On Wednesday, as the US Supreme Court hears a long-running abortion case for the first time in nearly a decade, the policies at issue shifted from mothers or fetuses to standards for physicians and clinic where the procedure is performed.
The court appeared to be narrowly divided during arguments over a law that was passed in Texas, which placed tougher restrictions on abortion providers. New York Times reported that four of the justices were adamant that the law imposed in Texas on the state's abortion providers served no purpose.
The strategy that anti-abortionist used in the high court caught some abortion-rights advocates scratching their heads. Elizabeth Nash, a policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights, said that 'it took a while to see the impact of state laws imposing policies on abortion providers.'
The law in Texas requires abortion providers to improve their facilities and meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center. One of the regulations before the court also mandates any physician to provide 'admitting privileges' at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic they work in. Telesur TV reported that abortion providers challenged these provisions in the law which requires clinic to spend costly upgrades from corridor widths, parking spaces, and room size.
Since the Republican-backed regulations was passed in 2013, many abortion clinics in Texas have closed. Abortion providers who are opposed to the Texas law asked the high court to declare such law as unconstitutional. National abortion opponents and several Texas officials counter that the law is essential in order to provide protection to the mother's health.
For how many years, the legal strategy of abortion opponents centered on trying to ban abortion outright or impose orders on women such as parental or spousal content. National Right to Life Committee urged state activists to shift to subtler tactics, says Reuters.
Americans United for Life, another national anti-abortion group, began using the 2005 Missouri law as model legislation for state activists targeting abortion facilities. The ruling in the case is due by the end of June.
