Today, the United States Supreme Court will take up the most important abortion rights case in at least a decade, hearing arguments over the constitutionality of a Texas law that imposes onerous requirements on abortion providers. The law - HB 2 - sparked a slew of clinic closures in Texas and has dramatically impeded access to abortion for women in the state.
Dispatches: Regulating US Abortion Providers Off the Map
Mar 02, 2016
Today, the United States Supreme Court will take up the most important abortion rights case in at least a decade, hearing arguments over the constitutionality of a Texas law that imposes onerous requirements on abortion providers. The law - HB 2 - sparked a slew of clinic closures in Texas and has dramatically impeded access to abortion for women in the state.
On its face, the law's technical requirements - such as clinics meeting certain building standards and doctors maintaining admitting privileges at local hospitals - may seem removed from the abortion debate. But there is little doubt among advocates on either side that this case is about the future of reproductive rights and access to abortion in the US.
The Texas law is one of dozens of targeted regulation of abortion providers laws passed by state legislatures. While they claim to protect women's health by setting standards, these laws have little to do with the reality of abortion procedures, which are low-risk and safer than other procedures, like colonoscopies, regularly performed in doctors' offices or outpatient clinics.
Instead, laws like the one before the court right now serve to regulate abortion providers off the map by making it logistically difficult and extremely costly to stay in operation. Since HB 2 passed, 21 out of 40 providers in Texas have shut their doors; another nine or 10 hang in the balance. A recent analysis found that at least 162 abortion clinics had closed across the country since 2011, while only 21 new clinics opened their doors.
Very little remains of a right if the government can make it nearly impossible to exercise. As the amicus brief filed by the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health points out, that is why the European Court of Human Rights has held that where a country legally permits abortion, "it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain [an abortion]." The Supreme Court should recognize that for women in Texas, and in some other states that have enacted similar laws, those real possibilities are fast disappearing.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Meghan Rhoad
Meghan Rhoad is the US researcher in the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch, currently focusing on violence against women. Her work at Human Rights Watch has included documentation of abuses suffered by women in US immigration detention, research into sexual violence affecting Somali women and girls in Kenyan refugee camps, and fact-finding in Haiti on the situation of women and girls displaced by the 2010 earthquake. Rhoad was formerly a women's law & public policy fellow at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, DC, where she researched US federal judicial nominations and analyzed policy developments affecting the economic security of low-income women and their families. Her previous work includes international advocacy projects using the human rights framework to address issues such as reproductive health and gender discrimination in inheritance law. Rhoad is a graduate of Harvard University and Georgetown University Law Center.
Today, the United States Supreme Court will take up the most important abortion rights case in at least a decade, hearing arguments over the constitutionality of a Texas law that imposes onerous requirements on abortion providers. The law - HB 2 - sparked a slew of clinic closures in Texas and has dramatically impeded access to abortion for women in the state.
On its face, the law's technical requirements - such as clinics meeting certain building standards and doctors maintaining admitting privileges at local hospitals - may seem removed from the abortion debate. But there is little doubt among advocates on either side that this case is about the future of reproductive rights and access to abortion in the US.
The Texas law is one of dozens of targeted regulation of abortion providers laws passed by state legislatures. While they claim to protect women's health by setting standards, these laws have little to do with the reality of abortion procedures, which are low-risk and safer than other procedures, like colonoscopies, regularly performed in doctors' offices or outpatient clinics.
Instead, laws like the one before the court right now serve to regulate abortion providers off the map by making it logistically difficult and extremely costly to stay in operation. Since HB 2 passed, 21 out of 40 providers in Texas have shut their doors; another nine or 10 hang in the balance. A recent analysis found that at least 162 abortion clinics had closed across the country since 2011, while only 21 new clinics opened their doors.
Very little remains of a right if the government can make it nearly impossible to exercise. As the amicus brief filed by the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health points out, that is why the European Court of Human Rights has held that where a country legally permits abortion, "it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain [an abortion]." The Supreme Court should recognize that for women in Texas, and in some other states that have enacted similar laws, those real possibilities are fast disappearing.
Meghan Rhoad
Meghan Rhoad is the US researcher in the women's rights division of Human Rights Watch, currently focusing on violence against women. Her work at Human Rights Watch has included documentation of abuses suffered by women in US immigration detention, research into sexual violence affecting Somali women and girls in Kenyan refugee camps, and fact-finding in Haiti on the situation of women and girls displaced by the 2010 earthquake. Rhoad was formerly a women's law & public policy fellow at the National Women's Law Center in Washington, DC, where she researched US federal judicial nominations and analyzed policy developments affecting the economic security of low-income women and their families. Her previous work includes international advocacy projects using the human rights framework to address issues such as reproductive health and gender discrimination in inheritance law. Rhoad is a graduate of Harvard University and Georgetown University Law Center.
Today, the United States Supreme Court will take up the most important abortion rights case in at least a decade, hearing arguments over the constitutionality of a Texas law that imposes onerous requirements on abortion providers. The law - HB 2 - sparked a slew of clinic closures in Texas and has dramatically impeded access to abortion for women in the state.
On its face, the law's technical requirements - such as clinics meeting certain building standards and doctors maintaining admitting privileges at local hospitals - may seem removed from the abortion debate. But there is little doubt among advocates on either side that this case is about the future of reproductive rights and access to abortion in the US.
The Texas law is one of dozens of targeted regulation of abortion providers laws passed by state legislatures. While they claim to protect women's health by setting standards, these laws have little to do with the reality of abortion procedures, which are low-risk and safer than other procedures, like colonoscopies, regularly performed in doctors' offices or outpatient clinics.
Instead, laws like the one before the court right now serve to regulate abortion providers off the map by making it logistically difficult and extremely costly to stay in operation. Since HB 2 passed, 21 out of 40 providers in Texas have shut their doors; another nine or 10 hang in the balance. A recent analysis found that at least 162 abortion clinics had closed across the country since 2011, while only 21 new clinics opened their doors.
Very little remains of a right if the government can make it nearly impossible to exercise. As the amicus brief filed by the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health points out, that is why the European Court of Human Rights has held that where a country legally permits abortion, "it must not structure its legal framework in a way which would limit real possibilities to obtain [an abortion]." The Supreme Court should recognize that for women in Texas, and in some other states that have enacted similar laws, those real possibilities are fast disappearing.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.