Whole Women's Health V. Hellerstedt Paper Example

At various points of history, American society has had to make and amend laws concerning the changing needs of the community. This paper presents a case study on the US Supreme Court Case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 which was ruled on June 27th, 2016. This case is a landmark in the US judiciary because it introduced a new legal perspective into a predominantly controversial issue, abortion. Abortion has been and remains as a common cause of social and political debates in America. This case is interesting to me because it reflects the need for flexibility to accommodate the unique problems that each American generation has faced. The 5-3 court ruling found that the State of Texas does not stop abortion when doesn't limit the pro-life of the child if he raises the burden on the woman (Morrison, 2016).

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

Save 25%

The ruling has been widely applauded by women rights activists on the right to make pro-life decisions for their child. The law has been vital in addressing the growing social and political debate on abortion and the legal backing of the same. Previously in 2013, Texas State administration had passed several restrictions against the abortion clinics in the region. After the law was given the number of available facilities declined from 42 to 19, and it is apparent that this meant reduced reproductive health in women. The rules also required the abortion facilities to meet the standards of same-day surgical centers. This requirement relates to the physical state of the buildings, staffing, parking and other forms of health functions that affect the safety of the patient, doctors and other participants in healthcare organization (Ziegler,2017).

Whole Women's Health organization termed these requirements as unrealistic goals on the issue at hand, abortion. The law required an expensive upgrade most abortion facilities could not afford. The group also found it unnecessary to impose restrictions which increased the burden of raising a child to the mother. The requirement had only limited safe abortions and had failed to eliminate the social problem or deal with the root causes of abortion among different individuals. Abortion comes as a result of critical evaluation on the burden of the pregnancy on the mother. Women are left to make an already seemingly hard choice with several legal limitations when the same law fails to protect them against the circumstances leading to abortion. The law was passed and exercised in the state of Texas from October 2014, but its legitimacy was withdrawn following the court's ruling on this pertinent issue. Within one year of its existence, the State government in Texas waived some or all the regulations for about 78 percent of the available requirements on ambulatory surgical facilities but had not bent any rules for the abortion facilities. The plaintiff argued that the laws of both the federal and state laws show they seek to promote equity and equality for the common good of the American citizenry (Ziegler,2017).

At the first mentioning of the case, the group of women presented the legal suit which sparked legal investigation on whether the laws were practical given the setup of the current society. On October 28th, 2013, the plaintiff received affirmation from Judge Earl Leroy of District Court in Austin, Texas. The judge invalidated the admitting-privilege legal provisions and opened up the chance for the women to claim a landmark court decision on abortion and reproductive health of women. Days later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the legal injunction and the plaintiff did not appeal to the US Supreme Court on March 27, 2014 (Morrison, 2016).

A second lawsuit followed in April 2014, the plaintiff sought to challenge the laws based on guidelines of the Nova Health Systems in El Paso, Texas and the Whole Women's Health institution in Austin, Texas. The organization sought to abolish the requirements on surgical centers throughout the entire state that it would increase the cost of healthcare especially to women who wish to terminate the pregnancy. The law would also lead to maternal deaths as mothers would still need to make the difficult decision (Morrison, 2016). The Fifth Circuit reversed the previous ruling in favor of the El Paso facility but upheld the legal requirements of the Whole Women's Health Center in McAllen. The decision was dissented by a three-bench panel which reinstated majority provisions of the State law. On November 15 October, the Supreme Court granted a review on the statutory mandates. In March 2016, oral arguments from both sides with Scott Keller representing the State of Texas, Stephanie Toti as the defense counsel and Donald Verrilli appeared as a friend of the clinic.

During the court appearance, the defense attorney argued that some women live away from Texas and close to New Mexico but still opt to visit healthcare institutions in Texas. The defense attorney stated that "So if your argument is right, then New Mexico is not an available way out for Texas, because Texas says: To protect our women, we need these things. But send them off to New Mexico... and that's perfectly all right." (Greasley, 2017). He expounded on the fact that women were living closer to New Mexico than Texas. These women were not unduly burdened by the statutory laws in Texas because they had an option to select abortion clinics in New Mexico where the rules are relatively friendly to the issue before the court. The Solicitor General sought to imply that different jurisdictions relate to different guidelines just like different people relate to varying needs in health and the broader society (Morrison, 2016).

On June 27, 2016, the US Supreme court invalidated these laws on the account that they increased the burden of parenthood on women. The ruling written by Judge Stephen Beyer indicated that the laws increased admitting privileges which made it difficult for the doctors and health institutions to deny the women their right to make such a critical decision. The requirements also failed to offer medical benefits that exceed the overall costs of the individual and society (Ziegler,2017).

Conclusion

I fully support the Supreme Court's decision in this case. The court upheld its legitimacy and independence in improving the alignment of the law to the social needs of the time. The current society is faced with stiff competition of scarce resources which makes parenting a vital decision in a person's life. If a woman chooses to terminate the pregnancy on account of a personal definition of the burden. When women and other groups seek legal backing on such controversial issues, courts are obligated to give a verdict that represents the common social welfare. In this case, the court upheld the right to abortion for women in Texas to provide them with equal freedom to any other woman within the US (Ziegler,2017).

References

Greasley, K. (2017). Taking Abortion Rights Seriously: Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt. Modern Law Review, 80(2), 325-338. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12256

Morrison, S. R. (2016). Personhood Amendments After Whole Woman's Health V. Hellerstedt. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 67(2), 447-499. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=122199643&site=ehost-live

Ziegler, M. (2017). Facing Facts: The New Era of Abortion Conflict After Whole Woman's Health. Wake Forest Law Review, 52(5), 1231-1283. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=127644678&site=ehost-live