortion-louisiana.html|archive-date=July 1, 2020 }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Barnes |first1=Robert |title=Courts & Law: Supreme Court strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law that would have closed clinics |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-law-john-roberts/2020/06/29/6f42067e-ba00-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html |access-date=June 30, 2020 |newspaper=The Washington Post |date=June 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200630005136/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-louisiana-abortion-law-john-roberts/2020/06/29/6f42067e-ba00-11ea-8cf5-9c1b8d7f84c6_story.html |archive-date=June 30, 2020}}</ref>
== See also ==
* ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]]'' (2022)
* ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973)
* ''[[Planned Parenthood v. Casey]]'' (1992)
* ''[[Stenberg v. Carhart]]'' (2000)
* ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'' (2007)
* ''[[June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo]]'' (2020)
* [[Hyde Amendment]]
== Notes ==
{{Reflist|group=fn}}
== References ==
{{Reflist|30em}}
== Further reading ==
* {{cite journal |first1=Linda |last1=Greenhouse |author-link=Linda Greenhouse |first2=Reva |last2=Siegel |author-link2=Reva Siegel |year=2016 |title=''Casey'' and the Clinic Closings: When 'Protecting Health' Obstructs Choice |journal=[[Yale Law Journal]] |volume=125 |issue=5 |pages=1428–1480 |ssrn=2621839 |url=http://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/casey-and-the-clinic-closings }}
* {{cite journal |first1=Rebecca B. |last1=Reingold |first2=Lawrence O. |last2=Gostin |author-link2=Larry Gostin |title=Women's Health and Abortion Rights : ''Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt'' |journal=[[JAMA (journal)|JAMA]] |year=2016 |volume=316 |issue=9 |pages=925–926 |doi=10.1001/jama.2016.11074 |pmid=27441893 }}
* {{cite journal |first=Mary |last=Ziegler |title=Substantial Uncertainty: ''Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt'' and the Future of Abortion Law |journal=The Supreme Court Review |year=2016 |volume=2016 |pages=77–116 |doi=10.1086/691549 |s2cid=148615698 }}
==External links==
* {{caselaw source
| case = ''Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt'', {{ussc|579|___|2016|el=no}}
| justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-274/
| oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/15-274
| other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)
| other_url1 =https://web.archive.org/web/0/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-274_new_e18f.pdf
}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20160303002036/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/15-274_l53m.pdf Transcript of oral arguments]
{{US14thAmendment|dueprocess}}
[[Category:Healthcare in Texas]]
[[Category:Legal history of Texas]]
[[Category:Right to abortion under the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:Right to privacy under the United States Constitution]]
[[Category:United States abortion case law]]
[[Category:United States privacy case law]]
[[Category:United States substantive due process case law]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court]]
[[Category:2016 in Texas]]
[[Category:2016 in United States case law]]
[[Category:History of women in Texas]]