Sharp divisions appeared Wednesday as the US Supreme Court heard its most important abortion case in a generation, with far-reaching implications for women's ability to end an unwanted pregnancy.
The court's eight justices showed little common ground in 90 minutes of heated oral arguments over whether a Texas law placing a raft of requirements on abortion clinics aims to protect women's health or restrict access to the procedure.
With the death of stalwart conservative Antonin Scalia, whose chair was draped in black, the justices are evenly split between conservatives and liberals, and the state of Texas is unlikely to attract more than four votes in its favor on this most divisive of issues.
All eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose swing vote will determine whether the court splits 4-4, meaning the 2013 law stays in place, or strikes it down if he sides with the liberals.
Under the legislation, doctors who perform abortions are required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and their clinics must meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center.
Activists say the measures have forced more than half of Texas's 41 abortion clinics to close and that -- if upheld -- they would leave just 10 centers in the second-largest US state, home to some 5.4 million women of child-bearing age.
They are also sounding the alarm over moves to enact similar laws in other states, which would be bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling in Texas's favor.
- 'Political battleground' -
Justice Kennedy helped draft a ruling 24 years ago that struck down state restrictions imposing an "undue burden" on a women seeking an abortion.
Early in Wednesday's hearing, he voiced skepticism that challengers have sufficient evidence that Texas is trying to restrict abortions.
But he later raised concerns that could spell trouble for the law, noting that its restrictions were increasing the number of surgical abortions and decreasing those induced by medication, which "may not be medically wise."
Before they disappeared behind the crimson curtain in the cavernous courtroom, several justices expressed frustration at the little supporting evidence presented by either side.
Kennedy even suggested sending the case back to the lower courts to collect more facts.
A Supreme Court decision is not expected until late June on the issue, which perhaps more than any other has gnawed at the social, religious and political fabric of American life.
The ruling could reshape constitutional standards on abortion in the middle of an election year, making it an instant hot topic on the campaign trail.
In a sign of the passions aroused, a huge, vocal crowd of pro- and anti-abortion protesters camped outside the court for up to two days for a chance to attend the hearing.
"Stop the sham!" pro-choice campaigners chanted, braving strong, cold winds. "Abortion access? Now!"
A woman held up a sign reading "My body is not your political battleground."
Farah Diaz-Tello, 34, traveled from Texas in the name of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a pro-choice group.
"It is important for me, as a Texan woman myself, that my sister, my friends have access to abortion services that they need," she told AFP.
"Everybody is hoping for Kennedy."
- 'What was the problem?' -
The Texas rules mean that hundreds of thousands of women are having or will have to seek abortion services far from their homes and face a weeks-long wait, while clinics struggle with the strict requirements and costly upgrades.
The costs involved "are so prohibitive, it will deter new clinics from opening to take the place of the ones that closed," said Stephanie Toti, who represented Texas abortion providers.
The three women justices on the bench and fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer pounced on Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.
They argued that Texas has imposed medical standards on abortion that are not required of riskier procedures, such as colonoscopies and liposuctions -- and that the stringent requirements do not make abortions safer.
"This is among the most safe, the least risk procedures, an early-stage abortion," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at nearly 83 is the veteran on the bench.
"So what was the problem?"
Keller said that "increasing the standard of care is valid," to which Justice Sonia Sotomayor quipped: "it's valid only if it's taking care of a real problem."
Justice Samuel Alito pointed to "really appalling violations" on the part of some Texas abortion clinics, but liberal justices noted that pre-existing state regulations had already made its centers safer.
If the law is fully implemented, some women in western Texas would find themselves driving hundreds of miles across the state border into New Mexico, which does not impose the same abortion requirements.
That angered Ginsburg.
"If it's alright for women living in New Mexico, why isn't it alright for women in Texas?" she asked.
Sharp divisions appeared Wednesday as the US Supreme Court heard its most important abortion case in a generation, with far-reaching implications for women’s ability to end an unwanted pregnancy.
The court’s eight justices showed little common ground in 90 minutes of heated oral arguments over whether a Texas law placing a raft of requirements on abortion clinics aims to protect women’s health or restrict access to the procedure.
With the death of stalwart conservative Antonin Scalia, whose chair was draped in black, the justices are evenly split between conservatives and liberals, and the state of Texas is unlikely to attract more than four votes in its favor on this most divisive of issues.
All eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose swing vote will determine whether the court splits 4-4, meaning the 2013 law stays in place, or strikes it down if he sides with the liberals.
Under the legislation, doctors who perform abortions are required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and their clinics must meet the standards of an ambulatory surgical center.
Activists say the measures have forced more than half of Texas’s 41 abortion clinics to close and that — if upheld — they would leave just 10 centers in the second-largest US state, home to some 5.4 million women of child-bearing age.
They are also sounding the alarm over moves to enact similar laws in other states, which would be bolstered by a Supreme Court ruling in Texas’s favor.
– ‘Political battleground’ –
Justice Kennedy helped draft a ruling 24 years ago that struck down state restrictions imposing an “undue burden” on a women seeking an abortion.
Early in Wednesday’s hearing, he voiced skepticism that challengers have sufficient evidence that Texas is trying to restrict abortions.
But he later raised concerns that could spell trouble for the law, noting that its restrictions were increasing the number of surgical abortions and decreasing those induced by medication, which “may not be medically wise.”
Before they disappeared behind the crimson curtain in the cavernous courtroom, several justices expressed frustration at the little supporting evidence presented by either side.
Kennedy even suggested sending the case back to the lower courts to collect more facts.
A Supreme Court decision is not expected until late June on the issue, which perhaps more than any other has gnawed at the social, religious and political fabric of American life.
The ruling could reshape constitutional standards on abortion in the middle of an election year, making it an instant hot topic on the campaign trail.
In a sign of the passions aroused, a huge, vocal crowd of pro- and anti-abortion protesters camped outside the court for up to two days for a chance to attend the hearing.
“Stop the sham!” pro-choice campaigners chanted, braving strong, cold winds. “Abortion access? Now!”
A woman held up a sign reading “My body is not your political battleground.”
Farah Diaz-Tello, 34, traveled from Texas in the name of the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, a pro-choice group.
“It is important for me, as a Texan woman myself, that my sister, my friends have access to abortion services that they need,” she told AFP.
“Everybody is hoping for Kennedy.”
– ‘What was the problem?’ –
The Texas rules mean that hundreds of thousands of women are having or will have to seek abortion services far from their homes and face a weeks-long wait, while clinics struggle with the strict requirements and costly upgrades.
The costs involved “are so prohibitive, it will deter new clinics from opening to take the place of the ones that closed,” said Stephanie Toti, who represented Texas abortion providers.
The three women justices on the bench and fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer pounced on Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller.
They argued that Texas has imposed medical standards on abortion that are not required of riskier procedures, such as colonoscopies and liposuctions — and that the stringent requirements do not make abortions safer.
“This is among the most safe, the least risk procedures, an early-stage abortion,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who at nearly 83 is the veteran on the bench.
“So what was the problem?”
Keller said that “increasing the standard of care is valid,” to which Justice Sonia Sotomayor quipped: “it’s valid only if it’s taking care of a real problem.”
Justice Samuel Alito pointed to “really appalling violations” on the part of some Texas abortion clinics, but liberal justices noted that pre-existing state regulations had already made its centers safer.
If the law is fully implemented, some women in western Texas would find themselves driving hundreds of miles across the state border into New Mexico, which does not impose the same abortion requirements.
That angered Ginsburg.
“If it’s alright for women living in New Mexico, why isn’t it alright for women in Texas?” she asked.
