This could become the greatest victory for women’s reproductive healthcare in decades.
A large number of individuals and organizations filed 45 legal briefs in the Supreme Court Tuesday – all concluding state laws restricting abortion access are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court case will examine the Texas law, known as HB2, which places unnecessary regulations on the state’s diminishing abortion clinics. The regulations are framed as improvements to “women’s health,” yet they have nothing to do with patient health or safety. They were created by anti-abortion legislators with the goal of imposing additional costly bureaucratic red tape on clinics and staff with the ultimate goal of shutting abortion clinics down – and it’s been successful. HB2 has already forced half of the clinics in Texas to close.
HB2 has been greeted by unprecedented opposition from abortion rights advocates since it passed in 2013. Since it was announced last November that the Supreme Court will hear the case, the number and diversity of opponents has increased. The list of petitioners includes physicians, religious leaders, military officials, historians, scientists, civil rights activists, members of Congress, law scholars, entire cities, and even the federal government.
Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement,
“Never before has such a diverse array of organizations and leaders…stepped forward to condemn abortion restrictions at the U.S. Supreme Court.”
A portion of the briefs include testimonials from women who’ve been affected by the lack of abortion access.
Debra Hauser, the president of Advocates for Youth, a group dedicated to young people’s access to comprehensive sexual health education, shared her personal abortion story in her organization’s brief and said, “The Supreme Court justices need to hear the real effects of restrictive abortion laws on women like this one in Texas. What is missing from this issue are our personal stories. The reality is that one in three women will have an abortion in her lifetime.”
Some of the 110 law professionals who’ve had abortions noted how they would have never had the chance to become a lawyer if they hadn’t had the procedure.
“[Our] experiences demonstrate the real world effects of abortion access on the lives and careers of women attorneys, and underscore the truth of the court’s observation that reproductive choice facilitates women’s ability ‘to participate in the economic and social life of the nation,’” the brief reads.
Northup noted that the briefs represent the largest coalition of faith-based leaders and organizations ever to oppose anti-choice laws at the Supreme Court level. “As religious leaders and pastoral counselors, [we] provide spiritual guidance to women facing this decision and believe that this complex decision is ultimately a moral one,” the brief reads. “While various religious groups in this country hold differing views on abortion, there is substantial agreement that women have a moral right to make their own decisions on the issue.”
40 prominent scientists also submitted a brief on Tuesday, pointing out the “flawed pseudoscience” that will be used in the testimony to support the case. “We hope the court is able to put abortion politics aside and focus on the illegitimacy of the medical claims propping up the restrictions,” said Robyn Blumner, president and CEO of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason & Science. “When science claims are used to infringe a constitutional right they had better be valid, but that’s not the case here.”
More opponents include former Texas Senator Wendy Davis, who led an 11-hour filibuster in an attempt to defeat HB2, as well as Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards and a slew of other individuals and groups.
Like Kimberley A. Johnson on Facebook HERE, follow her HERE. Twitter: @authorkimberley
You must be logged in to post a comment Login