Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Texas’s admitting privileges and ambulatory surgical center regulations in a 5-3 decision written by Justice Stephen Breyer, who concluded that “neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution.”
Listen to Women’s Law Project Senior Attorney Susan Frietsche
discuss the U.S. Supreme Court ruling here
In her powerful concurrence, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited the amicus brief filed by the Women’s Law Project and Women’s Law Project board members Thomas E. Zemaitis, an attorney with the Philadelphia-based law firm Pepper Hamilton LLP, and David S. Cohen, a professor of law at the Thomas R. Kline School of Law at Drexel University on behalf of ten abortion providers in Pennsylvania.
Justice Ginsburg wrote, “When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux, at great risk to their health and safety.”
So what exactly this ruling will mean for Pennsylvania law and recently proposed abortion bans such as HB 1948?
“It’s premature to predict what impact the ruling will have precisely on Pennsylvania law… But one thing is absolutely sure,” said Frietsche. “Today’s decision should signal to lawmakers that it is no longer open season on abortion rights.”
At noon today, Frietsche will discuss this assertion and more on the show Essential Pittsburgh, airing 90.5 WESA-FM.
You can also listen live online here and join the conversation by calling 412-246-2002.
The Women’s Law Project is the only public interest law center in Pennsylvania devoted to advancing the rights of women and girls.