And then there were eight
October 3, 2014 7:53 PM Subscribe
A three-judge panel A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit has ruled in favor of the state of Texas immediately enforcing HB2 in Whole Woman's Health, et al v. David Lakey, et al, closing almost all abortion provider clinics in the state.
House Bill 2, passed by Republicans in 2013, is an omnibus anti-choice law that mandates that legal abortion facilities meet the standards of ambulatory surgical centers and that doctors who provide abortions have admitting privileges at local hospitals. The law also bans abortion after 20 weeks, and severely limits the provision of medication abortion. HB2 was opposed as medically unnecessary and potentially dangerous.
Previously, Federal Judge Lee Yeakel had put a second stay on the restrictive Texas’ abortion law, , ruling that the Texas law placed an undue burden on women.
An undue burden, according to the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is supposedly in action “if a regulation’s purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
The state of Texas argued that it was only *some* women who would face an undue burden, but not enough to really matter. The Circuit agreed. By the Fifth Circuit’s own estimates, approximately 900,000 Texas women will now be forced to travel more than 150 miles to access abortion care, but the Court doesn't see that as an undue burden any more than it sees invasive ultrasound as an undue burden. Or that the state can mandate an exam that costs 2 weeks wages for a minimum wage worker before she can have an abortion.
This is the second time the conservative 5th Circuit has overturned a ruling of Yeakel's where abortion is concerned. With the first, the number of providers in the state dropped from 41 to 20. With this ruling, the number of providers drops to 8.
Previously, Federal Judge Lee Yeakel had put a second stay on the restrictive Texas’ abortion law, , ruling that the Texas law placed an undue burden on women.
An undue burden, according to the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, is supposedly in action “if a regulation’s purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.”
The state of Texas argued that it was only *some* women who would face an undue burden, but not enough to really matter. The Circuit agreed. By the Fifth Circuit’s own estimates, approximately 900,000 Texas women will now be forced to travel more than 150 miles to access abortion care, but the Court doesn't see that as an undue burden any more than it sees invasive ultrasound as an undue burden. Or that the state can mandate an exam that costs 2 weeks wages for a minimum wage worker before she can have an abortion.
This is the second time the conservative 5th Circuit has overturned a ruling of Yeakel's where abortion is concerned. With the first, the number of providers in the state dropped from 41 to 20. With this ruling, the number of providers drops to 8.
This post was deleted for the following reason: It's not clear if this is quoted material or just framing - it needs to be crystal clear and less editorially framed to have a chance of being a civil thread. -- restless_nomad
It was an expected outcome. I just wish we had a Supreme Court that I would want to review this, but we don't.
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by emjaybee at 8:07 PM on October 3, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Please enjoy this interactive fiction fantasy! | The smell never bothered me anyway. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:03 PM on October 3, 2014