NPR reports:
In a decision striking down key aspects of a Texas abortion law Monday, the Supreme Court cast doubt on similar laws in nearly two-dozen states.
At issue in the court's decision were two specific provisions of a sweeping law to restrict abortions passed by the Texas Legislature in 2013. The provisions before the court required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles from the abortion clinic and required abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers that perform much more complicated procedures.
Opponents of the bill argued before the court that if both requirements were to be enforced, only 10 clinics would remain to perform abortions in Texas, compared with more than 40 before the law was passed. Such limited access in a state so large would cause an "undue burden" on a woman's right to obtain an abortion, they said.
The court has said in the past that states can regulate access to abortion but not in a way that causes an undue burden on women.
In a 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said that "both the admitting privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution."
One of the key questions was which side Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been a swing vote on abortion issues, would join. He signed onto the majority opinion with the four justices who traditionally support abortion rights.The immediate impact of the ruling means that the plaintiff in the case, Whole Women's Health, will not have to close any more of its Texas clinics.
"Every day, Whole Woman's Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity," said Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder and CEO of the group. "And today the Supreme Court did the same. We're thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open."
In the future, if there aren't enough choices of health insurers on the ObamaCare exchanges this could be a limit on women getting health care and abortions. Those words may come back to haunt the ObamaCare law. If a market isn't competitive enough this could substantially hurt women's access to health care.
David Hogberg explained this in 2014 :
Many supporters of ObamaCare insisted that the health insurance exchanges created by the law would result in consumers having a greater choice among insurance policies and lower prices.
This study tests those claims by examining policies on the exchanges in metropolitan areas across 45 states for a single 27-year-old and a 57-year-old couple. It then compares those with the policies available in those same areas on eHealthInsurance.com (eHealth) and Finder.healthcare.gov (Finder) in 2013.
The results show that the claims that the ObamaCare exchanges would offer greater choice and lower prices did not hold up. A 27-year-old male had, on average, ten more policies to choose from on eHealth versus the exchange and 31 more on Finder. A 27-year-old female had an average of ten more insurance options on eHealth and 38 on Finder. There were an average of nine more policies on eHealth and 19 more on Finder for a 57-year-old couple.
Across all areas examined, the exchanges have resulted in a substantial reduction in choice. For 27-year-olds, there were 442 fewer policies on the exchanges versus eHealth, a drop of 18 percent. There were 1,306 fewer policies on the exchange versus Finder for 27-year-old males and 1,716 fewer for females, declines of 38 percent and 46 percent, respectively. For 57-year-old couples, there were 406 fewer policies on the exchanges compared to eHealth and 855 fewer versus Finder, drops of 18 percent and 31 percent, respectively.
Consumers also previously had more lower-cost options than they now have on the exchanges. A 27-year-old male had, on average, access to 32 policies on eHealth that cost less than the cheapest policy on the exchanges and 38 policies that cost less on Finder. There were an average of 18 cheaper policies on eHealth and 20 on Finder for a 27-year-old female. A 57-year-old couple had access to an average of 29 cheaper polices on eHealth compared to the lowest-cost policy on the exchange and 28 on Finder.
An examination of subsidies that consumers can receive to purchase insurance on the exchanges produced mixed results on costs. A 57-year-old couple earning $50,000 annually was usually eligible for a subsidy large enough that the price of the cheapest exchange policy was lower than the price of any policy on eHealth or Finder. But for a 27-year-old earning $25,000 annually, the subsidy was less potent. In fact, even after subsidy options were accounted for, 27-year-old males still had access to an average of 18 cheaper polices on both eHealth and Finder, while a 27-year-old female had access to an average of nine on eHealth and eight on Finder.
-
Don't progressives care that there's less choice women?
