Whole Woman’s Health: A Victory for United States Women

By Christine Mitchell

Christine Mitchell is a rising junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying nursing.

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in the case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt  may prove to be one of the biggest wins for pro-choice groups since Roe v. Wade. The 5-3 ruling found that laws passed in the state of Texas posed an undue burden to women seeking an abortion, and were therefore unconstitutional. [1] An “undue burden,” with regards to reproductive rights, emerges when a substantial obstacle is placed in the way of a woman seeking an abortion during the period when a fetus is unviable. [2 ] The undue burden test was established in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the court found that restrictions on abortion rights violate the Due Process Clause if they establish an undue burden on those seeking an abortion. [3]  

The laws brought into question required that physicians performing abortions in clinics have admitting privileges at local hospitals, and held abortion clinics to the same structural standards as surgical centers. Those supporting the Texas provisions claimed the laws improved the safety of women seeking an abortion by ensuring that facilities met high standards, and had the ability to admit a patient to the hospital in case of an emergency. [4]

In reality, these laws resulted in significant barriers to women accessing abortion care, including the closure of many clinics in the state, with no demonstrable improvement to patient health or safety. [5] Admitting privileges, for example, are unnecessary due to both the safety of abortion procedures, and the availability of emergency rooms in the event of a medical emergency. Regardless of a physician's privileges at a hospital, a physician is able to refer and send patients to receive care in the ER, which would be the most appropriate hospital service for a patient experiencing an emergent complication from any medical procedure.  Furthermore, during the pre-viability phase, an abortion generally consists of the administration of pills, a procedure hardly worthy of surgical center facilities. While the Texas laws were marketed as protection for women's health, they clearly only served to restrict abortion access.  
After the admitting privilege restrictions became enforced in Texas, the number of operating clinics dropped 75%.

​Due to the decrease in availability of abortion clinics, many women in Texas lived in areas where accessing an abortion clinic would require traveling a significant distance, in some cases up to 300 miles. [6] The necessity of travel disproportionately impacted lower income women, who often do not have the means to travel to an available clinic.  Had the surgical center law been enacted, the number of clinics would have dropped even further. This inaccessibility constituted an undue burden, and proved to be unconstitutional.  

The precedent set by this court ruling has opened the doors for pro-choice groups across the country to challenge similar state abortion laws. Planned Parenthood, one of the many groups advocating for more accessible abortion care, has announced that they will be bringing lawsuits against restrictive abortion legislation in at least 8 states. Some states have already felt the impact of the Supreme Court ruling. The attorney general of Alabama, for example, withdrew an abortion appeal law, stating that "there is no good faith argument that Alabama's law remains constitutional in light of the Supreme Court ruling." [7]

Given the relative safety of abortion procedures, the laws passed in Texas clearly posed an undue burden with no additional health benefits. With the removal of these laws, it is likely that many other state laws will follow. This ruling is an important step to protect women's health across the country, and will ensure that abortions will be accessible to all women regardless of geography or income.  


[1] Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Restrictions." June 27, 2016. Accessed July 5, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-clinic-restrictions/2016/06/27/ba55d526-3c70-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
[2] Cornell University Law School. "Undue Burden." Accessed July 6,2016.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/undue_burden
[3] IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. "Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey." Accessed July 6, 2016. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744
[4] Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Restrictions." June 27, 2016. Accessed July 5, 2016. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-texas-abortion-clinic-restrictions/2016/06/27/ba55d526-3c70-11e6-a66f-aa6c1883b6b1_story.html
[5] Williams, Pete. "Supreme Court Strikes Down Strict Texas Abortion Law." June 27, 2016. Accessed July 5, 2016. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/supreme-court-strikes-down-strict-abortion-law-n583001
[6] Whole Woman's Health. "Whole Woman's Health v Hellerstedt." Accessed July 6, 2016. http://wholewomanshealth.com/about-us/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt.html
[7] Ferris, Sarah. "Liberals Ready Assault on Abortion Laws after Supreme Court Verdict." June 30,2016. Accessed July 5, 2016. http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286348-liberals-ready-assault-on-abortion-laws-after-supreme-court-verdict

Photo Credit: Flickr User Mark Fischer

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.