Countdown to SCOTUS: Three quotes that show why WWH v. Hellerstedt matters for blue states, too.

Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt started in Texas with HB 2. It’s the story of compounding restrictions and legislation, legal caveats that chip away and dissolve a constitutional right. This story is most often told in red states like Texas, North Dakota, and Mississippi.
It would be a mistake to think that the compounded attack on abortion access neatly holds itself within red state borders, leaving more liberal states to continue their role as progressive beacons. One would need to look no further than what’s happened in Ohio to see that’s just not the case, or read any (but hopefully all) of the quotes below from amicus briefs filed on our behalf from blue cities and states across the country.

 

“Amici also have an interest in ensuring that each State satisfies its constitutional obligation to protect the right to terminate a pregnancy within its borders. Residents of the Amici States should be able to exercise their constitutional rights in any State to which they may travel. Moreover, a substantial reduction in the availability of abortion services in one State is likely to cause some women to seek services in other States, thereby potentially limiting the regulatory choices available to those States and burdening their health-care systems.”
 
 
 
“..in analyzing the extent of the burden imposed by the ASC and admitting-privileges requirements as applied to women in El Paso, the Fifth Circuit erred by considering the availability of abortion services in the neighboring State of New Mexico. This Court should reject that approach because it misapprehends the fundamental principle, affirmed by the Court in analogous contexts, that each State bears  an independent obligation to ensure that its laws do not infringe the constitutional rights of persons within its borders. By disregarding this principle, the Fifth Circuit validated restrictions that effectively deny women the ability to access abortion services in their home State and force them to travel elsewhere to access those services.”
 
 
 
“Even if women are not deterred or prevented from seeking abortions by the absence of nearby clinics, the burden of restrictive state abortion laws is not geographically confined. The spill-over harms extend to cities and counties where clinics remain open—both in states that have enacted restrictive laws and in neighboring states without similar restrictions. An influx of women seeking time-sensitive abortion services at a diminishing number of clinics and hospitals will jeopardize timely access to vital reproductive healthcare to millions of amici’s residents.
 
 
 
This is neither hyperbole nor speculation. In some parts of the country, practical access to legal abortion services may already be worse today—some states are down to only one abortion clinic—than at any point since this Court recognized a constitutional right for women to choose abortion in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)”

Please join us this week as we stand up for abortion access for Texans and for residents in red states AND blue states. Show your support on social media by changing your profile picture or joining the Thunderclap – and watch the live stream of the Rally at the Supreme Court to Protect Abortion Access here!

 

 

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Countdown to SCOTUS: Three quotes that show why WWH v. Hellerstedt matters for blue states, too.

  1. Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

    Isn’t a woman with an unwanted pregnancy subject to involuntary servitude for 9 months or even many years (if she elects to keep her newborn), to her unwanted and/or unplanned fetus? If being forced to carry an unwanted fetus, which she has to carry internally using her own life forces, is not involuntary servitude, then what is?

    Section 2 requires Congress to adopt laws to insure that Section 1 is not violated………….not the States, which includes Texas.

    Just a thought,
    bk

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s