Abortion Restriction Event

The premier court in the U.S.A. is the Supreme Court and it is recognized in deciding landmark cases. Most of the laws that are made in the U.S.A are enacted from the cases that are brought to the court. After the Supreme Court judges decide on a particular case after much consideration, their decisions are made into laws in most cases. The U.S.A Supreme Court has listened to many instances since it was created and it is always seen as a privilege when the court decides to hear a case that is tabled (Street Law Inc., 2019). In this paper, I will lay my focus on the abortion service delivery case that was tabled by Whole Woman's Health, Austin Females' Health Center, Nova Health Systems d/b/a Reproductive Services and Killen Ladies' Health Center, against John Hellerstedt together with Mari Robinson, in their formal positions, 579U.S case that was decided on 7th June, 2016, (Abboud, 2017). This was a case that had been presented in court in an attempt to block the regulations that Texas had put on abortion clinics. In their view, the petitioners claimed that the regulations that had been approved aimed at making the abortion clinics access thin and thus leading to the women being burdened.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In the decision concerning this case, the court's ruling on a scale of five to three stated that it was not right for Texas to put constraints to the provision of abortion facilities that generate unnecessary encumbrance to females pursuing the service. An effort by Wisconsin and Mississippi federal appeals courts to challenge the Supreme Court's decision on 28th June was unanimously rejected, (Frost, 2016). In 2013, Texas had enacted a law that placed several constraints on abortion clinics among them being that they should possess admitting rights at the hospital within 30 miles in addition to meeting similar values as ambulatory surgical centers as well as upgrading their structure, welfare, space, and enrolment to achieve the ideals of an infirmary apartment, (Abboud, 2017). Nonetheless, Whole Woman's Health considered these regulations as unworthy and costly and hence a way of limiting women from aborting. The groups that were against the regulations put on the abortion clinics decided to try their luck in court.

The first lawsuit that was presented by Whole Woman's Health was rejected, and the Texas law was upheld on 27th March 2014. The petitioners did not table a complaint then. However, they opted to present a second lawsuit on 6th April 2014 with an aim to block the admitting privileges and surgical center delivery across Texas, (Center for Reproductive Rights, 2018). Their efforts were rewarded on 27th June 2016 when the court ruled to the favor. The court decided to listen to this case since it involved the protection of their women. In their decision, they said that apiece regulation placed significant hindrance to womenfolk who sought an abortion and contributed to unworthy loads as well as violating the national laws. This means that in their view, the provisions made were pressing and thus compromising the health of women since some were being forced to travel to New Mexico for the services.

References

Abboud J. Carolina. 2017. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016). Retrieved from https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/whole-womans-healthv-hellerstedt-2016

Center for Reproductive Rights. Jul. 26, 2018. The Undue Burden Standards After Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

Frost Amanda. Sept. 30, 2016. Academic Highlight: Greenhouse and Siegel on the Right to Abortion After Whole Woman's Health. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/09/academic-highlight-greenhouse-and-siegel-on-the-right-to-abortion-after-whole-womans-health/

Street Law Inc. 2019. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Retrieved from https://www.streetlaw.org/scotus-in-the-classroom/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt