Editorials from the New York Times and MSNBC take a closer look at the questions at issue in the Supreme Court's upcoming case on Texas' antiabortion-rights law (HB 2). The high court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the lawsuit on Wednesday. Summaries of the editorials appear below.
~ Linda Greenhouse, New York Times: "At the core of the most important Supreme Court abortion case in a generation is a series of questions about facts," Greenhouse writes, referring to an upcoming challenge to provisions in Texas' omnibus antiabortion-rights law. The provisions at issue "require[e] abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and the clinics themselves to be fitted out as mini-hospitals, even those that simply dispense the pills that bring about a nonsurgical abortion," Greenhouse explains. She notes that abortion-rights opponents advanced these and other targeted regulation of abortion providers (TRAP laws) under the guise of women's health. According to Greenhouse, this strategy arose in response to the Supreme Court's ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, in which the high court said states could impose abortion restrictions so long as they are "'calculated to inform the woman's free choice, not hinder it,'" and do not impose an undue burden on abortion access. Greenhouse explains that as TRAP laws "don't inform and don't persuade," but rather "destroy the infrastructure on which women necessarily depend for the exercise of their constitutional right," state lawmakers used women's health as their justification for the regulations. Given that the restrictions are medically unnecessary and effectively cut off abortion access, Greenhouse writes that the question before the Supreme Court is whether and how to weigh the justification behind such restrictions. She points to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision largely upholding HB 2, in which the judges wrote, "'In our circuit we do not balance the wisdom or effectiveness of a law against the burdens the law imposes.'" Greenhouse disputes this rationale, writing, "Evidence matters to courts ... The notion that when it comes to restricting abortion, facts shouldn't count, is to give 'abortion exceptionalism' a new meaning. It is a meaning the Supreme Court will reject if it is true to its precedents and principles" (Greenhouse, New York Times, 2/27).
~ Jessica González-Rojas, MSNBC: González-Rojas, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, states, "The harms of HB 2 on the 2.5 million Latinas of reproductive age in Texas are direct, documented, and disproportionate," noting that for many such women, HB 2 acts as "a de facto ban on abortion." González-Rojas notes that Latina women in Texas "already fac[e] significant barriers to accessing reproductive healthcare," partly because of "higher than average poverty levels ... greater rates of unintended pregnancy" and the state's recent cuts to family planning services. These "obstacles multiply" for Latina women seeking abortion care, she writes, citing work, education and child care obligations, as well as transportation challenges and the increased financial burden on women who are delayed from accessing timely abortion care. To highlight how these barriers affect women, González-Rojas shares the experiences of several women seeking abortion care, including two 32-year-old Houston residents who "reported borrowing money from relatives and co-workers, getting cash advances from their employers, taking out pay day loans at 17 percent interest, and pawning personal possessions" in order to cover the increased cost of accessing abortion care. González-Rojas notes that "[o]ther states are watching closely to decide whether they'll follow Texas' bad example," concluding, "That's why I stand with the Latinas of Texas, and with Latino/a leaders from across the country, in our ardent hope that the Supreme Court will side with women and families and uphold, once more, our constitutional right to abortion. The future of millions of Latinas hangs in the balance" (González-Rojas, MSNBC, 2/25).
