Full metadata
In the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the US Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the Texas requirements that abortion providers have admitting privileges at local hospitals and that abortion facilities meet ambulatory surgical center standards. Whole Woman’s Health represented abortion care providers in Texas and brought the case against the commissioner for the Texas Department of State Health Services, John Hellerstedt. In a five to three decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the requirements of the challenged law, Texas House Bill 2, had forced the majority of abortion care facilities to close. With fewer available facilities, women faced undue burdens of travel time and cost when seeking abortions, restricting their access abortion care. In previous US Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Court ruled that placing undue burdens on women seeking abortion care was unconstitutional. Upholding those decisions in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the US Supreme Court struck down Texas House Bill 2 and protected women’s access to abortion care.
- Abboud, Carolina J. (Author)
- Gleason, Kevin M. (Editor)
- Arizona State University. School of Life Sciences. Center for Biology and Society. Embryo Project Encyclopedia. (Publisher)
- Arizona Board of Regents (Publisher)
- Law
- Birth control clinics
- Abortion
- Family planning services
- Abortion--Law and legislation--United States
- United States. Supreme Court
- Contraception
- Reproductive Rights
- Ambulatory medical care
- Obstetrics
- Hospitals--Medical staff--Clinical privileges
- Surgical clinics
- Planned Parenthood Federation of America
- Reproduction
- Legal
- 2023-01-25 08:59:39
- 2023-04-20 05:31:32
- 1 year 5 months ago