The Decision Overturning Texas’ Abortion Law Will Have A Dramatic Impact Across The Country

BY TARA CULP-RESSLER JUN 27, 2016 11:13 AM

In a decision that will have far-reaching effects across the country, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down two provisions of a sweeping anti-abortion law in Texas.

At issue in the Texas case were two abortion restrictions that fit into a larger strategy known as the “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers,” or TRAP. These type of laws indirectly restrict access to abortion by imposing burdensome red tape on clinics and providers — making it so difficult to legally offer abortion that many clinics are forced to close.

The high court reversed two major provisions in Texas’ law — first, a requirement that abortion doctors obtain “admitting privileges” from local hospitals; second, a requirement that abortion clinics bring their standards in line with “ambulatory surgical centers” — siding with the plaintiffs’ argument that these policies do nothing to improve patient health and safety. In the majority opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that these “unnecessary health regulations” ultimately pose an “undue burden” on women’s right to abortion.

The decision reaffirms the standard put forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey — another major abortion case that the Supreme Court took up in 1992 — that stipulated state laws may not restrict abortion to the point that presents an “undue burden” on the right to choose. It suggests that some TRAP laws may go too far to violate this standard.

That’s significant because TRAP laws — many of which are identical to Texas’ — have quickly spread across the country over the past decade. Led by Americans United for Life (AUL), a sophisticated anti-abortion group that drafts model legislation and shops it around to state lawmakers, multiple states have adopted the same exact type of admitting privileges and ambulatory surgical center requirements.

It’s been a highly successful strategy for the anti-abortion movement because it refocuses the debate away from restricting women’s rights and toward (supposedly) keeping women safe.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2016/06/27/3792909/texas-case-ripple-effects/