Abortion ruling may not open door for new Texas clinics
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Activists demonstrated in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, today, as the justices closed out the term with decisions on abortion, guns, and public corruption expected.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Activists demonstrated in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, today, as the justices closed out the term with decisions on abortion, guns, and public corruption are expected.
AUSTIN, Texas » Abortion providers celebrating the U.S. Supreme Court striking down major Texas abortion restrictions today also acknowledged a daunting reality: Women aren’t soon likely to see new clinics replace the about 20 abortion facilities lost since 2013.
The restrictions that justices toppled in a 5-3 decision have already forced more than half of Texas’ abortion clinics out of business — from 41 facilities before the law was passed to 19. Had the law that former Democratic state Sen. Wendy Davis once temporarily blocked with an 11-hour filibuster been found constitutional, only 10 would have remained open in a state of 27 million people.
But while the biggest abortion ruling by the Supreme Court in a generation leaves Planned Parenthood and others in Texas free to open smaller, more modest clinics, providers made no promises about breaking ground on new facilities. And any openings, they cautioned, could take years, meaning that women in rural Texas counties are still likely to face hours-long drives to abortion clinics for the foreseeable future.
Buildings need to be leased. Staffs need to be hired. Clinics must still obtain state licenses and funds for medical equipment must be raised. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Legislature is all but certain to remain hostile to abortion providers that try to expand.
“We really have a daunting task to determine whether and how we can reopen our health centers,” said Whole Woman’s Health founder Amy Hagstrom Miller, whose chain of abortion clinics in Texas includes the state’s only provider on the southern border with Mexico.
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards also would not immediately commit to the nation’s largest abortion provider opening more Texas clinics, but she expressed hope.
Don't miss out on what's happening!
Stay in touch with top news, as it happens, conveniently in your email inbox. It's FREE!
“Just to re-establish services in a community and get the licensures is just not something that is going to happen overnight,” said Richards, who is the daughter of former Texas Gov. Ann Richards.
The Texas laws required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and forced clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. The bill propelled Davis, at the time a state senator who ran for governor in 2014, to national stardom when her filibuster packed the Texas Capitol with raucous protesters whose shouts deafened the Senate floor as time ran out on the measure.
More than 40 abortion clinics in Texas were open at the time, but neither Richards nor abortion rights groups would predict whether Texas would ever reach that number again. Davis said the expectation for now is that areas without a nearby clinic will at least see one reopen within the next six months, and that the goal may not necessarily be getting back above 40 facilities.
“The benchmark is more closely aligned with geographic proximity,” Davis said. “If women are able to geographically access that care without tremendous costs or burdensome travel then we’ll be back to where we need to be.”
Monday’s ruling now gives Texas abortion providers the go-ahead to continue offering abortions in smaller facilities that are akin to doctor’s offices. Many clinics had faced multimillion-dollar renovations to comply with the law, such as upgrades to air ventilation systems and hallways wide enough to accommodate hospital beds.
Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott rebuked the justices for taking away rules that he says protect the health and safety of women, and Republican leaders in states including Michigan, Missouri and Pennsylvania have used similar arguments while enacting nearly identical laws. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing in a concurring opinion, said it was “beyond rational belief” that the Texas law looks after women.
The landscape of abortion in Texas changed drastically over the last three years: Most remaining clinics are concentrated around the major cities of Dallas, Houston, Austin and San Antonio, leaving many women in vast rural swaths of the state facing long drives to the nearest provider. The result was that wait times at some Texas abortion clinics started exceeding 20 days, Davis said, while opponents of the law also warned about women seeking out abortions in Mexico instead.
26 responses to “Abortion ruling may not open door for new Texas clinics”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
More of the Left’s hate of Black Women.
Please. Try just the converse, pillock. “We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for a five-justice majority in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt. “Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”
For Texas women, the impact was extraordinary. It is notable that the restrictions threatened to close all but six of Texas’s 40 abortion clinics. For more than 1 million, yes more than almost the entire state of Hawai’i, women of reproductive age in the vast state, those remaining clinics would be more than 150 miles away.
To Breyer and his colleagues in the majority, that qualified as an undue burden. “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 super facilities,” he wrote. “Patients seeking these services are less likely to get the kind of individualized attention, serious conversation, and emotional support that doctors at less taxed facilities may have offered.”
Agree with Boola. Texas has passed way too many anti-women laws. Republicans are out of control in Texas and hatred thrives there. Scary, bad place.
Don’t be daft. There’s a demand, so there WILL be a supply. Somebody would have provided the service with the safeguards for the female in place.
The actual question is why didn’t these clinics that had to close because of this law have these common sense safety features in place already?
Did they care more about profit than their patients?
They aren’t common sense safety features. None of them. You’re making that up, just like the legislators did.
The Court saw through the lies, but apparently you can’t.
You should read Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion. She noted that abortions are statistically safer than many simpler medical procedures, including tonsillectomies, colonoscopies, in-office dental surgery and childbirth, but Texas does not subject those procedures to the same onerous requirements. She went on to write “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,’ Her final take – “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners … at great risk to their health and safety.” In other words the Texas law was disingenuous from the outset and would actually place women at greater risk.
I would hope that this just might lead to more logical thinking on the part of republicans. Perhaps they just might want to review what Ronald Reagan had to say about government regulation. (Government is the problem.) Sadly they probably won’t which for me makes it easy who to vote for.
The republicans are such hypocrites. Many, many, many, many, many (try 20 “many”s) times more women in this country will die from childbirth than abortion — so if the republicans care so much about women, why didn’t they pass a law that requires all midwives to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and anyone who wants a home birth to have their home meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery? Because their so-called “justification” for the anti-abortion law is so obviously a lie. Is abortion a sin? The bible doesn’t expressly say it is. But the Bible sure does say that LYING is a sin. Shame on the Texas republicans.
agree
So, what’s the Democrat’s excuse? They could have submitted a bill doing just that.
Hypocrisy perhaps?
No, because NEITHER one is medically justified, so the democrats did not pass EITHER one. It’s not that difficult a concept.
Finally, the Court stepped in and at least paused the relentless Republican attack on women. Old white men in Texas and other states believe that women are incapable of making their own healthcare decisions, and thankfully, the Court put a stop to that.
The new way that women are being attacked by Republicans is to twist this and other similar decisions into some attack on black women. That argument is pure evil. Just evil. Besides being illogical (no one is ever forced to have an abortion) it’s not true. Lying has become the primary tool of Republicans, and unfortunately their (imbecile) base actually believes and repeats this drivel about black women.
Women have the right to control their own bodies, no matter what their color.
Lying you say???Don’t make me laugh! “Women have the right to control their own bodies,no matter what color”. Yes Correct! “their Own Bodies”!
Not the Body of an unborn Fetus. During inception the woman’s body is a safe haven where ,she provides the baby a place to nourish and grow!They are to become two separate beings. The woman becomes the vessel for the Baby who becomes a child,an adult and so on!No matter what Color!
Hmmmn, about 99% of doctors disagree with your putative definition…..attend medical school much?
First of all, it is a fetus not a baby. Second, please don’t ever forget that republicans could have changed this but didn’t. Wonder why they didn’t? Perhaps they didn’t really believe in your position Moilee.
1. Random capitalization of words that should not be capitalized.
2. Failure to add appropriate spacing after punctuation.
3. Excessive usage of question marks and exclamation points.
The tell-tale signs of a typical online ranter. Throw in a few words in ALL CAPS to get extra credit next time.
Richard Carlson has a Book out called “Don’t Sweat The Small Stuff”. Audio version available too. So relax,breath in ,breath out.
“They are to become two separate beings” — but so long as they are ONE being, that being is the woman. It’s her body. The law does not, and CANNOT, require any person against their will to donate a part of their body to keep another person alive. If you disagree, please give me your contact information because I know people who are waiting to get a new kidney, and by your logic they should be able to take yours whether you agree or not.
Don’t start up with me, I understand under extreme circumstances like Rape and Incest. Abortion is warranted! Other circumstances? Hell NO! Circumstances: Like, you forgot to take your birth control or a One Night Fling after clubbing on Saturday Night,because you were too drunk or this one ,my favorite “Bad Timing and inconvenience”.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the Supreme Courts stood up for the rights of the ….UNBORN! I get the Ruling of Obama’s Rubber stamps. Justice Kagen and Sotomayor .No matter how crazy, they will always vote to favor and promote Obama’s agenda.
Ultimately,this ruling simply enforces and legitimize the killing of thousands of innocent Babies.In my mind Supreme Court got this one wrong! Shame on them !
I am Pro-Life and Proud of it! IMUA
If you stand against the killings of thousands of innocent babies, then you should fight to appeal the 2nd amendment as well.
Don’t silly! Appeal or Repeal the second ammendment? If you’re Comparing “apples and Bananas” you must be a Banana!
I see. So your “pro-life” thing is only about fetuses over which you think you have the right to control. It’s not about life in general. So if adults or children are murdered by the thousands every year by guns, that’s OK because you can’t control it. But because you think you CAN control the woman, you consider yourself “pro-life.”
Got it.
Nope! Another Banana? Hell yeah Pro-Life all the way! Deep down,don’t you feel that it is a right for the unborn to live,the right to LIFE? C’mon Klastri don’t be sooo callus.
MoiLee – A woman has a right to control her own body. Period.
You think that you have right to control what others do if you don’t agree with their legal choices. You don’t have that right. Too bad for you
I’m sure that your banana reference means something to you. Good for you.
A guy on a call-in radio show said he was neither for or against abortion… but he figured with all the medical people and equipment in emergency rooms, if something went wrong, the woman could be taken care of at a hospital and the “clinics” doctor need not have hospital privileges. In other words, the law was over kill and not necessary. The guy was an RN. When ask now he personally felt about abortions, he said they should only be allowed in case of rape, incest, or if the mothers health was in danger. When told that that was the opinion of Pro-Life people he got mad… saying he didn’t take a stand on abortion. LOL LOL LOL
The lie about having to have privileges in a hospital was especially evil. Hospitals were pressured by states to prevent those doctors from getting admitting privileges. And as the testimony showed, in the event that there was a complication, the woman would be transferred to a hospital where the ER doc had privileges. There was never a situation – not one ever – where a woman was turned away from a hospital because of a privilege issues. Never. It was all a lie.
It was an argument to people who don’t understand how hospital privileges work, and are too ignorant or lazy to research how that works