Civil and Human Rights

RADIO (KPCC): Short-handed Supreme Court hears first abortion case in two decades

The first major case to go before a post-Scalia, short-staffed Supreme Court looks at whether a Texas law puts an “undue burden” on a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The case, “Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt,” is the first abortion case the High Court will consider in more than 20 years.

The Texas law in question, HB2, requires abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and abortion clinics to have similar building standards as ambulatory surgical centers.

Proponents of HB2 say these requirements ensure the safety of women seeking abortion in Texas, but opponents argue that they are unnecessary and have already led to the closure of many facilities in the state, essentially limiting women’s access to the procedure.

A decision is expected by June.

Guests:

David Gans, Civil Rights Director at the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed an amicus brief on behalf of the petitioner

Linda Schlueter, President of Trinity Legal Center, a nonprofit litigation and legislation support center focused on women’s reproductive health issues based in San Antonio, Texas. It filed an amicus brief on the respondent in the case  

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
April 27, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.