Rulings of lower courts in case whole women health v. cole? links?
- joensfcaLv 74 years agoFavorite Answer
The new abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole, is focused on two new restrictions in the Texas law: doctors who perform abortions must have the right to send patients to a full-scale hospital no further than thirty miles from the clinic, and each clinic must have the same facilities as a surgical center. The clinics and doctors argue that neither is necessary, and both will narrow access to abortion services by forcing clinics to close.
However, the case has larger implications: the clinics and doctors involved are asking the Court to reaffirm prior rulings that spell out when a new abortion law imposes an “undue burden” on women’s right to end their pregnancies. That standard stems from a 1992 decision, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, that reaffirmed much of the abortion right established in Roe v. Wade in 1973.
In addition, they want the Court to order lower courts to judge whether new restrictions on abortions actually would work to protect women’s health — a test that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to undertake in the Texas case now before the Court. The Fifth Circuit ruled that a court must accept the views of the legislature that a new law would serve that interest.
The Court has not ruled on the validity of an abortion law since its 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding a federal law that banned so-called “partial-birth” abortions.
Plaintiffs challenge H.B. 2’s physician admitting
privileges requirement as applied to a McAllen and an El Paso abortion facility.
Plaintiffs also challenge H.B. 2’s requirement that abortion facilities satisfy
the standards set for ambulatory surgical centers facially and as applied to the
McAllen and El Paso abortion facilities. The district court enjoined
enforcement of both requirements “as applied to all women seeking a
previability abortion,” and as applied to the McAllen and El Paso abortion
facilities. Whole Woman’s Health v. Lakey, 46 F. Supp. 3d 673, 676 (W.D. Tex.
2014) (emphasis added). The State appeals the entry of declaratory and
injunctive relief.3 Plaintiffs cross-appeal the dismissal of their additional
equal-protection and unlawful-delegation claims.
After carefully considering the record in light of the parties’ extensive
written and oral arguments, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of the
Plaintiffs’ equal-protection and unlawful-delegation claims, AFFIRM in part
and MODIFY in part the district court’s injunction of the admitting privileges
and ASC requirements as applied to McAllen, VACATE the district court’s
injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to “all women
seeking a previability abortion,” and REVERSE the district court’s facial
injunction of the ASC requirement, injunction of the ASC requirement in the
context of medication abortion, and injunction of the admitting privileges and
As discussed more fully below, upon the State’s motion, a panel of this court partially
stayed the district court’s judgment pending appeal.
ASC requirements as applied to El Paso.
In plain terms, H.B. 2 and its provisions may be applied throughout
Texas, except that Supreme Court precedent requires us to partially uphold
the district court’s injunction of the ASC requirement as applied to the Whole
Woman’s Health abortion facility in McAllen, Texas, and to uphold the district
court’s injunction of the admitting privileges requirement as applied to Dr.
Lynn when he is working at the McAllen facility.