When Common Sense And Public Health Prevail: Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt

On June 27, 2016 the United States Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Whole Women’s Health et al. v. Hellerstedt, one of its culminating decisions for the 2015-2016 term. By a 5-3 majority, the Court ruled unconstitutional two specific provisions of a Texas statute (House Bill 2), which was enacted in 2013 following a dramatic debate that featured a national headline-making filibuster by State Senator Wendy Davis. The two provisions at issue were first, a requirement that physicians performing surgical or medical abortions have active admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles, and second, that clinics performing previability abortions meet extensive licensure standards applicable to ambulatory surgical facilities. Justice Breyer authored the majority opinion on behalf of himself and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg also wrote a brief, separate concurrence. Justice Alito dissented on behalf of himself, Justice Thomas, and the Chief Justice, while Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissent. The high court’s ruling overturned a decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the statutory provisions. The majority opinion represents a full-throated reaffirmation of the balancing test first set forth by the Court 25 years ago in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern United States v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992). That test calls for careful judicial review of abortion-related legislation whose stated purpose may be to protec...
Source: Health Affairs Blog - Category: Health Management Authors: Tags: Equity and Disparities Featured Insurance and Coverage Medicaid and CHIP Public Health Quality Abortion Planned Parenthood v. Casey Supreme Court Texas Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt Women's Health Source Type: blogs