🔺 What to do when markets are at an all-time high? Find smart bargains, like these.See Undervalued Stocks

Obama administration asks top court to reject Texas abortion law

Published 01/04/2016, 08:00 PM
Updated 01/04/2016, 08:10 PM
© Reuters. Abortion rights activists protest outside a U.S. federal court in Austin

By Joan Biskupic

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday urged the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down a Texas abortion law that has shuttered nearly half the clinics in the state, saying the Republican-backed regulations would harm rather than protect women's health.

Intervening in the Supreme Court's first abortion case since 2007, the administration said the new Texas rules for clinics and physicians who perform abortions are far more restrictive than other regulations upheld by the justices over the years.

If allowed to take full effect, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli wrote, the law would close many more of the state's clinics and force hundreds of thousands of Texas women to travel great distances if they seek to terminate pregnancies.

"Those requirements are unnecessary to protect - indeed, would harm - women's health, and they would result in closure of three quarters of the abortion clinics in the state," Verrilli wrote.

The administration's "friend of the court" brief siding with the clinics challenging the law comes in one of the most politically charged disputes this presidential election year.

The case does not test the fundamental right to abortion established by the court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, but could impact women's access to abortion services nationwide. Depending on how the justices rule, they could encourage, or dissuade, other states to impose regulations.

In the past, Republican administrations have sided with states trying to restrict abortions while Democrats have joined physicians and clinics opposed to the regulations.

The Obama administration did not fully embrace the clinic challengers' position, however.

The clinics that sued Texas, represented by the New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), say judges trying to determine whether a regulation unconstitutionally burdens a woman's right to abortion should look at legislators' purpose or motives.

In this case, CRR lawyers said, the state's assertions of health concerns "are nothing more than a pretext for restricting access to abortion."

Administration lawyers emphasized a judicial review tied to the effects of a law. That more nuanced stance might have been crafted to appeal to pivotal justice Anthony Kennedy, who in past cases has backed a fundamental right to abortion but has broken from his abortion-rights colleagues to endorse certain regulations.

Obama administration lawyers said the law's requirements that clinics have hospital-grade facilities and clinic doctors obtain admitting privileges at a local hospital were unnecessary because abortions provided in Texas are safe and have produced a low rate of complications.

Briefs from state officials and from their supporters in the case are due in the coming weeks. Texas officials have argued in previous filings that U.S. states have an interest in protecting the health of a woman seeking an abortion and urged courts to defer to legislative authority.

© Reuters. Abortion rights activists protest outside a U.S. federal court in Austin

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.