Analysis of Supreme Court ruling in the case whole women’s heath versus Hellerstedt
The constitution of the USA allows women to make a decision regarding their reproductive health. It is within the constitutional right of a woman to decide whether to wait until delivery or to abort a fetus without any restriction from the government of the USA. However, in many instances, the state governments in the USA have passed legislation that tends to limit the liberty of the women in regards to abortion. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has declared that any law that limits the liberty of the women to abort is unconstitutional.
A woman had sued the attorney of Texas State after it was declared that it was illegal to procure abortion within the state. The Supreme Court dismissed the Texas laws that restricted women abortion and declared them as unconstitutional, in 1973. The court, in its ruling, observed that women have the right to privacy that provides them with an opportunity of choosing whether or not to abort. However, the Supreme Court held that the right is not absolute but has to be balanced with the state laws of protecting the health of the women and prenatal life. This led to the rise of debates on the extent to which women abortion is legal and illegal.
Texas State passed another law that brought restrictions on abortion until the case reached the Supreme Court for another time. In the Supreme Court, a ruling was made that the state laws were a burden to women’s right on their productive health.
In a case, whole women’s health versus Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court ruled that the Texas state law that was limiting the institutional aspect of provisional of abortion services to women in Texas were unconstitutional. This was very significant to the women of Texas. It upheld the women’s constitutional right regarding their abortion right. They can now get abortion services from the medical institutions within the Texas states. If the law had been allowed to prevail just the way the Texas state had wanted, the women would have suffered a big blow. This is because the state had put restrictions on the health facilities that women would have gone to seek abortion services.
The court established that, if the state had gone ahead to implement the law, many of the abortion clinics could have closed leaving very few in operational and they wouldn’t have been enough to offer good services to the number of women who would be seeking abortion services. Therefore declaring the Texas law unconstitutional was beneficial to the women. Accessing abortion clinics was now guaranteed, and they now enjoy the right of having control over their reproductive system.
The court ruling also saved the women misery, suffering and also cost. If the Supreme Court had allowed the law to remain in effect, the women would have been going for a long-distance to look for abortion services since it is only a few clinics that were in a position to comply with the state. Laws. Assuming a woman is pregnant and starts developing complications, before reaching to a clinic, her life is at risk, there is suffering on the way, and a lot of money would be spent going for long-distance to look for abortion clinics.
The court ruling guaranteed women quality services. For example, the execution of laws would limit the number of clinics in operation. Therefore, it would have led to the decline of the quality of abortion services since the few abortion clinics operating would have experienced congestion.
The ruling was significant as a warning to other states that would have been tempted to pass similar laws. The fact that Texas state law was declared unconstitutional, the other states with the intention of passing laws that undermine women right on abortion would reconsider their decision.
While the states are supposed to exercise some control on women reproduction, the law does not allow them to put any undue burden to women regarding their abortion right. Furthermore, the court ruled that regulating the institutions that offer women abortion services amounts to putting them through undue burden. Therefore, this offers another perspective to the people and other courts on how to test the issue of the undue burden.
Some states are passing legislation similar to the Texas law like regulating the physicians and hospital requirements. Therefore, the 2016 Supreme Court ruling acts as a death peal for constitutionality status of such laws. For example, a board of health in Virginia recently decided to remove the regulation that they had put on abortion facilities.
The court ruling on the constitutionality of Texas laws and women abortion rights established a precedent for other related rulings by the lower courts. Therefore, the ruling has great significance to the protection of the women right across the states in the USA.
Conclusion.
While the state governments have some powers when it comes to women’s reproductive rights, there should be a careful exercise of such rights. Furthermore, the careful exercise of such rights will prevent collision between women, their rights and the courts. In addition, there should be a clear distinction of the extent where state regulations become an undue burden to the enjoyment of women’s reproductive right.
References
Gamper, C. (2016). A Chill Wind Blows Undue Burden in the Wake of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Md. L. Rev., 76, 792.
Grossman, D. (2017). The use of public health evidence in Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt. JAMA internal medicine, 177(2), 155-156.