Skip to main content
Supreme Court of the United States

Breaking: Women’s Health and Safety at Risk after Supreme Court Rules Against Texas Law

October 17, 2017

By: Katie Heller

For the first time in nearly a decade, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about abortion, specifically Texas House Bill 2 (HB2).

This no-brainer law requires abortionists and abortion facilities to comply with the same health and safety standards as similar outpatient, surgical centers. These standards include having hallways wide enough for a gurney, adequate staffing, and proper sterilization procedures. The law also requires that abortionists have admitting privileges to a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility in case a woman needs immediate medical attention from post-abortion complications.

To no one’s surprise, abortionists in Texas filed suit against the law claiming it was unnecessary and caused an “undue burden” for women seeking an abortion.

Alliance Defending Freedom and its Allies submitted friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of thousands of pro-life physicians and other medical professions to both the Fifth Circuit and the Supreme Court, providing the courts with critical information about the medical benefits of HB2’s reasonable health and safety measures..“[We] urge the Court to affirm that the quality of medical care provided to women seeking abortion should not be any lower than the quality of care provided to women undergoing similar invasive procedures,” the brief stated. “The health and safety of all women should not be compromised.”

Sadly, today in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court invalidated the Texas law that protects the health and safety of women, and gave a free pass to abortionists to bypass standard medical requirements.

One must ask, why would the abortion industry, which touts that abortion is “safe” and seeks to provide women the “highest medical care possible,” object to laws that actually ensure the safest protections for women? The answer is simple – the abortion industry cares more about its bottom line than the protection of women’s health. 

Texans should have full freedom to prioritize women’s health and safety over the bottom line of abortionists. “Abortionists shouldn’t be given a free pass to elude medical requirements that everyone else is required to follow,” said ADF Senior Counsel Steve Aden. “We are disappointed that the Supreme Court has ruled against a law so clearly designed to protect the health and safety of women in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal. The law’s requirements were commonsense protections that ensured the maximum amount of protection for women, who deserve to have their well-being treated by government as a higher priority than the bottom line of abortionists. Any abortion facilities that don’t meet basic health and safety standards are not facilities that anyone should want to remain open.”

You Can Help Protect Women’s Health

Every woman undergoing a highly invasive surgery like abortion should be assured by law that their health and safety is protected by the highest safety standards possible. Alliance Defending Freedom is committed to continuing the fight to protect women, children, and the unborn. Please consider joining us with a financial gift today.

 

Donate Now


Alliance Defending Freedom

Alliance Defending Freedom

Non-profit organization

Alliance Defending Freedom advocates for your right to freely live out your faith


COTO
Why One College Is Going Toe-to-Toe with the Biden Administration

When the Biden administration reinterpreted “sex” in federal law to mean “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” the implications were far-reaching...and alarming.

Supreme Court of the United States
Supreme Court Agrees to Hear One of the Biggest Abortion Cases Since Roe v. Wade

The Supreme Court announced that it would hear a case involving a Mississippi law to decide whether states can pass laws that protect life from abortion before an unborn baby is viable.

Supreme Court of the United States
Will SCOTUS Protect NAACP v. Alabama's Legacy? 5 Clues From Monday's Arguments

Much like Alabama’s demand back in 1956, California’s demand will also have disastrous consequences for donor privacy, free speech, and free association.