Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
Docket number: 15-274
Court: United States Supreme Court
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

In the abortion law case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the United States Supreme Court considered whether two provisions of Texas House Bill 2, which required abortion doctors and facilities to meet certain requirements, constituted "undue interference from the State" in a woman's right to have an abortion.

In a 5-3 decision delivered on June 27, 2016, the court struck down Texas' HB 2. Justice Stephen Breyer, who delivered the opinion of the court, wrote, "We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was the first abortion case the court added to its docket since 2007. It was also the first major case the court heard without the presence of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died unexpectedly on February 13, 2016.

Questions presented: 1. "In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, this Court reaffirmed that the decision to end a pregnancy prior to viability is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. 505 U.S. 833, 845-46 (1992). It held that a restriction on this liberty is impermissible if it amounts to an undue burden. Id. at 876-77. Under this standard, states may not enact '[u]nnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion.' Id. at 878." (a). "When applying this standard, does a court err by refusing to consider whether and to what extent laws that restrict abortion for the stated purpose of promoting health actually serve the government's interest in promoting health?" (b). "Did the Fifth Circuit err in concluding that this standard permits Texas to enforce, in nearly all circumstances, laws that would cause a significant reduction in the availability of abortion services while failing to advance the State's interest in promoting health-or any other valid interest?" 2. "Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that res judicata provides a basis for reversing the district court’s judgment in part?"

Case background

Texas House Bill 2 required abortion doctors to have hospital admitting privileges at a facility within 30 miles of where an abortion was performed and that abortion facilities met the same requirements as outpatient surgery centers. The court ruled that these requirements placed "undue burdens" on a woman seeking an abortion.

In Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the court decided that a woman has a "right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State, whose previability interests are not strong enough to support an abortion prohibition or the imposition of substantial obstacles to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure."

The petitioners: Whole Woman’s Health, et al.

A group of women's healthcare facilities and abortion doctors asked the court to strike down what they viewed as some of the prohibitive provisions of HB 2 by clarifying the Casey standard, which prohibits laws that place an "undue burden" on woman seeking an abortion. They also "want[ed] the Court to order lower courts to judge whether new restrictions on abortions actually would work to protect women’s health," according to SCOTUSblog's Lyle Denniston. In their writ of certiorari, they argued that some of the provisions of HB 2 "would delay or prevent thousands of women from obtaining abortions and lead some to resort to unsafe or illegal methods of ending an unwanted pregnancy. ... Further, every woman in Texas would have to live under a legal regime that fails to respect her equal citizenship status and would force her to grapple with unnecessary and substantial obstacles as a condition of exercising her protected liberty."

Before HB 2 was enacted in 2013, 40 facilities in Texas performed abortions, and the number dropped to 18 by the time the writ of certiorari was submitted. The petitioners argued that only 10 abortion facilities would remain open if all of the provisions of HB 2 were ruled constitutional.

The respondents: Texas Department of State Health Services, et al.

Texas Department of State Health Services Commissioner Dr. John Hellerstedt, who represented the state, argued that the provisions of HB 2 were not enacted to make it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion but "to raise standards of care and ensure the health and safety of all abortion patients." The brief for the state argued that the following measures were included in the bill to ensure that a woman who wants an abortion can safely access the procedure: "Women who must travel more than 100 miles to an abortion facility are also exempted from the preexisting 24 hour waiting period after informed consent, as only a 2-hour waiting period would apply. ... Further, Texas law prohibits hospitals and health care facilities from discriminating against physicians who perform abortions." In addition, "HB2 left in place existing laws allowing abortions to be performed at general ASCs and hospitals, both of which are licensed by the State."

Argument

Oral argument: The court heard oral argument in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt on March 2, 2016.

• Transcript of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

• Audio of oral argument: United States Supreme Court, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Decision and impact

In a 5-3 decision delivered on June 27, 2016, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, striking down Texas' HB 2. Justice Stephen Breyer, who delivered the opinion of the court, wrote, "We agree with the District Court that the surgical center requirement, like the admitting-privileges requirement, provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an 'undue burden' on their constitutional right to do so."

Majority opinion: Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the opinion of the court, in which Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined. Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion.

Dissenting justices: Samuel Alito filed a dissenting opinion and was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas filed an additional dissenting opinion.

See also

• Supreme Court of the United States
• History of the Supreme Court
• Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term
• Supreme Court cases, October term 2015
• What happens to this term's major SCOTUS cases in a 4-4 split?
• Process to fill the vacated seat of Justice Antonin Scalia
• 2016 presidential candidates on the death of Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court vacancy
• Members of Congress on the death of Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court vacancy

External links

• SupremeCourt.gov
• American Bar Association, 2015-2016 Supreme Court Briefs