Everything You Need to Know About the Biggest Abortion Case in Decades
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in a case that boils down to: Who decides what’s best for a woman’s health? Anti-abortion Republican legislators who have no experience in the field, or medical professionals, in conjunction with the women they serve?
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt amounts to the most significant abortion case to reach the Supreme Court in decades. Here’s everything you need to know about it.
What’s this case all about? Doesn’t it have something to do with Wendy Davis?
Yes. This issue is before the Court this week thanks to Texas’ radical anti-abortion law, HB 2. The law originally made national headlines in the summer of 2013 when Wendy Davis filibustered it late into the Texas night. Then-Texas Gov. Rick Perry had other plans, though. After Davis’ successful ploy, Perry called an emergency session of the legislature and was able to get the bill passed by the overwhelmingly Republican body.
HB 2 contains several restrictions, including a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and restrictions on the use of medication abortion. Those provisions, however, are not before the Supreme Court this week. Instead, the Court will weigh in on two other sections of the law: one requiring doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, and another requiring clinics to effectively become miniature hospitals (they call them ambulatory surgical centers, or ASCs).
What’s so bad about that? Sounds pretty common sense.
Well, the anti-abortion Republican legislators in Texas do argue it’s common sense that these provisions will help keep women safe; doctors with admitting privileges will provide more continuity of care if a woman has a complication that requires hospitalization, and clinics that meet the ASC requirements will be safer, right?
However, there’s a glaring problem with this reasoning: Medical professionals — including all major medical organizations — completely disagree. In fact, if implemented fully, these provisions will do the exact opposite of what these lawmakers claim they intend, making Texas women less safe.
The reasoning of these medical groups is sound. The admitting privileges requirement makes no sense because patients who experience complications following a medical procedure and need to go to a hospital are able to do so regardless of whether the initial doctor has admitting privileges. Moreover, there’s no guarantee a patient will go to the same hospital where the doctor has admitting privileges, particularly if she has traveled a fair distance to get to the clinic. Finally, admitting privileges are not a mark of physician quality; rather, they are an indication of a pre-existing relationship to the hospital, nothing more — a relationship usually depending on the doctor sending a certain number of patients to the hospital because of complications, something that is exceedingly rare for abortion procedures.
The true effect of admitting privileges requirements is to give an abortion veto to a third party who has nothing to do with the doctor or the woman seeking the procedure. Hospital administrators now determine if a doctor can perform an abortion. When many hospitals are Catholic-run or fearful of anti-abortion protest, it’s no wonder supremely qualified doctors have difficulty getting admitting privileges.