- Office of Attorney General Maura Healey
Media Contact
Jillian Fennimore
Boston — Today, Attorney General Maura Healey released the following statement applauding the U.S. Supreme Court for issuing a decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, reaffirming that it is unconstitutional for a state to severely burden women’s reproductive rights.
“Today’s decision by the Supreme Court is an important victory in the ongoing fight for the right of all women to access safe reproductive health care. Women in the United States have had a constitutional right to make choices about their own reproductive health for over 40 years, yet across the country we continue to see efforts to restrict that right. The state laws at issue in this case—and others like them—were falsely sold as promoting women’s safety, when in reality they put women at risk. No woman should have to travel hundreds of miles or wait for weeks to access reproductive health care. I’m glad the Supreme Court recognized that Texas cannot impose these severe burdens on women’s reproductive rights.”
BACKGROUND
In January, AG Healey joined a multistate amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in support of the petitioners in the case.
The brief, prepared by the New York Attorney General’s Office with assistance from Attorney General Healey’s Office, requested the Supreme Court reverse a federal appellate court decision upholding two provisions of Texas law that restrict access to abortion services in that state.
The provisions of the Texas laws require that all abortion clinics comply with standards applicable to ambulatory surgical centers and that any physician performing an abortion hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where the abortion is performed.
The provisions were purportedly enacted to promote women’s health, but the evidence in the Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt case established that they would not serve that purpose and could even be detrimental to the health of women seeking pre-viability abortions. According to the petitioner’s brief, these provisions would cause the closure of 75 percent of abortion facilities in Texas and deter new ones from opening. More than half of these facilities in that state are currently closed due to the admitting privileges requirement largely being in effect.
Similar laws have proliferated across the nation in recent years, resulting in the closure of many abortion facilities.
In 2014, a federal district court in Texas prohibited the enforcement of the provisions, but in 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed that decision and upheld them. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not allow Texas and other states around the nation to adopt such burdensome restrictions.
Media Contact
