Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions

Jun 28, 2016 · 885 comments
Melissa Scully (San Antonio, TX)
I have been reading other NYT coverage of the SCOTUS decision today. Most of the articles do not invite comments. Can you help me understand how to support clinics that shuttered and want to reopen? Many thanks.
Andrew Porter (Brooklyn Heights)
How about a law restricting abortion clinics to only above the 90th floor in tall buildings? That should limit where they're sited.
HA (Seattle)
If women seek abortions, they probably wouldn't be great mothers, so I'm happy for this decision in that aspect. But if abortions and contraceptives are so easily accessible, what's the point of the reproductive systems anymore? Should we become slaves to our own sexual desires without being aware of the purpose of the reproductive system? If so, humans are the worst organisms that barely have the right to live in this natural world. But then again, there are way too many people on this planet and if everyone gets to reproduce, we will destroy the planet even more, so maybe we should stop reproducing for a while.
Liz (New York)
I question the wisdom of this being labeled as purely a woman’s right to choose. Make no mistake – I would never argue men have anywhere near the POTENTIAL risks and consequences, but I also don’t find it exactly right that they’re not included in the group of affected citizens. The narrative of abortion will always inspire an image of a young, single woman who has to face this incredibly tough decision alone – but what about the men and women who go through it together? It’s a disservice to the entire movement to neglect the fact that many times a man is actually in the picture, and is also incredibly affected by the process. In the LGBT community, we do not hear “Not gay, no say,” because the right to love whomever a person chooses applies to heterosexual allies who may have otherwise overlooked the effort and how it relates to them. We need the husbands, boyfriends, guy friends – any men involved – to consciously realize this does affect them, and to join the frontline for their own sake as well as the women in their lives. Maybe if we marketed the whole thing as every American’s issue, we might see a change of heart in both how men evaluate their role in family planning, and how legislature is passed regarding it.

To this end – this is not an #AllMen statement, and I can’t express how amazed, inspired, and heartened I am by all the men who do consider this issue seriously and as their own, and who help tear down the misconception that pregnancy is not a man’s concern.
jj (California)
The idea that the Texas law was put into place to protect women is ludicrous. It brought back the days when women died because they were forced to resort to using illegal and unsafe means to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Thank the Lord that we are finally seeing some common sense from the Supreme Court!
connie (colorado)
Respectfully, we must live with the Supreme Court ruling upholding a woman's right to choose. In the last few hours I have read the responses here and in articles coming from reputable news agencies. One detail is worth mentioning.

'There was “no language” about “the government’s interest in ‘preserving and promoting fetal life’” in the decision, said Lucia Silecchia, a law professor at The Catholic University of America...To have the Supreme Court address abortion without addressing this interest in any meaningful way is a new low in abortion jurisprudence,” she told CNA.'

In more poetic terms that could be interpreted as meaningful language, two of Ghandi's quotes come to mind. "Where there is love, there is life." "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
— Mahatma Gandhi
I am positive the readers here will draw their own inferences.
JavaJunkie (Left Coast, USA)
The Court ruled in 1973 that there exists a right to an abortion.

The Court yesterday simply said you can not make up a bunch of mumbo jumbo reasons and put a label on them as collectively being for "Womens Safety" when it's is evident to all who look at the Texas law and others across the country that are carbon copies of it, that the intent and indeed the result of the law was to establish a "backdoor ban" on the right that the Court found existed in 1973.

As for Gandhi, when I cook my steak later tonight, I'll have time to ponder his words and the words of St. Paul

“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: ‘For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.’ If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and you be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, ‘This is offered in sacrifice unto idols,’ eat not for his sake that showed it, and for conscience sake: ‘for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof.’”

And if there are any leftovers, I will tell you this, look at the picture I have posted as my "icon"
She will make sure nothing goes to waste.
Hopefully, she will tell you that I've treated her right.
Mr. Phil (Houston)
“Abortion is only advocated by persons who have themselves been born.”
- Ronald Reagan
Ronnie always broke things down to the simplest terms...
left coast finch (L.A.)
Probably because he himself wasn't a particularly deep thinker with the ability to tease out the inherent complexity of such issues. He's definitely NOT the standard to use in validating my right of self-determination and the Supreme Court understood that, thankfully!
C's Daughter (NYC)
You're correct, that is a very simple-minded statement. Only people who have been born can advocate for anything. Please let me know the next time you see a fetus stage a protest.

I hope--and suspect-- that all of these individuals who are "pro-life" and who have been born do not now believe that they should be able to access their mothers' bodies to sustain their own lives.
Abortion is also only opposed by persons who have themselves been born, and those who have not been born will never know anything about it.
Liz (New York)
Can I also ask - at what point are we trading one life for another?
MarkAntney (Here)
When Pro Teams come to a mutual agreement to exchange Players.

Psst, the law that was "Struck Down" by the USSC Majority wasn't outlawing Abortion.

So either your point on this case was disingenuous or the Law enacted by TX,..wait perhaps both?
LongtimeReader (New York)
I am struck by how easily the Supreme Court's ruling could be applied to the clearly discriminatory and burdensome voter registration laws so popular among some Republicans.
You report: that abortion-related regulations "must be based on convincing medical evidence that the rules are solving a real health issue to be weighed by a court, not by ideologically driven legislators — and that the benefits must outweigh the burdens imposed on women’s constitutional right to an abortion."
There has never been convincing evidence of significant voter fraud (making such laws a classic solution in search of a problem), while minorities and the poor (who skew Democratic) are disenfranchised by regulations regarding ID, polling access and early voting.
Jenn (Native New Yorker)
I find it disgraceful that this ruling was passed. All it was about was strengthening the standards of care and those doctors and clinics affected would only have had to upgrade their offices to be in compliance. Boo hiss!
MN (Philadelphia)
No it wasn't that simple. It was about creating unjustifiable, unwarranted and for most clinics unattainable conditions that forced closures and reduced access. Given that many other procedures (starting with colonoscopies) have far higher mortality rates and the focus is solely on reducing safe, legal abortions, this is clearly a political agenda at work.
MarkAntney (Here)
What problem at the clinics was the new TX Law solving,...
a problem that most of the USSC Justices didn't believe existed?

One that no one else believes either, except yourself that is.
fenross2 (Texas)
You don't show that you have the slightest grasp of what it was about. Read the law that the Republicans in Austin passed in their ridiculous attempt to restrict abortion rights. And if it was all about standards of care then why didn't they include offices of all other outpatient services such as dentists?
anthony weishar (Fairview Park, OH)
Rats! I wanted to see what would happen when women evened the playing field by requiring a surgical center for any man using a condom.
NLP (Pacific NW)
Or wanting Viagra. It has medical risks especially for someone with heart conditions. Shouldn't men know this? How would they feel if they had to run the screaming mobs and color photos at PP et al clinics just to get their some-fun-tonight pill?
libdemtex (colorado/texas)
What color is the sky in alito's world? He, roberts and thomas are an embarrassment. Thank goodness kennedy found some spine. thank goodness scalia is gone.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
Can we all agree that our Rights under the Constitution are one and the same? For those cheering this right, should be just as quick to celebrate our right to bear arms, the right to speak, the right to vote, etc. without being restricted, as well as NOT having the right to illegally enter the US?
MarkAntney (Here)
So if you can't control women's bodies, may as well control/advocate what "They should" celebrate?

Those other Rights have nothing to do with this case.
jb (ok)
I have a feeling that if your "right to bear arms" had been so restricted, and now was restored, you'd be celebrating, too.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
I am celebrating the Supreme Court as upholding Constitutional Rights. I NEVER stated anything about controlling anyone's body, but somehow you took that from my post?
Alan Saly (Brooklyn, NY)
SCOTUS is a joke. I'm 60 years old, and I've finally gotten it. The idea that anyone could vote in favor of the Texas restrictions is stunning. My daughter just completed two years of law school, so I read some of her books on Constitutional Law. What a big farce this is. The Justices have their ideology -- and they cherry pick the parts of the law they want to justify their rulings. It has nothing to do with decency, fairness. or the rule of law. Just naked personal, egotistical, political bias.
Carl Zeitz (Union City NJ)
Oh gee, what a surprise, that Justice Kennedy did not want to be the white man cursed forever for taking away the rights of 170 million American women and girls who will grow up to be women. Smart man.

There has never been anything but theology in these cases since the founding case, Roe v. Wade. The court has been divided clearly not on the law but on theology and orthodoxy.

That can change decisively Nov. 8 when we can secure a progressive, pluralistic court; which after all is no longer really a court and separate third branch of government, but a third and super-powerful house of the second branch, the national legislature, the Congress.

Our vote in November will determine control of the third house of Congress for the next 30 years. If you do not want to spend those years with fingers crossed every June, then vote to elect Hillary Clinton.

Otherwise our fate is a 7-to-2 right wing SCOTUS majority ruling not on or from constitution principal but from members personal religious beliefs and biases. The court is not meant to be the Curia or an evangelist's pulpit.

And as to original intent? Well if there was any substance to that intellectually and historically bankrupt nonsense, then Clarence Thomas's vote would in every decision count for only three-fifths of a vote by any other justice, wouldn't it?
95N2CT (Richmond)
I wish the pro-life movement would direct their considerable commitment and zeal to improving gun laws.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
Unfortuntately, that is a RIGHT that was written into the ORIGINAL Constitution; I will cherish that right until I am old and in a home.
Charles Brown (Philadelphia)
The graphic on the front page that accompanied this story, showing the arc of liberal/conservative decisions by each justice since their appointment, is one of the most powerful visuals yet, revealing important insights into each justice's trending over time. However, I cannot find it anywhere in the online edition of the paper, and I woud like to share it. Has anyone found it?
John Warnock (Thelma KY)
While I strongly believe that abortion should not be used as a primary means of birth control, I also fervently believe abortion is a medical procedure and the decision to have an abortion is a matter between a Woman and her doctor. While the decision made today sets the nation back on a proper course regarding this matter; the weak kneed dissents of Thomas and Alito point out the consequence of having political hacks on the court. Their decisions were a thinly disguised attempt to support the GOP agenda of imposing religious dogma through secular law. We need to sweep the GOP from the halls of Congress and keep them out of the White House. Hopefully there will be a rebirth of a responsible political party to replace the GOP and restore our two-party system to healthy mature dialogue.
Chris (Paris, France)
"Hopefully there will be a rebirth of a responsible political party to replace the GOP and restore our two-party system to healthy mature dialogue."

I agree with you on that, but I don't see any Democrat qualifying as responsible, or mature. The video of Elizabeth Warren and HRC engaging in what can only be described as schoolyard taunting, and self-promotion by demeaning the opposition, is quite depressing. Either these 2 think their electorate is that stupid and puerile, or these arguments and behavior reflect who they are. In any case, their sad speech was an insult to anyone's intelligence.
DG (Boston)
And the killing of the unborn continues unabated.
Jen (Nj)
The unborn, um, not living, should be able to trump the rights of a living human being?
MarkAntney (Here)
Apparently you don't the know the Law/Provisions TX enacted wasn't outlawing Abortions?
Abraham Lincoln (Six Feet Under)
I am always surprised by how simple biology is beyond pro-abortion zealots. Conception implies life: birth is the emergence of that life at a later stage of development.
Dadof2 (New Jersey)
I have never trusted the "Pro-Life" people because I see too many have no interest in actually PROTECTING the fetus--they vote against pre-natal care, contraception, post-natal care, Head Start, REAL sex education, but for the death penalty. And how many of THEM have adopted un-wanted children? My wife and I are pro-choice and our youngest is adopted and a great joy to all of us. And, of course, the false information, ie lies, of phony "risks" of abortion. How irrational is it to say you want to prevent abortions when the MOST effective, easiest and cheapest way is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Abortion is and should be a last-choice option, not a first choice one.

It is always ironic that the states that push the most against abortion AND contraception have generally the highest teenage and out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
Let's be clear here: The Supreme Court didn't rule that Science rules and determines what is allowable and unallowable in restricting abortions. Rather they went one welcome step further. They demand that FACTS matter in Law, and that facts must trump incorrect information. Since Science is fact-based (or it's not Science) it automatically falls into that category. This explicit demand that facts rule may well have many welcome repercussions in future decisions.
MarkAntney (Here)
Want to add to your list, see their "Pro Life" Record in supporting Gays trying to adopt "Special Needs" Children. They'd rather such a child languish in a Group Home than a Family that wants to adopt them.

Their entire premise is totally disingenuous to me.
Rick (Albuquerque)
I don't get it. The GOP could care less about the sanctity of life, and they definitely don't follow the way s of Jesus.
Ana (NYC)
Um, yeah. because there is such a thing as the separation between church and state.
jb (ok)
No, Anna. I live in GOP land, and they don't follow the ways of Jesus because they don't want to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, or care for the sick or imprisoned. They don't want to give to everyone who asks of them; they don't want to forgive their enemies, and they don't want to love their neighbor. That's why.
Mr. Phil (Houston)
Though I [literally] have no sperm in the game so to speak, up to a point, women should have control of their reproductive rights. So long as the facility is sanitary and the pregnancy being terminated is determined to be nonviable fetus unless it would put the mother's life at risk, or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.

As an advocate for people with disabilities, if, upon learning after viability the child will have a physical or cognitive disability is no excuse/[selfish] reason to terminate a pregnancy.
Chris (Paris, France)
My take on the subject, is that your feeling on the matter should have no weight in the possibility given to others to abort, or carry on an unexpected/undesired pregnancy, whatever the circumstances. This is a matter for the main concerned parties: pregnant women, to make an informed choice upon, with the help of a doctor.
Jenn (Native New Yorker)
"Do unto others as you would them do unto you" If theirs is a disability that would severely impact their life and ability to do for themselves it would be heartless to inflict it upon them. There are definitely cases where life is worse than death.
Mr. Phil (Houston)
As noted, this is not a situation my girlfriend and I are likely to ever face since precautions are still taken.

30-years ago when a junior in high school, my cousin, one-year ahead of me, aborted twins. To this day it still bothers her; no doubt it cannot be an easy decision for any woman to make - regardless of age.

Again, so long as the facility is sanitary and the pregnancy being terminated is determined to be nonviable fetus unless it would put the mother's life at risk, or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. A late-term abortion is inexcusable if the sole reason for doing so is because there is a non-life threatening disability present.
Aaron (NC)
Texas should secede. And God willing, my beloved state of NC will quickly follow. The USA is a sinking ship, much worse than even the EU.
Mr. Phil (Houston)
"...4. An independent Texas would also have the world's 14th-largest economy, just behind Spain and ahead of Mexico.
5. A group called the Texas Nationalist Movement is actively working to see Texas become its own sovereign nation, and claims to have about a quarter of a million supporters. Over 125,000 Texans also signed a petition on the White House website requesting that Texas be granted permission to secede, which (surprise, surprise) sparked a counter-petition from citizens of Austin requesting that they be allowed to secede from Texas and remain part of the union...
...27. But here’s the downside… Texas' carbon dioxide emissions are higher than any other state, and higher than all but six countries in the world. Much of this is due to emissions produced during petroleum refining and chemical manufacturing..."

Information deemed reliable but not guaranteed to be accurate. Listing information updated daily.
Copyright © 2005 - 2016 © Movoto, Inc. All rights reserved. CalBRE# 1517281
Barbara Anderson (Stamford CT)
Alito says that there is no causal effect proven between the Texas restrictions and the closing of the clinics, but seems certain that the 40 or so other restrictive state laws were adopted by their legislatures in response to the Gosnell scandal?!? Is he even aware of this obvious conflict? He is sounding more like a Republican member of the House every day.
E C (New York City)
Ironic that people complaining about this decision at trotting out all the "murdering babies" language.

Texas called these restrictions ways to supposedly protect women.

The true intentions are again revealed.
Yeah, it's not as if Americans United for Life is good at hiding their intention to legislate abortion out of existence. It is amazing to me that HB2 or any law like it crafted by anti-abortion groups had to go all the way to SCOTUS to be struck down. What a monumental waste of time and money -- and I would love to know exactly how much this has cost taxpayers in Texas.
Fred Gatlin (Kansas)
Reason and Rational thought are lacking in many states legislature. The Spreme Court provided reason on this case. Know other states laws willf fail. Yes we need to reduce abortion but there are times it is needed. Anti abortion groups use comments that have no facts. These comments include challenging medical facts.
RDA in Armonk (NY)
Justice Kennedy was and remains anti-abortion but he understood that Roe v. Wade conferred a woman's right to abortion. He reaffirmed that right in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which also established that local governments could not pass any statutes that would place an "undue burden" on a woman's access to abortion.

Justice Kennedy had no difficulty seeing the Texas laws for the shams that they were and voted against his personal preferences and for upholding the law. Thank you, Justice Kennedy for doing your job honorably! But why wasn't the decision unanimous?

Politicians! That's a word that can curdle your blood. There will always be politicians like those in Texas who will try to deny people their basic rights and a benighted public who keeps them in office. Our judiciary is the one safeguard we have against such corruption. But when our Justices have become more politicians than jurists, we can no longer be safe from such tyranny.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
This is the reason I find the SCOTUS so important to our right to bear arms. If not, we would be trembling masses subjected to more and more laws dumped upon us by feel-good politics.
RDA in Armonk (NY)
Simon, this "right" of yours to bear arms arrived only with this most recent court and its creative parsing of the Second Amendment. For two hundred years it was understood by every Supreme Court ruling that this right applied only to well-regulated militias and when it came to private citizens, local governments had great discretion in passing gun control measures.

But my point remains that the Supreme Court, or at least certain members of these once esteemed chambers, has become so politicized that it now willfully ignores the law in favor or personal politics. So how can we count on SCOTUS to ensure that the Constitution is being upheld?
7skuareoff (Rochester, NY)
The Yankee courts once again forcing their
beliefs, their principles on our people,
arbitrarily striking down Texas law and
allowing dozens of medically substandard
chop shops to maim and mutilate millions
of Southern women.

I call on the South to ignore Independence
Day. Why should we celebrate the Fourth of
July, when we have neither independence or
freedom to celebrate?
Jen (Nj)
Kinda like when they gave GWB the presidency, huh? Oh, wait...
MarkAntney (Here)
Advising someone NOT to do something clearly infers they have the Freedom to Choose.

"Why should we celebrate the Fourth of
July, when we have neither independence or
freedom to celebrate?"
jb (ok)
Pretty funny stuff, pal. I live in the south and have nearly all of my long life. And I disagree with you and agree with the courts 100%. They aren't "Yankee courts", but those of our nation, which (just in case you haven't noticed) is a union of states including mine. If you want to pretend that you're living in Atlanta and pining for Tara, go ahead, but don't you dare pretend to speak for me and mine.
willans (argentina)
I have seen first hand the terrible scars that befall a huge family with nothing more than a leaky roof and a non working fridge to keep themselves alive. When temperatures hit the forties centigrade and the flies are desperate for a meal does one really think survival in a uterus is a better hell. The priest that comes to the door has his mind set against the thought that birth control would have been a godsend for these families. When my cows look at the wreckage global warming has done to their pastures they don’t cycle. But humans do not have this safety net, with the end result that too many humans are overheating this world. If we follow the priests mindforged outlook on life rather than the stupid cows, then without laws that offer choices to a world captive to reproduction then nothing short of a WW111 or 1V or V will ensure that the human race will persist.
James (Hartford)
Abortions directly cause enormous medical harm. They cause the brain, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs to stop functioning. Meanwhile, they do not correct any disease process or pathology. No vital function is preserved or enhanced, only degraded or destroyed.

That's a terrible medical outcome.

But a lot of people have become complacent about this. Through a clever verbal shell game, abortion proponents have created psychological and philosophical uncertainty about how to CATEGORIZE the harm. What is the relationship between the fetus and the mother? Separate? Unified? One person or two?

The purpose is to create so much confusion that previously obvious conclusions become hazy. So these arguments tell you that, yes, abortions cause multi-system organ failure and death, but somehow no harm exists.

Well where did it go?

Somehow in shuffling and reshuffling the deck, some very important cards have gone missing. Where did that brain go? That heart? Those kidneys? Are they in some sort of philosophical limbo?

And so these arguments attempt to persuade the public that the harm does not exist. But if the harm does not exist, then the procedure does not exist, because the entire procedure consists of harm.
C's Daughter (NYC)
You seem upset. Let me help. This issue is very simple. Women are people. Fetuses are not. Women have the right to determine who uses their bodies, at all points in time. Women therefore have the right to decide whether they wish to gestate any given pregnancy. Therefore, termination of pregnancy must remain legal; otherwise is state-mandated slavery.

See simple!
Some of us value existing lives over incipient lives. One out of every three women in this country has had an abortion, and the vast majority of them are doing fine. If you'd like to equate the value of your own life with that of a zygote, embryo, or fetus, go ahead. We are not obligated to agree.
dearpru (vermont)
It wasn't that long ago that every major hospital in the United States had a wing devoted to women suffering unbearable pain, sterility and imminent death from the effects of illegal abortions. Closing abortion clinics would force thousands of women, determined to control their lives and their futures, to seek out "alternative" sources for abortions. Closing clinics doesn't confer some kind of evangelical morality on women who are pregnant against their will; it sends women underground--sometimes literally.
Darlene Goff (San Antonio, TX)
I just want to say that several decades ago, I had a D&C and another procedure for medical reasons (no abortion) and the next day I began to have heavy bleeding. I was very glad to be close to my doctor who could have immediately hospitalized me if necessary. Also, my procedure was done by a physician in a fully equipped outpatient facility near a hospital. I live in a large Texas city but West Texas is mostly ranch land and it is often a good distance to any city, and that city might be small. I make no comment on abortion here, but I hope every woman sees to it that any emergency could be easily handled. No procedure is without possible complications. It seems a step backwards if women's rights are not also accompanied by women's protections.
JMBaltimore (Maryland)
This commentator is absolutely right. Pro-life and pro-choice forces should be able to agree that it is better for Texas to have 10 abortion facilities that can provide high-quality ambulatory surgery center-level care than to have 40 unregulated chop shops operating in secrecy with no oversight or accountability.

The reality is that because the political system protects abortion facilities and allows them to hide in the shadows, we have no idea what the real risks of surgical abortions in these unregulated facilities are.
Jen (Nj)
14 years ago I had a D&C due to a blighted ovum (discovered at 6-8 weeks pregnancy). It was done in my OBGYN's office and I was given some kind of twilight drug. When the drug wore off I drove myself home. A D&C is not major surgery. Yes, there are risks, just like having dental surgery has risks, but I don't see anyone screaming that dentists need to have hospital privileges and all the other nonsense the lawmakers (not doctors) said needed to be done for the safety of women.
C's Daughter (NYC)
"Pro-life and pro-choice forces should be able to agree that it is better for Texas to have 10 abortion facilities that can provide high-quality ambulatory surgery center-level care than to have 40 unregulated chop shops operating in secrecy with no oversight or accountability"

You assume without showing that the ambulatory surgical centers are better, and necessary, to protect women's health. You assume without showing that the existing clinics are inadequate to protect women's health (or are, in your clever, accurate, not at all inflammatory wording, "chop shops").

Phew! Good thing that you are incorrect (or lying, you're probably simply lying) and those 40 clinics actually *are* subject to regulation and government oversight- just not the regulations at issue in this case. As the SCOTUS found, there is no medical benefit from the regulations at issue in the lawsuit. There are reams and reams of evidence attesting to this fact. In fact, there was demonstrated harm. Wow, isn't it nice knowing that the correct result was achieved-- the one that protects women's health?
Chris (Paris, France)
As much as I'm frequently annoyed by the comment section's blind, ignorant, systematic, unsubstantiated and persistent bashing of the GOP on polarizing issues; and as much as I can usually objectively find merit in the arguments on both sides, I don't understand the Republicans on this one, at all.
I can see arguments against the principle of abortion as a means of contraception, and I get the moral objections against the act itself.
But there is no short- or long-term case to be made for denying or restricting anyone's right to make life-determining choices for themselves, especially when those choices affect no one but themselves. Abortion should always be a last resort solution, but it also should always be dependent on the concerned party's decision, not that of society at large.
JMBaltimore (Maryland)
It is amazing that the false logic of Roe v Wade leads to the absurd conclusion that states cannot regulate health and safety standards of health facilities that perform surgical abortion. Establishing high standards of safety for women undergoing abortion should be a subject on which pro-life and pro-abortion forces can agree,

Most members of the public have no idea that doctors who perform abortions are the dregs of the medical profession - those who barely graduated from medical training and would have difficulty making a living doing anything which requires any skill. We have no idea what the safety of abortion is because it is practiced in secret. The practice needs more exposure to health and safety standards, not less.

Inserting a foreign body into a pregnant woman's uterus to kill a fetus is as inherently dangerous as or more dangerous as many outpatient surgeries performed in ambulatory surgical centers.

The profit-making abortion industry profits from having more volume at the expense of safety. It shows that preserving their profits is more important than women’s health and safety.
Jen (Nj)
Are you a doctor? Are you an obstetrician? Are you a gynecologist? Are you a scientist? Reading all of your fact-less assumptions about abortions and doctors that perform abortions I'm gong to guess the answer to all of my questions is no.
C's Daughter (NYC)
Citations needed. Thanks in advance.
jj (California)
How about some real facts here? Women are not dying by the thousands from having abortions. If they were people like you would be all over it. And just where did you get the idea that doctors who perform abortions are "the dregs of the medical professional"? Learn that in your fundamentalist church did you? You are against abortion. I get that but stop using unfounded arguments and outright lies to justify your beliefs. That does nothing but make you look narrow minded and ignorant.
bnc (Lowell, Ma)
We're so hypocritical to critique a major religion that places women in a submissive role to men. Alito, Roberts and Thomas essentially support their own version of Sharia law.
Bud (McKinney, Texas)
In the last week,SCOTUS Justices have told us the following.One,it's legal to practice racism(UT case).Two,it's legal to intentionally break the law(Immigration case).Three,it's legal to murder(Abortion case).Four,it's legal to commit bribery as long as you're a politician(McDonnell case).
MarkAntney (Here)
Apparently you didn't/don't know the (disingenuous) Law the USSC Struck Down wasn't outlawing abortions?
Clem (Shelby)
Hang on Bud - wasn't that law about women's health? Y'all kept saying it was to protect women's health. Did you not get the memo about how it was about women's health and nothing at all to do with banning abortion?
Jimmy (Greenville, North Carolina)
Abortion as an economic tool can have a positive impact on entitlements. Abortion also reduces crime and prison population.

It is all positive with abortion and abortions should be expanded and readily available.
Just me (Europe)
Are we to me to decide who deserves to keep living for economic reasons?
The same applies to reducing crime. I suppose you are in favor of expanding much more death penalty?
MTF Tobin (Manhattanville)
The positive aspects of the Opinion of the Supreme Court are plain. We see 5 highly-trained lawyers standing up for a key Anglo-American legal principle: That precedents matter. (They had signaled their preference for judicial restraint when they voted to "stay" the Texas laws.)

Since 2 days after the second Nixon inauguration in 1973, US courts have recognized our right to bodily privacy. That right has been upheld via the votes of Justices appointed by Presidents Eisenhower, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Obama, & every president from Reagan through Clinton. Monday's dissenting Justices were all appointed by Bushes. The majority consisted of Obama & Clinton appointees, plus a Reagan nominee who was confirmed by the US Senate months before a Presidential election.

The controlling opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was signed by two Reagan appointees and an appointee of George H. W. Bush. His father, Senator Prescott Bush, was at the forefront of the legal fight to affirm bodily privacy as an American right. That legal fight showed success in 1965 (with a ruling that distribution of contraception brochures could not be criminalized), then shortly afterwards in 1973's Roe v. Wade. So there's no earthly reason for a State to enact laws such as the ones thrown out Monday.

What is less plain is a startling, wonderful feature of the dissents: Only one Justice seems to think Texas was entitled to enact its laws. By a vote of 7-1, the Court recognizes prior abortion rulings as valid.
WastingTime (DC)
I am ready for Texit. But we get to keep Austin.
curtis dickinson (Worcester)
Excellent move by SCOTUS!
Just me (Europe)
To speak about the "right" to abortion always sounds to me as irrational. How can one have the "right" to supress other's lives?
You don't accept that some "impose their dubious Christian values" on others. Abortion seems to me in fact the imposition of undubious values on others.
Apart from that, if respect for human life is only a Christian value, we are lost. I think it is just a rational (universal, human) value.
Jen (Nj)
Your argument cancels itself out. I'm sure you're completely unable to see that, but thought you'd like to know.
That's exactly it -- YOU think. You think for you, I'll think for me, and other people will think for themselves. Some of us value the lives of the already born over the potentially born, and there's nothing you can do to change that.
C's Daughter (NYC)
"How can one have the "right" to supress other's lives?"

Simple. Fetues are not permitted to use other people's bodies for survival. Having an abortion is not "suppressing" another's life, it's removing a support system to which the fetus has no right. See how easy?
JerLew (Buffalo)
First of all, I'm a male so I don't have a dog in this fight, but I do believe that a woman should be able to control her own body. I'm glad the justices were able to see through the haze and deliver this ruling. If more people cared about the child after it has been born then before it has been born, this might be a better country.
MarkAntney (Here)
I agree 99%.

Exception to your "might" reference at the end. I'd use "Would Definitely".
John (Sacramento)
This "I'm male. So I don't have a dog in the fight." Argument is a well crafted lie. Every one of us could have been murdered by our mothers, and it reinforces the insane belief that fathers have no rights until the baby is born. If we believe that fathering a child engenders a financial and ethical responsibility to the child, then we must also believe that fathers have a role in the abortion decision. To believe otherwise is simple hypocrisy.
Chris (Paris, France)
@John: As a guy too, I agree that fathers should not be totally excluded from decision-making, after a child is born. But the fact remains that, as we're reminded with the current SCOTUS situation, there are sometimes ties when there is an even number of parties to a decision process. In this case, who should get to tip the decision: the person who'll have to endure 9 months of pregnancy and birthgiving, or the person whose sole physical action in the process is (if even) a night of fertilizing? It seems obvious that the ultimately deciding party can only legitimately be the woman.
Bill (Cambridge, MA)
I think one of the most telling statistics is the number of teen pregnancies - Texas is number three in this hit parade.
Apparently, unwed mothers are preferred, placing an even greater long term burden pn the state.
Jim Dwyer (Bisbee, AZ)
Instead of going through these maddening debates about abortions why don't we challenge our brightest minds to come up with a pill, an injection, some medical magic that would keep the young from breeding until they were at least 21. At that point, the lovers would have to submit applications to qualify for parenthood. Go for it!
Tullymd (Bloomington, Vt)
Now aren't we delighted that Scalia is dead.. And Thosmads says he'll be leaving. Poor boy, can't bear to be there without Anton. Well isn't this our lucky daily. Dealing with evil Texas will require new blood on Supreme Court.
Poor NRA your future is about to change.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
So, Constitutional Rights are 'wonderful' when they are, more or less, 'liberal' ones?
operacoach (San Francisco)
Men should have no voice in women's control over their own bodies. Simple as that.
Rick (Albuquerque)
Indeed. If men could get pregnant, abortions would be available at drive thrus.
Just me (Europe)
I agree.
But the question here is not about women's bodies, but about babies' bodies.
Ana (NYC)
A fertilized egg is not a baby. The vast majority of abortions take place well before viability.
bob west (florida)
Once again Thomas, with his dissenting opinion; shows he is not fit to be on the court!
Cyn (New Orleans, La)
I am so thankful that the majority of Justices recognized these restrictions for what they really were: a blatant attempt to make abortion inaccessible to poor women.
AmateurHistorian (NYC)
What's the arguement that abortion is a right but infanticide is not? In fact, the history of infanticide is longer than the history of abortion. Sparta, Carthage, Southern China, Mesoamerica, Africa and Pacific Islands all practices infanticide. In modern time, one can argue Victorian Era practice indirect infanticide by selling ones children to chimney sweeper, a job with short life expectancy.

In the current economic climate, there is great need of merciful infanticide as the undeveloped world are filled with orphans and developed world unwanted children that often drain the state's limited welfare resources.
MarkAntney (Here)
Good luck getting your argument before the USSC.
Tuck394 (MA)
Infanticide is the killing of born, living infants. Hence "infant"icide. Abortion does not kill born babies.
amira (sydney)
Finally some sanity in the US - can we also do something about guns!
JavaJunkie (Left Coast, USA)
Well we could start by requiring that Gun Free Zones be required to have adequate security.
You know if you're going have a club/bar in Orlando and you have 200-300 disarmed people inside the club then you're required to provide adequate armed security.
One guy with a pistol, is obviously not adequate.

If Dianne Feinstein and the rest of the Left Wing Gun Grabbers in California disarm everyone at a Conference Center in San Bernardino, (well everyone except the Whackado) then they should be required to have armed security people at that facility who are properly trained to deal with "Paris Type Attacks"

The costs for this type of security are likely to be enormous, the Bars and Clubs won't want to pay.
The public facility in California won't want to pay for it out of its budget.
All those places needing that expensive security will be lobbying hard not to be required to have it. If they're forced to have it then they'll lobby hard not to have to pay for it.

So I have an easy solution to pay for it.

All those Left Wing Gun Grabbers who are in favor of Gun Free Zones should have to pay a Utopia Dreamers Fee.

Here's how it works On your tax return is this question;
"Are you a Gun Grabber who believes in Gun Free Zones"
If yes you pay more

How many of the Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe do you think would check that box?
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
Last I understood, firearms are an item written in the ORIGINAL Constitution. Not 1972.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
Gun grabbers and gun-free zones take away from the fact that firearms are an ingrained part of the US Constitution since its inception, not 1972. Those restrictions are, by their nature, to me, worse than trying to regulate dirty, rural clinics.
John (Hartford)
This was YUGE. A absolute re-assertion of the undue burden principle that has driven a bus through the entire conservative approach of cutting off women's access to abortion. The thin-ness of the dissent by that right wing ideologue Thomas said it all. Quite honestly it was surprising that Roberts chose to ally himself with this sort of hokey jurisprudence. Once again it reinforces the need for Democrats to elect their candidate for president and regain control of the senate.
Gwbear (Florida)
So... What about all the other states in the South and Midwest that pretty much have restricted abortion to the point where it is largely an impossibility? It's time to bring those states forward for legal accountability as well...
Tullymd (Bloomington, Vt)
No the Confederate States of Americs must be allowed to secede. They are a stain on our country.
I (I)
I don't think this ruling went far enough. We should be encouraging women to have abortions. They should be sent home in a limo with a week's worth of groceries and a nice spa kit and a check to cover any wages they might lose while recovering. Anything less than that is unconstitutional and unconscionable.
SomeGuy (Ohio)
What are the odds that this callous, cynical comment came from a man?
Abraham Lincoln (Six Feet Under)
Agreed. Since we all know motherhood is menial work, abortion does not really matter: it just means more me time for women. Though outsourcing entails cost, which means less to spend on time-saving devices like portable phones to stare into, let menial motherhood be left to undocumented women, who can be trusted to do all the breeding and birthing.
MarkAntney (Here)
If you don't act on your proposal, you'll look disingenuous at best or bitter at worst,...or perhaps a combo-platter of both.
Mary (PA)
I wish there was a way to make an exception in legislative immunity, so that when lawmakers make laws that are clearly unconstitutional, they can be required - out of their own pockets - to pay damages and to reimburse the public coffers for all of the state's expenses in trying to uphold the bad law. How much money was spent by the TX atty general in this case? Taxpayers pay for this litigation; and society pays a terrible cost in the harm to women, the chilling impact on their lives and behaviors. I guess the best thing is to vote them all out. I hope we see all of the lawmakers who supported this thrown out of office.
Cujo (Planet Earth)
I would like to see them prosecuted, civiilly and criminally, for federal civil rights violations.
Simon Loynes (Yuma)
I would love to see what kind of money can be wrangled from the hands of politicians who have restricted one's right to own a firearm! New York politicians would be broke!
bfree (portland)
Rubio had it right, in the future we'll be seen as a society of barbarians over this. At least the left.
David Taylor (norcal)
We can add it to slavery, using the atomic Bomb, treatment of freed slaves, a recreational war in Iraq, support of dictators throughout Central America, ignoring climate change and so on. You get to wear all those stains.
Tullymd (Bloomington, Vt)
@ David Taylor How droll of you to omit NRA and the AR 15 imbroglio and our horrid Congress. For me July 4 is a day of morning. The US as designed no longer exits. Big money corps, NRA and Grover Morquist are in charge.
Gazbo (Margate, NJ)
Rubio had nothing right which is why he was sent packing. Hopefully Florida sends him packing for good in November.
Last liberal in IN (The flyover zone)
It's time to put this debate to rest. Roe v. Wade is the law of the land until such time as a majority of Americans in a Constitutional manner decide to remove its' legal status. At this time, with a majority of the population seeing it as a legal proposition whether they see it as properly moral, and with the Supreme Court ruling that the states are limited as to the restrictions that can be placed on clinics, it's the time to accept this. I personally would be against anyone close to me having an abortion unless it was due to certain unfortunate circumstances, but that is my set of values speaking, not everyone else's.

Move on for now... maybe science and society will alleviate this problem in the future.
ziegfeldf (Sandia Park, New Mexico)
Does the state of Texas insist that midwives have full admitting rights to a hospital? Or work in a fully equipped medical facility? Yeah, didn't think so.

And yet carrying a baby to term and giving birth is far more dangerous to the life of the mother than abortion.

Fam (Tx)
Yes, I live in the State Of Texas. I can assure you that not all of the citizens of this great state are bigots and racists, women haters, claim that God talks to them, admire the likes of the current governor, are proud our senior care facilities are rated F, don't care if children die by guns, and prize football above an educated student! That's right- not everybody- only those who vote!
AmateurHistorian (NYC)
Both side should just admit what they are in it for. The pro-life side is for control of women first and "safety, life, moral" second while the pro-choice side is for instant gratification and no personal responsibility first and "body, rights, circumstances" second. Abortion is a right but not something to be proud of. You don't celebrate having an abortion like you don't celebrate not dying in a drunk driving accident.
Ann Newton (Rochester)
Yeah, it's always "instant gratification" when referring to women's sexuality, but its "needs" when it comes to mens.

Nobody said they were "proud" to have an abortion and no one is celebrating it. If anything is being celebrated it's womens freedom to do what they want with their own bodies and life.

It's interesting how much distain there is for women that are pregnant, but no mention of the man who got her that way.
MarkAntney (Here)
"instant gratification"

Not bragging but I've had many a girlfriend in my past. The only time I've heard this term used,...had absolutely nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights???

Update your arguments.
Dadof2 (New Jersey)
Yeah. Instant gratification. Tell that to a relative of mine, who, when she had the routine ultrasound, learned the fetus had its brain outside the skull, 8 open vertebrae (severe spina bifida) a 3-chambered heart and a clubfoot. The chances of it being born alive were miniscule, and the chances of it not requiring round-the-clock intensive care all its very short life were non-existent. Sadly, she and her husband realized they had to terminate the pregnancy. A few years later they tried again and a healthy, happy child was the result which gave them and her older siblings endless joy, rather than sorrow.

And what about tubal pregnancies? They result in the death of the mother and the fetus in 100% of the cases. Only an abortion can save the mother but nothing can save the fetus. So it's "instant gratification" to not let the mother die when the fetus is already doomed? How is THAT moral and ethical?
zDUde (Anton Chico, NM)
It comes down to the fundamental right of women being allowed to control their bodies. If men would have to face this like women do, an incessant campaign to place limitations upon having total control over their own bodies? Why there simply wouldn't be enough assault weapons to satisfy demand.

Just when Democrats couldn't ask for another gift besides Neo Mussolini Trump, this SCOTUS decision reminds voters that there are very important reasons to also give President Hillary a Senate she can work with. Huzzah indeed!
Entropic Decline (NYC)
Affirmative action and abortion are safe thanks to this week's rulings. Let's hope they never accept another case on these issues.
Bill Noren (Pacifica CA)
After a week of bad news, a ray of hope for the future. There is a God.

This was such a phony, class divided and racist ruling. You know girls in Highland Park or River Oaks would always have a choice. But the Republicans' don't care about anyone but the privileged.

Why don't women care more about this issue? When I was in college (the 70s in Michigan) women begged and prayed for this right (and prayed they would never have to use that right).
Chris Hansen (Seattle, WA)
The vote should have been 8-0. What are we living in? The 12th century? I so wish we could impeach those justices who repeatedly sit on their brains and impart their highly personal, clearly prejudiced, and overt self-assuming "legally protected" opinions. What is the lesson each time out? Live and let live, or "I'm with stupid"? Either answer should not leave every SCOTUS decision teetering with sanity on the brink.
Jonathan Lautman (NJ)
A charismatic enough leader could broker a grand bargain between the pro-choice and pro-gun forces, since both issues seem so dear to the American heart. No such leader exists now. Let us hope one has been conceived and is not either aborted or shot to death while learning fractions.
Miriam (Raleigh)
Hilter managed to make it through to adulthood. So much for charismatic leaders, seriously. Messianic leaders are not the answer. An informed healthy people with decent housing healthcare and education is the answer. Not endless war, poverty and relentless erosion of their rights by the concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. Not turning women into brood mares. Not biogtry for those who are different. The grand bargin is the constitution
Slipping Glimpser (Seattle)
Wished I could remember where I read this story, but it was by a doctor, an abortion provider. He wrote that everyday he came to work, there was the same screaming, vituperative crowd. Among that crowd was a woman who stood atop a ladder with a bullhorn, screaming anti-abortion rhetoric.

One day he arrived at his office and there she was, wanting, needing, his services. He provided them.

The next day there she was, atop the ladder, screaming again.

Something there is all too human about many, many people who think that they can walk in the shoes of another until they are stricken by the same problem they so piously rail against. And even then, there is no guarantee.

Religion heads its ugly rear on the platform of human nature.
Jen (Nj)
I read that article. And if my memory is correct that woman told the doctor she couldn't afford another child at that time that's why she was having an abortion. Okay for me but not for thee!
James Noble (Lemon Grove Ca)
Do women vote in Texas?

If so, how come they elect such hypocritical
SJBinMD (Silver Spring, MD)
It is a PRIVATE matter. Churches and Governments need to STAY OUT OF THE BEDROOM! It is unfortunate that some Churches have taken it upon themselves to act as if they have a direct line to the Creator which we know is not true. These Churches need to stop trying to force THEIR PERCEPTIONS and BELIEFS on others, and continue to worship ON THEIR OWN and allow others to make their own choices and worship as they see fit.
Harvey Wachtel (Kew Gardens)
God tells people what they want to hear.
Aaron (Ladera Ranch, CA)
Ain't it funny how much we love the Supreme Court when there's a favorable ruling- then how much we hate it when we don't?
Rebecca Hewitt (Seattle)
Maybe it is more "heave a sigh of relief" when a decision is deemed wise, and "cringe and sigh" when a ruling is deemed idiotic. Today I have a huge sigh of relief.
John (LA)
We have lost our family culture. Raising the kids, being a responsible parent, having a traditional marriage, showing faith and love to your partner, instead we are focusing on hook ups, one night stand and adultery. Its so sad. These bad things causes abortion aka murder of kids. Christians failed really failed in that matter. The effect of Satan is real. Earlier God warns about Molek, the god who needs kids to be sacrificed. Now even greater Molek is here as abortion. May God return fast. Amen
Ingrid (Earth)
Dear John: You may have your family culture, raise your children, be a responsible parent, have a traditional marriage and show faith and love to your partner. I do not have the power to take those things from you. And you do not have the power to take them from me.
Rod Viquez (New Jersey)
None of these are new. All of the above behavior has been with us since civikization began. Home made bith control, abandoning families, mistresses, and back ally abortions have always been common. Only dofference is that we are open and honest today. Leave it to Beaver type families were just part of a media image that was not universally true
Rick (Albuquerque)
We haven't lost our family culture. Money is God in this country.
Dnain (Carlsbad,CA)
There are many ways to reduce abortion that would be highly effective even if abortion were readily available. These ways to reduce abortion include making contraception and sex education more available. Planned Parenthood reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies by providing contraception and information (It is is their name), preventing hundreds-fold more unwanted pregnancies before they happen than it terminates, but this hugely useful role is ignored. It seems that culture warriors are willing to allow more abortions to occur than would otherwise be necessary by blocking the primary suppliers of these alternatives. One reluctantly concludes that the objective is not protecting the fetus but to return to a previous role of women in society in terms of their sexuality and their power.
MIckey (New York)
Justice Kennedy is so surprising.

For affirmative action, for health care clinics and yet gutted the Voting Rights Act that would protect these same people's voting rights.

Clearly, he thinks the poor should have some affirmative action, some health care.

Too bad he doesn't think they also deserve an un-Republican cluttered road to vote.
Someone (Northeast)
If we did mandatory paternity tests on a man of the mother's choosing (or two, maybe? whatever) and then the man whose paternity was proven was forced to drop out of school to support the baby and contribute 2/3 of his income every year for the next 20 years to the child's upkeep, this would be a whole different debate. Men are involved in getting women pregnant, but then don't want any of the consequences to affect THEM, but they're perfectly fine having the woman's live ruined. If men were forced to share in the hardships, this would be totally different. Geez, there'd probably even be free daycare.
Clem (Shelby)
That doesn't even get into the physical consequences. To make it really fair, they would need to donate a kidney to freeze, in case the child ever needed it.

Oh, and loss of income covers only part of it as well. You have to simulate the time lost out of every day. Say give men a five hour a day shift picking up highway litter every day for twenty years, no weekends or holidays, on call shifts.
Sri (USA)
While I fully respect the rights of women, what I do think is the glib usage of abortion is akin to murder of life (potential in future as a child or fully manifested in embryo). As someone pointed out, somehow genocide in wombs is fully acceptable for us. I think abortion should be allowed only in special cases of rape or mother's life in danger. The rest is all due to women having made a conscious decision of having a child and so should not be allowed.
Lew Fournier (Kitchener, Ont.)
Some people (mainly men, it seems) apparently think that before every abortion women gather in a secret conclave and celebrate, cackles and witches' news included.
What you think, in the end, does not matter since it is not your decision.
Whatever happened to the right-wing mantra that nothing should come between a patient and his/her doctor?
The alleged pro-lifers scream when contraception is provided through heath plans and kick up an even bigger fuss when taxes are used to help single mothers raise their real babies.
KPB (West Coast)
Really? You must not know many women of diverse backgrounds or your views are so sanctimonious no one would take the time to share their experiences with you. Your lack of empathy stuns me.
1420.405751786 MHz (everywhere)
you fully support th rights of women except in abortions in which case theyre murderers

did i et that right ?
Luomaike (New Jersey)
Good news and glad to see that occasionally sanity still triumphs.
C Ingram (Dallas)
Good for them. Speaking only for myself, I apologize for the continuing backwardness, ignorance and arrogance of the of the Legislative and Executive Branches of the State of Texas. You will have to excuse the citizens of the State because our leadership is the unfortunate result of the misguided and small minded religious beliefs of primarily rural and highly gerrymandered political districts that perpetuate that same rural fundamentalism that few of us who live an urban and suburban life understand nor can excuse.
JayEll (Florida)
Justice Thomas, without Scalia, you've been marginalized. It's time for you to quit or retire. And take Alito with you.
Jacque Bauer (Los Angeles)
It is clear that the liberal justices want abortion above all else, including basic women's health. The likelihood of mothers dying due to not having access to minimal healthcare standards is considered as merely collateral damage. Anything to keep the elimination of babies going forward unimpeded. The SCOTUS nannies have stolen the responsibility for women's health away from the states. This is obscene and an outrage.
Someone (Northeast)
?? A woman is 14 times more likely to die in childbirth than in an abortion, and yet Texas allows midwives to deliver babies in the woman's home, with no surgical equipment and all that. So make your argument based on something else if you wish, but let's be honest that these tears for the women supposedly at risk are fake ones.
Cujo (Planet Earth)
JB - you should be addressing your concerns to the Texas legislature. They can't seem to do enough damage to the budgets that affect womens health and the working poor, children included, each session, so they come back for each new session with bigger and better ways to dessimate them. Check the stats on Texas and you'll see my point. Thank God for Mississippi, so Texas will never be last on everything.
Clairette Rose (San Francisco)
@Jacque Bauer

If the conditions are considered safe under which men can have colonoscopies, tonsillectomies, endoscopies, vasectomies, blepharoscopies and many others all far more risky than abortions, thank you, women will share the risks.

Your rant is obscene and an outrage to the equality
of women and any real concern for their health issues

The real "collateral damage" is that done to women who are prevented from getting needed health care because people like you consider an unviable clump of cells to be more important than the fully formed and sentient woman in whose womb they exist.
J Clearfield (Brooklyn)
from my basic understanding of biology, it is generally men who get women pregnant. Apparently men believe that once their seed has been planted no woman shall tear asunder. This appears to be much more about control than about what is right. If - for any reason -- a woman has been knocked up by a man -- for any variety of reasons -- did not have access to birth control and cannot and could not reasonably provide for the child and/or make space for an unplanned baby, then it is better for everyone to end the pregnancy. The revival of anti abortion antics only herald the return of dead women in alley ways getting abortions from rusty hangers. Please. @johannaclear
John Townsend (Mexico)
When it comes to abortion what any politician, church, or civic authority has to say about it
will not alter my view, my rights and my actions ... that there be only two people involved: the doctor/nurse practitioner and the woman. Period.

These religious zealots who insist on unfettered conception regardless of conditions and circumstances invariably and routinely ignore the fate of the unwanted child committed to a life bound in shallows and miseries absent vital necessities
masquill (Austin, TX)
Justice Clarence Thomas continues to prove that he is an abomination to this court, to this land, to justice, to the rule of law, and the entire political structure. Disregard for jurisprudence? Is he kidding?! Given the number of right turns he's taken with this court, he is the poster child for disregard for jurisprudence.
James (Hartford)
If there were a horror movie about abortions it would be called "UNWANTED".

Can you imagine waking up to find that society has deemed you worthless, inhuman, undesirable, and marked for destruction?

All the categories that protect us--human, alive, citizen--are now shown to be flexible and violable in the hands of a deft argumentator. We are all just one clever argument away from being medical waste.
KPB (West Coast)
Clearly you've never been pregnant.
g.bronitsky (Albuquerque)
Nor is he likely to become pregnant
C's Daughter (NYC)
"Can you imagine waking up to find that society has deemed you worthless, inhuman, undesirable, and marked for destruction?"

Phew! Good thing fetuses are incapable of the cognition required to have these sort of abstract thoughts.

Women, on the other hand, *can* perceive the degrading and dehumanizing effects of being told by society that they do not have the right to decide who uses their body.
mitchell (dallas)
It was the right decision. Another good decision is to use birth control. Sex is not a right. It's a choice.
C. Lynn Kay (Ann Arbor)
Zippers in the "up" position work well, too.
Bridgett (Virginia)
John Roberts said during his confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was "settled law," so I really don't appreciate his nitpicking dissent today.
c (sj)
It is clear that we need the Equal Rights Amendment. That womens' right to live hinges on the opinions of the justice du jour is ridiculous and frightening. Let's once and for all make women people in the Constitution and put an end to this madness. If women had an overt right to exist, that would end all of the endless Republican efforts to impose the death penalty on women for the crime of having sex.
Katyary (NY)
I think there's a reason why the ERA wasn't passed but abortion was legalized. It's because legal abortion wasn't intended to benefit women. It was intended to benefit men. It relieved them of responsibility at a time when sexual mores were changing. I think abortion was also legalized because it was envisioned as a way to control the African-American population. I have always been puzzled by women's embrace of abortion as a right. I see it as an enormous burden that was dumped on us.
You see it that way. Many of us don't, and you don't get to think for us. African-American women helped to create the reproductive justice movement because under slavery, they were forced to have children against their will.
Stan Continople (Brooklyn)
Even a surgically gerrymandered district must be about 50% female - even in Texas - so how come these anti-women, anti child laws are consistently passed with no penalty for the legislator? I guess we should ask the Kansans who keep reelecting Brownback.
AVR (Durham, NC)
Regardless of one's opinions as pro-choice or pro-life, seeing people celebrate gleefully over this ruling is just unsettling. While some may consider abortion a necessary option, it should never be something that is celebrated. It shows how easy it is to twist morality to fit one's liking.
Maria (Melbourne, Australia)
I don't think the celebrations are saying, "Yay! Abortions!" The celebrations are for the ability of women to control their own medical decisions, their own bodies, and how their lives will unfold, rather than have others make those decisions for them.
Sandra Wise (San Diego)
avr - I think you read the happiness wrong. As a mid-70ish woman, I was in my early 20's and could not obtain birth control because I was unmarried. Also abortions were illegal and did not stop desperate women from getting one. Two of my best friends had abortions while they were illegal - one with a knitting needle and another at a back alley abortionist. She almost bled to death.

The 22 states that have the strongest laws against women obtaining an abortion were shot down for what the laws really accomplished and not what they purported to be about. A woman's right to an abortion without insurmountable obstacles being placed before them won today.
Lisa Copeland (Scarsdale, NY)
No one is celebrating abortion. We are celebrating the defeat of unjust laws that disproportionately impact poor women.
NLP (Pacific NW)
For those upset by the decision, I'd be more impressed if you'd written that you'd work towards full access to all methods of birth control (which prevent the need for abortion.) Or, that you'll work to make sure already-born children are clothed, housed, fed, educated, and receive health care. Otherwise, it's just about women being controlled by those with little interest in their actual lives.
Southern Boy (Spring Hill, TN)
The Texas law, similar to laws here in Tennessee, the Volunteer state, are aimed to protect the health of the woman. Sometimes the woman whos has chosen to have ab abortion, may suffer severe complications following the procedure that require immediate medical attention, which can only be provided in a hospital. The abortion clinic, if you call a "clinic," does not have the means to respond to such an event. The abortion "clinic," a chop shop, if you will, is equipped only to end life not preserve it.

Back when I was young and stupid I supported abortion. I supported abortion for any reason at any stage of the pregnancy. I supported it because then I despised Republicans. For the most part I still despise Republicans, establishment Republicans, but I despise the far left even more. The far left does not value life. The only life they value is their own, and its immediate physical gratification. To them I say, what if your mother aborted you. Yes what if you were aborted, then you would not be able to live a life controlled by immediate physical gratification.

This entire abortion issue does not need to be a political issue. There are more important issues that this nation has to deal with than abortion. Thank you.
Maria (Melbourne, Australia)
A chop shop? Seriously? Abortions require no cutting at all. If done in a clinic they are safe. The legislation Texas was trying to pass would force women into dangerous illegal abortions which then might need that medical intervention. You've got it backwards.
Jacque Bauer (Los Angeles)
No, the Texas law would simply mean that women would be protected against chop shops, the horrors of such we recently saw in Philadelphia. Proper minimum heath standards would be required, the same as if you had any equivalent medical procedure. But, no, the libs will twist this and in the process place the health of the mothers in the same precarious risk that the claim they want to avoid in "the back alleys". The SCOTUS libs just voted to legally support back alleys.
C. Lynn Kay (Ann Arbor)
Enough of these "I hate Republicans, but..." scenarios. They are disingenuous and nobody buys it.

Forced-birth advocates don't care about life, they care about getting worked up and controlling other people. If they did they did they would care about children after they are born, but they don't. It's fine with them if children are born into bad circumstances and are hungry, or not taken proper care of, or not going to good schools.

As far as uncontrolled immediate gratification, are you kidding me? It's not the standing joke in this society that women are the ones constantly whining about how their "needs" aren't being met.
Q (Illinois)
Abortion rights were given, in part, to provide women who wanted an abortion a safe path of obtaining one. At the time they were illegal. Because they were illegal women would end up having one in the most unsafe and unclean circumstances. Infections and sometimes death would follow. Seems this decision could set the table for a return to those days of long ago. Cheaply priced procedures in facilities not regulated to the extent of surgicenters for equipment and/or cleanliness. I'm pro-life, but if abortions are to be legal, make them medically safe. It is a surgical procedure after all.
Sandra Wise (San Diego)
You're more apt to die from a colonoscopy than an abortion.
Q (Illinois)
Point taken, but the reality is you can die from either procedure in the best of conditions. I don't know where you can obtain a legal colonoscopy other than a hospital or surgicenter type facility... this ruling does not mandate the same for abortions... for the sake of not placing a burden on the individual who wants or needs one.
Joel (New York, NY)
Q -- Colonoscopies are routinely performed by Gastroenterologists in their offices. I speak from personal experience.
Bonac (East Hampton)
The entire argument is bogus. Middle class, upper middle class and wealthy women will always have access to abortion, only, we don't call it that. We call it a D and C. Plumbing problems, not getting her period because she is "plugged". Not plugged, pregnant. We all know about it.

Women across the United States need to stop letting men and dishonest women ( who have had a D and C for whatever reason and lied about it or denied it) from defining what the actual process is. A D and C is not the removal of a definable fetus, as many people obviously believe, and have this visual about what is actually happening.

The medical profession should also address this instead of allowing themselves to be bullied by the political process. Define what an abortion, or D and C, is.

One can still disagree with terminating any pregnancy at any stage; that is your right. If you don't want a D and C, don't get one. Carry your child to term and we will do our best to support you. If you have been given the bad news that your child will have special needs, know that our society will (hopefully) be there for you and your child long after you have left this planet. But don't count on it. Ask any parent of a special needs child.

This isn't about the rights of the unborn child, but about control: over someone you will never care about; the care of another individual over whose life you have NO control; and someone you will never know.
jeito (Colorado)
The lie of the "pro-life" movement is exposed: they are certainly not about protecting the life of the mother. They are simply anti-abortion and need to be referred as such in the media.
Bridgett (Virginia)
jetto: I agree, and "pro-choice" should be "pro-abortion rights."
Frances Lowe (Texas)
I prefer reproductive freedom
Jen (Nj)
Fine, I'm pro-abortion for anyone who chooses to get one. Deal with it.
JayEll (Florida)
If Texas was so concerned about a woman's health and safety, why doesn't it prohibit gun possession by a husband or partner convicted of domestic abuse. Texas law does not require the surrender of firearms or ammunition by a domestic abuser even if the court order prohibits possession. The hypocrisy is sickening.
ClosetTheorist (Colorado)
The Scalia era is over, welcome to the era of multiple women on the Court.
JayEll (Florida)
As well as sanity in Clarence Thomas needs to retire
USMC1954 (St. Louis)
As an elderly widow, I have no personal stake in this. However, for my four grand-daughters I say, Wonderful. This contest of wills is not over by a long shot. The conservative religious zealots will never give up in this argument, and that means you must be prepared to defend your rights probably for the rest of your lives.
It has become increasingly difficult for many of us to take the GOP even remotely seriously in recent years, and here's a good example of why.

Not only was this a laughably transparent attempt to make abortion... if not illegal... as inconvenient and as burdensome as they thought they could get away with, but Steven Aden, the rabidly anti-Choice attorney presenting the losing case on Texas' behalf, actually belongs to an organizing that presumes to call itself the 'Alliance Defending Freedom'!

How can even they not see the grotesque irony and shameless hypocrisy of these attempts to present themselves as the caring and responsible 'good guys' even as they're trying to turn back the clock to a dark time in our history time when girls and women would routinely resort to drastic and often life-threatening methods trying to 'self-abort', or else risk going some some unlicensed back-alley abortionist? If this is the 'Great America' that they're so nostalgic about, we need to double, and re-double, our efforts to sweep as many of them out of office as we can on Nov 8th.
LVG (Atlanta)
Right to Life people are howling that this is an activist and left wing opinion. Like the decision of Kennedy on gay marriage it is well grounded in prior case law (Casey decision in 1992) on unconstitutional burdens. In particular the burden in the Texas law on poor rural women to obtain an abortion. And the decision is grounded on clear evidence proven in the District Court on unreasonable burdens outweighing the possible medical necessity of the law:

""Unlike in Gonzales, the relevant statute here does not
set forth any legislative findings. Rather, one is left to
infer that the legislature sought to further a constitutionally
acceptable objective (namely, protecting women’s
health). Id., at 149–150. For a district court to give significant
weight to evidence in the judicial record in these
circumstances is consistent with this Court’s case law. As
we shall describe, the District Court did so here. It did not
simply substitute its own judgment for that of the legislature.
It considered the evidence in the record—including
expert evidence, presented in stipulations, depositions,
and testimony. It then weighed the asserted benefits
against the burdens. We hold that, in so doing, the District
Court applied the correct legal standard."

This is how the rule of law operates. Unfortunately for Conservatives, Trump and religious zealots, the rule of law does not mean a whole lot.
Lee Harrison (Albany)
Whether you approve of the decision or not, it's clear that the Supreme Court saw through the subterfuge of the Texas legislation. That itself is profoundly important, that the court make decisions grounded in obvious realities, rather than lies so puerile that "my dog ate it" sounds profound.
winthropo muchacho (durham, nc)
Justice Kennedy.

Wrote the majority opinion in Citizens United.

Voted with the majority in Shelby County.

I don't understand this man.

Maybe as he gets up in years he's thinking about his legacy in the eyes of history.

Now, instead of being tarred with Citizens United he's voted with the majority in the most momentous decision on women's reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade in extending the logic of Planned a Parenthood v. Casey.

I don't understand this man through my tears of gratitude.
Chris (Arizona)
The GOP not only denied women their legal access to abortion by pretending they cared about their heath, but has also denied many citizens their right to vote by pretending they cared about voter fraud.

The party could not have chosen a more fitting leader than three times bankrupt reality TV show star misogynist racist bully Donald Trump.
Chris (La Jolla)
Much as I support abortion rights, this ruling has emphasized the fact that Scalia and Thomas are correct - the Supreme Court has become a political institution that ignores law, the Constitution, and legislates a political agenda.
I now dread another leftist, unqualified justice on the Supreme Court.
Why would law have to be able to promote an agenda that has 0% medical justification? - A physician
cruciform (new york city)
"leftist, unqualified justice ..."; why the comma, Chris?
AC (Minneapolis)
Texas was legislating a political agenda, and the three dissenters (with Scalia it would have been four) went right along with it. Seems then that they are the problem they decry.
Sierra (MI)
Looking at the map, it seems as if much of the US has an access problem but abortion services are not the only medical care that is lacking in these red areas (40 miles). Many people have to travel 100 miles or more, one way, just to get basic care. Travelling 500 miles, one way in the same state, may be required to get to see a specialist. My area flies doctors in from other states to staff our ER. There is little to no chance to "follow" up with the ER doctor you see.

States and the Federal government need to be passing laws that make it easier to get care, not make it harder by removing care facilities. Paying doctors a fair salary to work in remote areas and to have adequate care centers needs to be a priority. This is not just a women's health issue, it is a human health issue and the problem is much more than access to abortion.
David Berry (Tucson)
The current Supreme Court is so bizarre that every good ruling seems like some kind of happy accident.
MPH (New Rochelle, NY)
While I support a woman's right to choose (and vote accordingly - it's important) I understand the strong feelings held by others.
What I cannot understand is why the fertile common ground is left untilled. Surely everyone agrees that less abortions are better than more and there are so many things that could be done to help women avoid the need for abortion and offer better support if she chooses to become a mother.
Unfortunately the Texas State Government would rather pursue thinly veiled attempts to unduly restrict access and create conflict and waste the time of the Courts and feather the beds of top lawyers, and still not achieve their goals of less abortions Adding to the counter productiveness now the anti-choice lobbies make no secret of their next obtuse attack (fetal pain), once again ignoring the pain they cause and getting no nearer to their goals.
Independent (the South)
What you said is correct and obvious and has been so for 35 years since the Culture Wars began.

The political right just uses abortion as an issue to get votes and money.

And it works.
John (LA)
I think Christians did the best to prevent the murder of kids. Good job Christians. God will surely punish those who support to murder kids for the rights of women body.
AC (Minneapolis)
If you want to prevent abortions because you think abortion is murder, then get that wording into a law and get it passed in your legislature and others around the country. Good luck, John. But don't try to weasel your opinion into a law by pretending you care about women's health and safety. It's dishonest and weak.
If you think that the law should follow Christian doctrine, you should read the First Amendment. You are free to practice your beliefs and never have an abortion - though I suspect you're not a woman.
Clem (Shelby)
Yeah, sure John. But until God gets around to punishing those women, I'm sure you're happy to step in and do God's work, right?
Nr (Nyc)
Thank God, and I do not mean that literally. It is decidedly cruel to invoke any religious or moral reason to deny a woman of any age the right to an abortion. I was 26 years old and living with my husband when I became pregnant. I had inadvertently removed my diaphragm about an hour-and-a-half before I should have.

I knew I wanted to have an abortion the moment I learned I was pregnant. I was young, I knew I wanted a divorce, and I was two years into being successfully treated for severe depression.

How disgusting is the thought that someone could tell me, an adult, that I have NO LEGAL RIGHT to an abortion. Or that restrictions would force me to leave the state where I live and spend thousands of dollars to exercise my free will. I got to do what was right for me. I had an aboriton.

For those people who say I should have given birth and given the baby up for adoption, HOW DARE THEY tell me that it is their right to dictate what I should do. I have never felt bad about my decision. I felt regret that I became pregnant. But the feeling that was strongest when I became pregnant was fear. That people beyond my husband, my best friend and my physician would find out and judge me.

I do not judge myself, and I never have. I do not regret my decision. I am relieved that I did not bring a child into a complicated and stressful situation. Those who disagree should mind their own business, for they can make their own decisions, of which I want no part.
INSD (san diego)
I love how so many of the discussions in the media in the wake of this decision focus on the safety, health and convenience of the mother. Abortion is totally unsafe and inconvenient for the life that is terminated.
AC (Minneapolis)
Women are fully-formed persons and citizens who have rights under the US Constitution. This isn't the media saying this, it's the law. Fetuses and zygotes and fertilized eggs are subordinate to women. This may be distasteful to you but it is the way it is and must be. Placing fetuses and zygotes on a level with women (or above, as many would like) reduces women to mere vessels, and diminishes their rights and autonomy.
INSD (san diego)
It isn't merely distasteful. It is immoral, legal or otherwise. And characterizing a fetus or fertilized egg as subhuman is reprehensible.
That is your opinion. Many of us feel otherwise.
Jackson Aramis (Seattle)
Since the intent of the Texas Legislature and Governor was to deny access to abortion, Justice Thomas' and Justice Alito's overwrought dissents are noteworthy only for their failure to acknowledge what is real.
sarasotaliz (Sarasota)
Robin Vos, the speaker of the Wisconsin Assembly, said in a statement: “Today the court has put women’s health and safety on the back burner for the profits of Planned Parenthood and abortion providers.”

He added: “As a pro-life legislator, I will continue to support legislation that protects the life of an unborn child and the health of the mother.”

There you have it, folks. As if we didn't need yet another reason not to vote Republican, here's a Republican legislator promising to make anti-abortion front and center in his future legislative efforts, wasting our time and our money.

We have got to vote these people out of office. For the good of the country, we have to vote them out.
bbmd (Washington DC)
"Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, said the causal link between the law and the closures was unproven." This is disingenuous, as is the idea that Gosnell was the impetus for the Texas laws. The simple truth is that the Texas legislators wanted to reduce the number of abortions available by any means. To think that sitting Supreme Court Justices spout such partisan lies would leave one dumbfounded, were it not for the context of contemporary Republican politicking. Please, rule that it is a matter of state legislative prerogative, if you must demur, or some actual principal, but don't assert such lies!
Steve (Long Island)
Justice Kennedy must lay on his pillow at night and quietly muse and congratulate himself about how, on social issues, he is the most powerful man in America. With the stroke of his pen, almost like superman, he can overrule the will of a majority of Americans, and decree that gay marriage is a sacred fundamental right, sanctioned by our constitution, notwithstanding the over 200 year tradition of not recognizing such a right. Tonight he can rest easy knowing that he and he alone was the "swing" vote that has usurped the will of the people of the entire state of Texas, and declared from his perch on high, that these minimal restrictions on that so important right to kill babies in the womb, must not stand. How dare any legislature pass a law that makes a woman spend an extra 10 dollars on gas to get that abortion that she must have because having that baby will cramp her lifestyle. That is soon fundamental, like the air we breathe. This is what is at stake in November. Do you want 9 unelected people deciding these issues?
Well, the medical reasons put forth in support of the law are 100% wrong. So then try to get restrictions passed by declaring you want to take away a woman's right to choose. Be honest (and I hope you are anti-war and anti-gun).
C. Lynn Kay (Ann Arbor)
Why not? Republicans don't mind it when the decision is in their favor.
Jeffery (Maui, Hawaii)
"The entire state of Texas?" Or just a few bible thumping fanatics, high on a majority in the State House. Go knock on a few doors and let us know what you find out.
Billl (Louisville, KY)
So five - guess who - justices agree that veterinary clinic standards are safe enough for abortions. I guess that beats a coat hanger. But is is crazy that with such a procedure, the docs aren't required to have admitting certification at a nearby hospital.
Rebecca (<br/>)
Bill, I applaud your concern for women's health and safety. But perhaps you missed the Friend of the Court briefings filed by the AMA, the ACOG, and the other major national medical associations attesting to the safety of abortion procedures performed without the restrictions imposed my the TX legislature.
Sierra (MI)
Take a look at the medical facilities in much or rural America. People go to their county hospital and often need to be airlifted, at great expense to the patient as this is usually not a covered benefit, to a big city hospital. Many of these hospitals are on the verge of bankruptcy and would not be considered to be much better than the vet clinics you mention.
There is no medical reason to have admitting priviliges. Absolutely none. Are you a physician to judge? I am.
Bob Wessner (Ann Arbr, MI)
When will the general populace get it. Believe what you will, just don't impose "your" beliefs on others
AG (Wilmette)
"Withdrawal of state funds, a decline in the demand for abortions and doctors’ retirements may have played a role, Justice Alito wrote."

Utter hogwash. That a justice of the supreme court would even try to offer an excuse worthy of a fifth grader is despicable. Once again we see that Republicans are rotten to the core.
Margaret G (Westchester, NY)
I've seen fifth graders argue about legislation on school field trips. Comparing them to these three justices is unfair to the fifth graders.
Solamente Una Voz (Marco Island, Fl)
If men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Impish (ABQ, NM)
This is great news!

The republicans claim to want smaller government, but they mean that only for deregulating business concerns. In matters of social issues -- especially when it can control the lives of others or instill certain religious doctrines -- they want as much government as possible.

Let women make their own choice. Those who don't want to have an abortion can choose not to. This is what freedom means.
Sierra (MI)
My favorite sign I've seen on this matter just stated... incorporate the uterus so the GOP will stop trying to regulate it...
Douglas (Portland, OR)
Excuse me, but as a physician I'd respond to Justice Thomas that, in some matters, the analysis regarding "burdens" and "benefits" should be left to professionals in medicine and epidemiology, rather than cynical and biased pols in state legislatures!
Eric (Santa Rosa,CA)
“Today’s opinion,” Justice Thomas wrote, “does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”
Justice Thomas should know, he's been mystifying the court and the country for years.
sdc100a (NYC)
Trump supporters claim that Judge Curiel should have recused himself because his membership in La Raza, a Latino legal group, made him bias and pro-Mexico. Those same supporters have said nothing about Justice Thomas adjudicating this abortion case. Whereas La Raza is merely a social group (with no views on Mexico), the Catholic Church loudly argues against abortion. Why doesn't Thomas' membership in an anti-abortion church disqualify him? Indeed, Thomas attends church weekly and proudly admits that his faith guides him. Curiel has no such entanglements with La Raza.

Scalia was even more vested in his Catholicism. Yet he ruled on cases involving abortion, gay rights, etc. And in shocking example of judicial abuse, Scalia refused to recuse himself in case involving Vice President Cheney -- even though the the two friends recently hunted and dined together. That would've instantly disqualified any of us from being jurors but Scalia thought he lived by different rules. And again, none of Trump's surrogates complained about Scalia.

So why the hypocrisy from Trump supporters? Why is Curiel biased for belonging to an apolitical ethnic social group, while Scalia and Thomas are unbiased even though they belong to a rabidly anti-abortion and anti-gay group?
That is not what he is saying. He is holding people to their own standards. Go and read.
Shiloh 2012 (New York, NY)
Texas women have regained veto power over the reproduction process, as it should be. Sorry men, you can't control everything.

Yay Justice Kennedy.
Kevinizon (Brooklyn NY)
You are not a true Republican if you believe in regulating a woman's right to Her own body.

That would put said split-believer into the categories of
1) Phony, and
2) Hypocrite.

Republicans do not believe in government intrusion into peoples' personal lives. Right?
C. Lynn Kay (Ann Arbor)
Oh they don't mind trying to control other people's lives, they just don't like the idea of businesses being controlled.
Bob (Smithtown)
Mind boggling. Requiring a surgcal-center to conform to medical standards. Joan Rivers dies in an established gastro center and everyone has conniptions. We're in deep trouble.
Lawrence (Washington D.C.)
Won't it be a hoot if the next nominated, then confirmed Justice is Michelle Obama or Sen. Warren.
Men like myself deserve the right to absolute judgement on pregnancy termination after we grow a set of ovaries and a uterus.
Angela Mogin (San Mateo)
Justice Thomas was absolutely correct in saying the court was evaluating the benefits and burdens rather than deciding on some vague "undue burden" standard. The court, in this decision, favored looking at the actual effects of the rules instead of attempting to judge hypothetical assertions about state power. Abortion is still legal and by passing a law that effective closed down most abortion clinics with no proof that the restrictions it contained were absolutely necessary for any medical reason, the state was placing an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions. The justices voted to look at the real world, and over-rule a law intended to limit abortion access.
left coast finch (L.A.)
The amount of time and resources wasted by conservative lawmakers on absolute non-issues such as what this law was supposedly addressing are astounding. And yet the constituents who put them in power are the same ones complaining about too-high taxes and job losses. THIS is one of the most obvious and potent examples of this conundrum. Why don't Republicans in states and the US Congress put as much effort and energy into addressing the true issues facing these voters? Yet these same voters blame a "liberal elite" along with Muslims and Mexican immigrants for their problems when it's these religious zealots who, once again, are the real impediment to justice and progress for all. And once again, it's the fault of "freedom of religion" run amok.
maisany (NYC)
I never thought I'd be writing this but: I miss Scalia. At least his dissents were entertaining. Where is the "jiggery-pokery"???
macman007 (AL)
As usual the judicial voting block of the democrat party did their duty along with Kennedy, and voted in favor of the continued genocide of the unborn, with no consideration for the well being and safety of the mother who is making the most important decision of her life.

Democrats always decry the well being of the mother, but when Republicans put forward a measure where doctors need to have practicing rights at a hospital in order to due their deed, somehow the democrats in their perverse and demented thinking which only they can posses and revel in, can interpret this as somehow morally sadistic and not in the best interest of the mother.
1420.405751786 MHz (everywhere)

abortion foes will never give up obstructing th legal process of abortion

theyre on a mission from god, and they know what god wants you to do

and they are here to make you do it

whether you want to

or not
slightlycrazy (northern california)
the mother should have the right to make her own decisions in this. that's what matters.
jules (california)
Macman, you must have missed this from the court's opinion: ""Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient's own home. Colonoscopy, a procedure that typically takes place outside a hospital (or surgical center) setting, has a mortality rate 10 times higher than an abortion. The mortality rate for liposuction, another outpatient procedure, is 28 times higher than the mortality rate for abortion."

"We add that, when directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case."

In other words, the Texas law had nothing to do with the mother's well-being. But, you are free to keep believing that if you wish!
GMHK (Connecticut)
"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"-seems fairly obvious and Pro-Life to me. The Supreme Court is just so wrong on abortion. Parse it all you want, abortion was never intended to be protected by the Bill of Rights or the Constitution.
1420.405751786 MHz (everywhere)
"Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness"-s

thats not in th constitution

its th dec of independence
EHooey (Toronto)
GMHK: Sorry you have that wrong - it was the Texas legislature who got it all wrong in trying an end run around an existing law. And what a woman decides to do with her body, is HER business, and NONE of yours. OK.
But the say of my body should be. And it is.
Sarah (Arlington, VA)
The Texas law, one that affected numerous other red states under the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court, was as frivolous as all the other laws enacted in those very states to protect our country from voter fraud.

Thank you, five sane justices. Now it is time for you to not only overturn Citizens United, but Justice Scalia's utterly catastrophic majority opinion in the Heller vs. D.C. case.
AR (Virginia)
Had the ruling gone the other way, it would have had no impact at all on the socialite daughter of a wealthy oil executive in Houston who got pregnant and decided she didn't want to carry to term. Such women can always buy an airplane ticket with their father's money, fly out of Texas, and get an abortion done elsewhere. It's the single mother waitresses and maids who would have felt an undue burden had this Texas law been upheld.

Oh, and for those of you who believe that only low-income women without the means to travel out of their home state are "irresponsible" enough to experience unwanted are clueless and obviously possessed by a slavish, servile, sycophantic attitude towards the upper-income people you worship. Please de-brainwash yourselves, if possible, and start showing some respect for the lower income people who perform the bulk of the hard labor in this country.
Brian Pottorff (New Mexico)
Many state legislatures govern in bad faith. We will always need a strong federal system to undo the damage to citizens and their rights.
Dana (Santa Monica)
As a mother of two young daughters, I breathe a cautious sigh of relief. But, with three to four Supreme Court seats likely to be filled by the next president - and one candidate talking about punishing women who get an abortion - I do not rest easy tonight. I want my girls as they grow into young women to be in total control of their reproductive health. If they are ever faced with a pregnancy they cannot maintain - I will support them 100%. Every child should be a wanted child. So, if you agree with that statement then you need to vote for Ms Clinton in November.
Anna Jane (California)
The Supreme Court ruled correctly. Now, let's have good sex education and access to reliable birth control to make the need for abortion rare. Also, keep men, religions and government out of women's rights. Most of us can do a good job of taking care of ourselves, thank-you. Yes for choice.
Ask yourself this question, "when does 1 + 1 = 2" Now or 3 months from now? The answer is obvious to a 1st grader but not so obvious to the "self-proclaimed intellectual" with an ego based agenda and an intrinsic need to appear to be the smartest person in the room.

Abortion was never a constitutional issue and the result is that infanticide is the Law of the Land and instead of Women gaining rights, psychiatrist have gained patience.
Mothers killing their unborn children is considered a right in America!
slightlycrazy (northern california)
women having the right to make their own decisions. amazing, all right.
Dsmith (Nyc)
By this statement, your God has killed more infants than all the abortions combined (appx 3 million miscarriages a year)
Former Athlete (Southern California)
Zygotes and embryos are not children.
Optimist (New England)
Justice Roberts did help keep the ACA last time. However, thanks to the 1% refusing to pay more taxes! The poverty in the nation is getting worse. If some animals would kill their babies to make sure there is enough food for everyone in the family, why can't humans make the same decision? Obamacare has helped but the high deductibles and premiums are keeping patients from seeking care. Without universal health care and affordable college education, why bring innocent babies to this world to suffer? Those states that refuse to expand Medicaid should refuse no women the rights to abortion.
fallen (Texas)
I hate the idea of abortions and hope for the day when no longer exist, but the proponents of this Texas law were trying to subvert law. And they lied when they said it was about women's safety. If they were really concerned about women's safety they should look at all the storefront surgery centers that have popped up for everything from vascular surgery, tummy tucks, and face lifts. Any questions just google Joan Rivers. There are a lot more riskier procedures going on with few restrictions. If abortion opponents would spend the same money and time on birth control they would be more successful, and would be providing a great service.
Maggie Norris (California)
They are not opposed to abortion. They are opposed to women taking control of their own sexuality, reproductive capacity, and their lives.
Kate B (NYC)
i still don't understand why those who wish to reduce abortions don't insist on free access to long term birth control.
Doug Pearson (Mountain View, CA)
Personally, I think it's because their real objection to abortion is that it reduces births. They oppose any form of conception prevention for the same reason--it reduces births.
Miriam (Raleigh)
Because some of the groups who are anti-choice are also anti-contraception and more still think the BCP causes abortion and well, women are basically brood mares
Victoria Bitter (Phoenix, AZ)
Right on the money Kate. What it is apparently, is the prevention of conception also bugs the religious right. There is no pleasing them until birth, at which point they aren't as concerned about the child's future.
Bud (McKinney, Texas)
I'm pro-life.Abortion for rape/incest is ok.Abortion as a form of birth control is not.Let the mother use pills/condoms.Abortion late term after 5 months is not ok.We've killed more unborn babies than the Nazis killed Jews.When will it stop?
jb (ok)
Just a note: leave a space after periods, okay? Also, 1) men "use condoms" in a more direct sort of way than women do and have some responsibilities in all this, and I'm not sure why you don't seem to know that; 2) abortions are not performed on babies.
vgviolinist (tx)
did you see the John oliver show? Even those who were raped had to travel hundreds of miles and could even then be turned away in Texas
Miriam (Raleigh)
While making choices for others is pretty much a intellectual exercise and comepletely devoid personal consequemce, are you also willing to increase funding for health care, childcare, housing and education for all those mothers and their children. How about providing contraception.
MPS (Philadelphia)
Reading the dissenting opinion makes me realize that the Justices are completely unaware of the fact that most early abortions today are medically induced, not surgical. Therefore, the notion that handing a set of pills to a woman requires a full surgical suite makes no medical sense. Perhaps the Justices should leave the practice of medicine to physicians and their patients. And for those medical professionals who do not want to be involved in these issues, no one is insisting that they provide these services. But women should have the right to obtain care close to home at a reasonable price, especially since there are no means to care for unwanted or handicapped children in this country.
George (Monterey)
Well praise the baby Jesus!

I was watching Lily Tomlin's movie "Grandma" yesterday where she was helping her granddaughter get an abortion. The movie pointed out how hard this was on the teen even though she was clearly not ready to care for a baby.

Thinking to myself afterwards if men could get pregnant, abortion clinics would be on every corner and free. Good job SCOTUS.
David S. Hodes, MD (Dobbs Ferry, NY)
If surgical standards can be bypassed for one operation, why not look to bypass them for other operations as well? Or is it because abortion has become an ideological issue rather than a medical one?
Miriam (Raleigh)
Well David, as you well know colonscopies cause more deaths than abortions and can be done sans regulation in the office. and surely you do know how risky actual childbirth is and Texas allows it in the home
Maggie Norris (California)
It's because abortion is not a dangerous procedure.
AC (Minneapolis)
They are bypassed for many operations. And you say you're an MD?
PS (Massachusetts)
Nobody’s choice but the woman’s. Anything else is playing master.
Mel (Dallas)
The Court's decision is remarkable for three reasons:

1. It soundly reaffirms women’s right to control their reproduction. Roe v. Wade, also a Texas case, is not in danger for the foreseeable future.

2. It disposes of procedural hurdles that might have derailed the case. The majority will not throw out a game winning homer because the runner didn’t touch the base.

3. Perhaps most important looking forward, it clearly calls out the “protecting women” argument for what it is: a pretext. It is a major change from the deference previously shown to state governments' declarations of statutory purpose. The Court is signaling that it will examine suspicious legislation in abortion and other cases, to see whether the legislature has concocted justifications for laws that are thinly veiled excuses to impose unconstitutional burdens. One area that comes to mind is the imposition of voting obstacles for the stated purpose of suppressing voter fraud. This might cut both ways; liberal laws may also run afoul of the pretext analysis. It is remarkable because the Court has the moxie to look the Texas legislature in the eye and say, “Who do you think you’re fooling.”
deirdre mahoney (oakland,ca)
RE Justice Thomas' dissent: the ruling/opinion "will surely mystify lower courts for years to come." So be it. The risk of possible mystification to the lower courts is paltry compared to the actual harm to women's health and well being caused by the overturned laws.
Robbiesimon (Washington)
Translation of the dissent from Messers. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas: "We are Catholic; the Catholic Church says abortion is wrong; therefore, abortion is wrong."
Maggie Norris (California)
The Catholic Church says divorce is wrong, grounds for denial of the sacraments. Do you think Roberts and Alito will ever get around to opposing divorce?
Jim in Tucson (Tucson)
Thomas's response that courts should defer to legislatures to resolve conflicts would reinstate a wide range of unconstitutional positions, ranging from poll taxes to segregation. His attitude completely abandons the function of the Supreme Court in upholding the Constitution.

Then again, he's never been one to let the Constitution stand in the way of a decision.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
Justice Thomas' words exactly match the clear intention of the Founders which stood for over a century. It is the modern-day claptrap salesmen who think the Courts should all support the changing moods of the day and respond to political fads.
Kent (CT)
To L’Osservatore, I think you're confusing the Constitution with the old testament. And when you refer to laws concerning abortion rights as a response to "political fads", then is that also your view on another, earlier political fad called abolition?
DebraJMSmith (New York)
Well, we certainly do not want to kill less unborn babies. And we absolutely do NOT want there to be safer conditions for the mothers allowing their babies to be brutally murdered. --Right??? Well, I suppose what's good for the baby is good for the mother.
Phil Ab (Florida)
Abortion rates lower during Democratic administrations. Interesting.
You know, even the legislators know that is a red herring. Have you considered the dangers of self-induced abortions?
Freestyler (Highland Park, NJ)
Fewer unborn babies....
C (L.A.)
Texas is all for "life" except when it comes to the death penalty.
Dsmith (Nyc)
Or supporting young children from disadvantaged backgrounds
Bud (McKinney, Texas)
I'm happy we execute.Do you realize only the densest of convicts who think they can con the jury get the death penalty here?There are so many plea bargain attempts before the dumbest horses rear ends decide to go for the trial.Give me a break with your uninformed comment.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
If you don't like what a state does you are free to campaign for others to sit in their legislature.
That WOULD usually require a person that the voters there would side with at the very top of the party's ticket.
coach clark (studio city, ca)
Thank heavens common sense prevails. It is incredible that in the year 2016 we are having major arguments, battles, accusations regarding abortion, civil rights, LGBT, etc. when looking on the American and World Landscape, we have more important issues to be concerned with. The anti-abortion people need to find another cause, and stay out of the business of intimidation, threats, violence etc. Women should have the right to choose, along with equal pay and respect. Anthony Kennedy needs to be praised and celebrated as he viewed this case through the lens of Constitutional rights, not through the lens of bias or prejudice.
Adrienne (North Haven, CT)
Are you saying it is in your view that no one speaks up for the murdered souls? And those of us pro-life should accept the murders of our most precious ones of the universe, Humans!!!
EHooey (Toronto)
Adrienne: So how many of those "murdered souls" were you prepared to adopt, clothe, feed, educate and love, had they not been aborted? None?? I see, so you wanted to force the unfortunate teen who was raped by her father to carry that "soul" to term. Aren't you just sweet. No.
slightlycrazy (northern california)
we're saying in our view you are hysterical
Suzy Sandor (Manhattan)
Pro-choicers won because pro-lifers went berserk on abortion restriction. That is the pro-choicers luck nothing more. Over all there is are very bad vibration going on. Just like in England. I am very happy today but don't feel good all together.
emm305 (SC)
Exactly. Casey gave 'em an inch and they took 10 miles.
That's the way they always operate and why they are extremists.
The Supreme Court is not a legislative body, they are not elected, and as such, they are not all reflective of democratic ideals. As such, they should only over-turn the will of the legislative branches in the most extreme cases.

Sadly, as our Democracy evolves, we are evolving into a less and less democratic form, with power more and more centralized to the Federal Level, particularly the Executive branch and the Supreme Court.
Freestyler (Highland Park, NJ)
By that logic, we would still have slavery.
Sarah (Arlington, VA)
Oh dear, even going to school in Europe and growing up there, I had to take years of world history, including the history of the US Constitution and the US government.

In case your don't know, the US has three equal, repeat, equal branches of government, albeit with different duties.

It is obvious that the teaching of history in the United States has taken a backseat to teaching Creation in schools, at least in some areas of this nation of ours.
Dsmith (Nyc)
Um I believe th equal protection and privacy clauses are legislative in nature: what does one do when there are two laws in conflict? And in fact, if the SCOTUS never overrules legislature the what are they there for? Have you heard of the term "checks and balances"?
pdianek (Virginia)
Too few people realize that to many men, women are not really human. We are not what they envision when they hear the word “people”. Or the word “citizens”. Nope, not the females.

Right now, I’m reading the well-researched, horrifying “KL”, about the rise and rise of Nazi concentration camps. They were run by people who did not envision certain others as human, either.

Look, guys, if you or anyone you love has ever had a blood transfusion, were you told the sex of the donor? No, because it doesn’t matter. What matters is the blood’s type and the fact that a human being gave it. Try transfusing from a male dog or chimpanzee – instant shock and septicemia.

If you can wrap your minds around the idea that female people are just as human as you are, you’ll go a long way toward acknowledging the truth instead of living a lie.
Stu (Houston)
One big issue I have with this is the "woman's choice" aspect. No woman ever became pregnant by herself. Ever.

If a woman feels a baby is going to be an undue burden and can terminate the pregnancy at will, then a man should be able to have a pregnancy he contributed to terminated with or without the woman's consent if he feels it'll be an burden to him. That sounds fair, how about it pro-choicers?

Or, if babies are completely the property of a woman, like her body is (my body, my choice!) then why should a man ever be held responsible for rearing and paying for a child he has no claim on? I mean, it's hers, right?

No matter, our middle and upper class will keep de-birthing themselves out of existence and we'll bring in disaffected immigrants to fill the void we selfishly created.
C's Daughter (NYC)
You appear to be confused. The right to an abortion is not based upon a concept of the fetus as anyone's "property." It is predicated on a woman's right to decide whether she wishes to use her body to gestate. Men cannot gestate. Thus, he cannot exercise the right to decide whether he wishes to use his body to gestate; it is nonsensical. Therefore, that right can never be applied to him.

Both parents are equally obligated to care for the resulting child financially. The burdens are equal.

Does that clear it up for you?
W (Houston, TX)
Aren't most of the abortions being done on these "disaffected immigrants"? With no access to abortion, they will have even more children.
Paul Munday (Portland, Oregon.)
Men do get to make that decision - at the point at which they are involved. If you don't want to deal with the consequences of getting someone pregnant it"s simple: don't have sex. What makes you think men should be able to escape responsibility for thier actions?

Lots of men do get a say in pregnancy, I certainly did, we planned parenthood, together. I got to do so because my wife trusted me to uphold my responsibilities, and be there for my child, whatever else might happen between us. What about you?
Dairy Farmers Daughter (WA State)
Thank you Justice Kennedy. Alito, Thomas and Roberts are applying their own personal bias to abortion rights. As my 84 year old mother said at breakfast this morning, "why are these men always trying to impose their own will on women. Women can make their own decisions." The justification put forth by Texas was laughable...if they really believed that women, and by extension the public at large, needed more protection during medical procedures, they would have included others such as colonoscopy, child birth and cosmetic surgery to the standards imposed on abortion providers. They did not, and their ploy was seen for what it was - an attempt to eliminate a woman's constitution right to control her own body.
Sherilynn (Rochester)
I am thrilled with today's decision as I am sick to death of old men making decisions on what women can do with their own bodies and I am sick of the hypocritical, so-called "pro-lifers" that only care about life before birth.
Tired of Hypocrisy (USA)
Overpopulation causes famine and climate change. Make abortion cheap, safe and available to all who want it. The life you don't save won't eat or be the cause of more pollution.
pjc (Cleveland)
The fact is, a significant portion of the population simply does not believe in reproductive rights. Some think it is immoral to prevent conception via contraceptives -- the most extreme position -- and others feel that once pregnant the woman is morally obligated to carry that pregnancy.

I do not think there is any way to persuade those who think this way, since their reasons are religious. Religious conviction is notorious like that.

But still, I would ask the anti-choice crowd to consider what is actually happening in these laws: the State is regulating reproduction. Whatever one's religious convictions, one should be able to see what becomes possible if the law were to claim the right to regulate this matter, because the precedent would have to be, not an establishment of religion, for that is prohibited under our constitution, but that the State has an interest in regulating reproductive practice.

The law is ruthless in how it unfolds, for it works strictly by precedent. Once the State, rather than the individual, is given the right to regulate reproduction, what is to stop the State from -- someday -- deciding who can have children? What is to stop the State from deciding, it is in the interests of the society that some people be sterilized? What is to stop the State from someday advocating a one-child policy, as China did?


Pro-life people need to consider this. Political solutions to moral questions can have terrible unforeseen repercussions.
AussieAmerican (Malvern, PA)
For everyone on the right decrying this decision, it is important to note that had Scalia also hear the case, the outcome would still be same: the law would have been struck, but by 5-4 instead of 5-3.
William Starr (Nashua, NH)
We can't be *certain* about that -- if Scalia had been there it's *possible* that he could have persuaded Kennedy to join him.
W (Houston, TX)
And if the Senate were sane or in Democratic hands, Justice Garland would have been already appointed and it would have been 5-3. So many scenarios!
Zalkreb (Austin, Texas)
Congrats to women. Now can we do something about men's reproductive rights? If a woman has a constitutional right to decide after having unprotected sex that she doesn't want to be a parent, shouldn't a man have a similar right? How do I explain this to my son as fair, just and equal?
Rebecca (<br/>)
Zalkreb, your son (and mine) will not find himself in this situation if he demonstrates respect for his partner and takes responsibility for preventing an unwanted pregnancy by a using a condom, the right way, every time.
jb (ok)
As soon as your son has an equal fetus in his equal uterus, it will be his equal body to decide about. Other than that, he has every right not to become a parent against his will, and I'm sure he knows exactly how to accomplish that.
W (Houston, TX)
Who says that a man doesn't already have that right?
Barbara Michel (Toronto ON)
The decision to have an abortion should be made by the woman who is pregnant in consultation, IF. she wishes with the man who is the potential father.
The Perspective (Chicago)
The rule of law wins. The anti-abortion group wants THEIR point of view to apply for ALL persons. The pro-choice group leaves the door open to women---choose to terminate or not or simply ask advice. That is the rub with the anti-abortion group; their values somehow have to apply to everyone. The same persons who would never want a value or opinion from others to apply to them. They only want pluralism when it serves their purpose. VICTORY!
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
The abortion business, like GM or Chrysler, is simply too big and too profitable for politically-connected people to ever be shut down.
The body-parts trade which many connected people admitted to being part of was just another unavoidable aspect of this, and if P.P. is officially out of it, you have to assume that others have gotten involved now.

As originally hoped by Margaret Sanger, the biggest impact of this industry has been to reduce the number of black people especially in the U.S. Those promoting abortion-on-demand have to admit the racist underpinnings of their crusade against tricycle motors.
Hroswitha (Iowa City)
Conspiracy theories never die, they're just given a more reputable veneer and sold to a newly gullible audience.

Sanger certainly had racist opinions, and believed that the promotion of abortion would result in the reduction of the numbers of African American people in this country. The Black community has, in part, been skeptical about the promotion of abortion rights and has advocated for reproductive rights instead. The 1981 Senatorial hearings on the deeds of the Department of Health Education and Welfare, which paid doctors to sterilize women of color without their knowledge or consent, opened the eyes of many in the pro-choice movement to the racist underpinnings of the pro-choice movement.

Which is not to say that we have remained in that dark place. Sanger's ideals do not guide Planned Parenthood today, African American women are not targeted for abortion procedures, and no one sells fetal body parts.

None of this information is obscure. I strongly recommend you do a little research. Good luck.
Dsmith (Nyc)
Are you suggesting there is no demand for this, and that people are coerced into accepting the procedure?
Sally (South Carolina)
There are more restrictions on abortion rights than on gun rights. These people trying to restrict abortion only care about a person until it is born or when it is ready to die. They try to take away child care, food credits, decent education and any type of financial help for the living but tell us "life is sacred". They want euthanasia to be illegal but murder with automatic weapons is fine - a right even. Please, when will this hypocrisy stop?
Stargazer (There)
My late mother served on the board of her local Planned Parenthood. She would always say, "What about the fourth trimester?" You correctly point out that the forces seeking to restrict access to reproductive services of all types do not care much about the fourth trimester.
JavaJunkie (Left Coast, USA)

1) I applaud today's SCOTUS decision.

2) I hope you're complaining as well last week when Justice Breyer joined with the other 4 Conservative Justices and essentially gutted the 4th Amendment (Utah v Strieff)

3) I believe the Constitution guarantees the right to self defense
and I wish you and the rest of the Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe could start to see the need to defend the entire Bill of Rights not just those parts that give my ill-Liberal friends the "warm and fuzzies"

You nor I can own automatic weapon (Some States allow collectors to own firearms made prior to 1986 but you need a whole bunch of paperwork (ie background checks) and those weapons are VERY expensive - I don't recall in the last 30 years one being used in a "mass shooting"

3a) Murder is Murder whether you do it with a "Sharp Weapon" i.e. a Knife of which 4 times as many people were killed in this country last year by knives vs. all types of rifle homicides (Single Shot Rifle, Bolt Action Rifle, Lever Action Rifle, Semi-Automatic Rifle, Pump Action Rifle, etc etc)

When will the hypocrisy stop
When everyone stops using Propaganda phrases such as "Reasonable Gun Laws" aka a code word for we want to ban and confiscate your guns
"To insure the safety of Women" aka a code word for we want to take away from women the right to control their own bodies.

How about we try this instead
W (Houston, TX)
Nice try. "Reasonable Gun Laws" is not a code word for we want to ban and confiscate your guns. This is just paranoia. It is to regulate gun ownership, just like it says in the Constitution. And a strict Constitutionalist would know that the 2nd amendment describes arms for that time such as muskets, not semi-automatic or automatic weapons.
JMT (Minneapolis)
Shame on three Supreme Court Justices who thought that the Republican legislators and Republican Governor of the State of Texas were lawful in concocting laws to deny women the control over their own bodies as protected by established precedent in Roe vs. Wade.
In decision after decision the conservative Federalist Society proteges through their poor judgement have shown their personal bias and undermined public respect for the Supreme Court of the United States.
Bush vs. Gore, Citizen's United, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Shelby County v Holder, etc., District of Columbia v. Heller.
Supreme Court justice is at stake in November.
Stargazer (There)
You can go all the way back to U.S. v. Lopez, 1995, for a really wacky take on the commerce clause, emphasizing states' rights!
JMT (Minneapolis)
The past is always with us.
You can add to my list with your own favorites.
Yossarian (Heller, USA)
The reasoning in the several dissenting opinions shows the dissenters to be either credulous or disingenuous. Since I think those guys are pretty smart (however unwise), it's no doubt the latter.
Allen Nelson (WA)
I can respect abortion opponents who believe abortion is the murder of a child. I strongly disagree with that view, but respect it.

What I cannot respect is the cynical attempt by abortion opponents to restrict abortion by imposing requirements they know most clinics cannot meet, and
then blatantly lie and say with a straight face they are only concerned with safeguarding the health of the women, and not with preventing abortions.

I would love to give lie detector tests to these people to show what liars they are. But I doubt any of them would agree to taking the test.

If you're such moral, god fearing people, then why don't you come clean and admit what we all know is true--these laws were always about making abortion more difficult to obtain, not more safe.
John R. (Ardmore, PA)
Couldn't agree more with you - I was thinking the same thing - the lawsuit is dishonest, and was probably initiated by "god fearing" people as you say...
Heidi Humphrey (Shaftsbury VT)
I have thought a lot this past week of my mother, who would have turned 89 last Friday. As one of the country's early Family Planning Nurse Practitioners, she ran several Planned Parenthood clinics in northeastern Connecticut during the 60s and 70s. Hate mail and bomb threats were not uncommon. Her quiet but fierce determination to protect a women's reproductive rights was something I took for granted and never should have. She would have been appalled by the social and political backsliding of the past 20 years, yet overjoyed by today's decision. Women, never take the freedom of choice for granted.
njglea (Seattle)
This is not a victory for "abortion". It is a victory for a Woman's Right to Choose What She Does With Her Own Body and for Family Planning.
L’Osservatore (Fair Verona where we lay our scene)
When those women have no voice in their sex life, your idea is quite logical.
But in settled parts of the world, of course, women have the ability to say ''No'' and if they proceed to create a new life - fertilization of an ovum - then they are deciding for two people.
I myself would like to destroy a life, but not everybody is me.
Hroswitha (Iowa City)
When we live in a world where women's ability to say "No" and be respected by men, I might begin to agree with you.

But saying "yes" to sex doesn't mean saying "yes" to parenthood. Many don't have access to contraception or can't afford it. Others choose sex with a partner or a friend or a stranger, only to find their contraception failed or that choosing to run the risk of having sex just once without protection results in a life-altering situation. Humans have sex for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with reproduction - intimacy, pleasure, fun, boredom, love... Should all of them result in pregnancies, our 7 billion person population would explode.

You're also ignoring the women (and girls) who find themselves pregnant after a rape. Sure, many states claim to permit abortion in cases of rape or incest, but if women are required to prove these conditions in court, the barrier becomes too high for so many. Timely access to abortion services may also keep women from being able to receive the services if they must delay to see a judge.

Face it - pro-life people are pro-birth. I see no concern for the future of women and their children who have found themselves trapped in untenable positions and need to terminate a pregnancy.
Dsmith (Nyc)
Also, those with fetuses who are so genetically malformed that they would never live ex-utero
Francisco Amat (Tampa, Florida)
If republicans and "pro-lifers" want to pass laws against abortion they should make sure it applies to everyone (I am pro-choice). Unfortunately any pro-lifer with money will have no trouble getting an abortion. These laws only apply to the poor, disadvantaged or uneducated. It is utterly discriminatory.
Kevin (Bellevue NE)
All tough problems. Do you, in your heart, believe killing an innocent, will fix your deeper problem.
Indiana Pearl (Austin, TX)
The pregnant woman is of primary consideration.
Rodrian Roadeye (Pottsville,PA)
Your killing of innocents goes on in quagmire wars everyday. It is a part of God deciding each person should have a free will and is answerable to him for those decisions, if you believe in God.
Dearest Kevin,
I am a 69 year old woman. In my life I have had 1 abortion, 2 mis-carriages, and 2 wonderful babies. Now wonderful adults. I have no deeper problems. I carry no guilt, nor shame. I conducted my life as best I could under circumstances that were my own at any given time. I do not need your approval, nor do I accept your judgement. You will never, ever encounter a situation like mine. So you should have no say in the matter.
Pat (NY)
Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general said, “It’s exceedingly unfortunate that the court has taken the ability to protect women’s health out of the hands of Texas citizens and their duly-elected representatives."

Thank goodness the Supreme Court took the ability to protect women's health out of the hands of Texas!
Pol Pont (Argentina)
“Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements,” wrote justice Ginsburg.

A study in Obstetrics & Gynecology backs her up. Researchers estimated the risk of a woman dying after childbirth was 10 times greater than after an abortion.

I hope that it is not the rationale behind the judgment. Childbirth is more dangerous than quite a few medical procedures or human activities but childbirth is indispensable to mankind’s existence, the perfect antithesis of abortion which begets, in the absolute, the inexistence of mankind.

I fail to understand the rationale behind the comparison between the risk related to abortion and the one related to childbirth. Have we all lost our minds to find that such a ludicrous comparison in the mouth of Supreme Court judges makes the tiniest sense? Such an argument that verges on mental retardation cannot be used in the debate on access to abortion because it is its own worst enemy.
AlexNY (New York)
The comparison seems ludicrous to you because the premise of the law was ludicrous. The law was supposed to protect women's health by adding a bunch of requirements to abortion clinics, which is ridiculous - the real purpose of the law was to limit abortions.

Justice Ginsburg was making the point that medical procedures that are more dangerous are not subject to the requirements that the law proposes for abortion clinics. In other words she was exposing the hypocrisy of the law and suggesting its true purpose was limit abortions.

Do you understand the ludicrous comparison now?
jeoffrey (Arlington, MA)
No -- the question was whether when you compare the risks of childbirth to having an abortion it makes sense for the state to treat the latter risks as much higher, when in fact they're much lower. Given the fact that they're lower, the state's claim that it is simply trying to protect women more from low-risk procedures than it tries to protect them from high-risk procedures looks like a, how shall I put it?... lie.
HT (Ohio)
You missed the critical part of the comparison: while childbirth is 10x as dangerous as abortion, the Texas does impose the similar set of regulations on childbirth centers; you can even give birth at home, if you choose. The court also pointed out that Texas does not regulate where a colonoscopy (100x as dangerous as an abortion) takes place, nor where treatment of a miscarriage by a D&C (same risk to maternal health as an abortion) takes place. This demonstrates that the intent of this law was not, as claimed, to protect women's health, but to make abortions difficult to obtain.

More broadly, if childbirth is 10x as dangerous to a woman as an abortion, then the decision whether to continue an unplanned pregnancy should be made by the woman - the person who is taking the risk. With exception of the draft (which hasn't taken place for almost 50 years now) we don't force people to render bodily services to others and endanger their own health and lives in the process.
John Lubeck (Livermore, CA)
The ruling is less about abortion and more about the rule of law. Three justices demonstrated a complete willingness to disregard common sense, logic and the rule of law. We should not be celebrating.
sylviag2 (Palo Alto, California)
I am SO relieved. I heard Nina Totenberg predicting it on public radio and could hardly believe such good news was possible, giving the dismal record of the current court's decisions.

And the appalling hypocrisy of this Texas law just drives me crazy. The right to safe and legal abortion is the law of the land. Anti-abortion folks just can't wrap their heads around this after all these years. So the road to impeding women's rights to make their own decisions about their bodies is to come up with unnecessary "health benefits" that would, they believe, make getting an abortion so difficult that women would go ahead and have an unwanted child.
And for all you people who think this is over, these crusaders are just, really just like, ISIS: their god is right, and yours, if you have any, is wrong, and their Sharia will Trump your freedom any old day. If you're an infidel, you're nothing, and your life, certainly your opinion, is worth nothing.

These Christian/Republican Right to Life (Under their Caliphate) Crusaders -- did you ever really listen to a speech, or screed, by Cruz especially, or Huckabee, or even Trump for that matter? -- are absolutely no different from ISIS (a lot of them even have the same guns) except yes in degree (and media savvy of course), but not in the power of lording their "beliefs" and ruling from top down in accordance with them. They have backers, in public no less, calling for abortionists and LGBT people to be killed -- and lo and behold:

Our enemies will never give up; they are the same, in the M.E., and here. Their respective god, their monomaniacal drive to sharia caliphates and total power, including international rule of .01% capital (aka private equity, "free" trade, int'l finance, etc.).

Anybody, group, entity that is driven to control others, especially the bodies or life quality, i.e. misery, exploitation, of others, and resorts to fraud, deceit, bogus arguments, covert financing, bribery (Citizens United from all of these same fine constitutionalists), NSA/CIA deep state/FB/Big Data, and the bread & circus "political" sop they throw to us plebes -- that's our enemy.
Dsmith (Nyc)
There are too many people to eliminate all regulations
MG (Tucson)
My wife and I lived in Texas back in the 1980's. We had one child and a unexpected pregnancy happened. My side of the family carries thalassemia. Our first son like myself have thalassemia minor and the second child had a strong chance of having thalassemia major which is far more serious. Without health insurance back then we decided it was best to end the pregnancy - hard choice even today some 33 years later longing back. But having an abortion in Houston was not a big deal with Planned Parenthood - no hassles - no protest - just a private choice as it should be.
Cindy (Liberty, Maine)
Thank goodness for this ruling. No woman should feel forced to continue with a pregnancy that she can't deal with physically, emotionally, and spiritually. The days of backstreet abortions or young desperate women using wire hangers to try to abort a fetus need to be behind us.

The sad thing is that Chief Justice Roberts sided with Thomas and Alito (on whom I've given up as ever being on the side of justice).
Rev. E.M. Camarena, Ph.D. (Hells Kitchen, NYC)
Thank goodness? Thank the framers of the Constitution.
Publius (Baton Rouge)
Kudos to the SC for throwing out parts of the law on its merits.

Everyone knows that the Texas law was a back-handed way to deny abortion rights to citizens. These lawmakers do not care a hoot about "women's health" - they were forking out red meat to their constituents. All across the South bogus laws such as these, pretending to be in the defense of women's health, have sprung up in the past few years.

These lawmakers have not learnt lessons from Prohibition - if you ban something, people do it underground, and often times with much worse consequences.
Fhc (Chi)
@DSM - the points you made are exactly what makes my head explode when I hear their ridiculous arguments - with one addition - they don't want birth control, they don't support abortion, so what happens when women "just say no"? They're raped, beaten or worse - by the men who are supposed to "love and protect them" - very frequently, their husbands and partners. In addition to no birth control or abortion, these conservative politicians also don't want to budget for child care or other related services. So what are these women and kids supposed do? And how can the negative social affects be ignored or minimized?

I really don't understand where this lack of empathy and plain old common sense stems from. Almost forever, our black citizens were beaten down figuratively and literally. Now that we got at least some of that moving in the right direction, it seems like these angry white men need to find another outlet. Can't have those uppity women instigating social and economic change!

What I don't understand is how and why these people get elected. They do nothing constructive for the people who "vote" for them. And yet, they have life-long careers in Congress.

Is someone going to start scrutinizing our elections? And when are we going to start demanding term limits? Enough is enough.
TSS (Minneapolis, MN)
Not all women support abortion so it isn't just "angry white men". Also, I think many of us pro-lifers understand that in some situations, the pregnancy was out of the woman's control. In your example of rape, I would agree that abortion should be an option.

My pro-life opinions do not come from a place of hate or judgement towards women. They come from the belief that babies deserve our protection during the pregnancy.
Martha Shelley (Portland, OR)
TSS, you believe that "babies deserve our protection during the pregnancy." I wish our society offered more protection to babies after they've been born. From what I've seen--and I'm 72--that level of protection isn't there.
cruciform (new york city)
I wish could believe that your nuanced view were heard by anti-choice radicals, TSS, but I suspect they aren't.

One of the more vexing aspects of this debate is that the anti-choice line is so absolutist: no exceptions to their orthodoxy, no acknowledgement of the vagaries of the human condition. Have you advanced those subtleties in other fora, TSS?
PKLogan (Anchorage)
The "mystifying" part of this is that Alito and Thomas can't do basic math or grasp simple concepts. To compare the admitting privileges requirement to the level of Physician attrition or the withdrawal of state funds is no argument at all and just a waste of the courts time. I thought we were paying these two to think?
To assert that burdens and benefits have no legal relationship is absurd. Burdens and benefits do not exist in their own separate vacuums they exist together. Like evil and good one can't exist without the other. This is a basic philosophical and logical truth above any legal argument.
To say that deference should be to the state legislature in this case, as Thomas asserted, is the same as telling the abortion seeker to go build her own ambulatory surgical center so she may obtain a benefit she already has and has the right too. No undue burden there! If the state is so concerned about the health of the abortion seeker then they should fulfill their own requirements by providing the infrastructure necassary to meet those concerns without imposing any burden.
Alito argued that states were enacting these laws "in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal". This is to say that they are simply trying to protect lives not impose a burden. Alto's hypocrisy is appalling. How one can argue in one instance and point to Kermit Gosnell and then argue, as we all know he would, that laws concerning gun ownership would have no effect on protecting American lives?
Hummmmm (In the snow)
Why women choose abortion: [WebMd]

Birth Control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.

Inability to support or care for a child.

To end an unwanted pregnancy.

To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.

Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.

I personally don't believe in abortion where there are 1.2 million women each year have an abortion. I believe that all children come into this world for a reason and the methods for which they come in is in God's hands. I would prefer to actually look at the reasons for abortions and find the means to make right those reasons. Somewhere between a very strong natural drive, the evolution of humanity where it wasn't that long ago we got married and had children in our early teens and mankind didn't live very long, and the very thick DSM V description of humanities mental health problems, society's push about who we are supposed to be and how we are supposed to act and the idea of get a job, get married, buy a home and have two kids and a dog...there answers to be found to resolve this. But forcing women to do something with their bodies...isn't for me to control. We allow people to drink alcohol like there is no tomorrow.
Randall S (Portland, OR)
Part of me is delighted: Hooray for the Constitution! But another part of me is just tired, since this isn't going to be the last battle. I remember driving past a pro-choice rally some 30 years ago. I drove past one last week.

Women's rights will remain under attack.
Scott (Atlanta)
Meanwhile, the rights of the unborn are trampled. Why is it those who most believe in human rights ignore them for society's most vulnerable?
Indiana Pearl (Austin, TX)
A pregnant woman's rights supercede the rights of an embryo.
Leigh (Seattle)
So you think it is reasonable to assign (due to your personal religious belief), "rights" to a fertilized egg, or fetus, that would end up trumping and trampling the rights of the citizens of this country because they happen to be pregnant? That is neither reasonable, compassionate, nor just.
Kevin Vaughan (Bellevue NE)
The court continues to double down on poor social decisions of the past. This has never been about women's health. The most helpless humans in America are being exterminated, legally. I will continue to pray for out justices.
Marco Polo (St. Louis)
How much money did Texas flush down the toilet defending an unconstitutional law? How do ordinary Texans feel about their tax money being squandered to advance the profile of a handful of anti-choice activists?
tiddle (nyc, ny)
Glad to see Supreme Court is ruling with commonsense, rather than along strict ideology, for a change. Mayhaps that has something to do with Scalia being gone (even though he would not have made a difference in this 5-3 decision).
brupic (nara/greensville)
it seems usually ideological to me. kennedy is often the open swing vote and that's the way it worked this time. no doubt if scalia had been around it would've been 5-4.
jkj (pennsylvania USA)
Hey McConnell and Republican'ts and their ilk, so how'd that work out for ya by not letting President Obama get his SCOTUS pick onto the court?! Huh?! You and yours were all wrong on women's rights, slavery, civil rights, LBGT rights, abortions, etc. Why not give it all up already since you and yours are ALWAYS wrong! Check your history.

Remember Republican'ts and your ilk, this is NOT a theocracy as you and your ilk wish to make this nation. Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the Republican'ts so far down that they can never recover in 2016 and they end up in the trash heap of history where they belong! C'mon Americans, let's join the 21st century and the civilized world in 2016 and move forward rather than go backwards toward the first century.
Donna (Houston, Texas)
I live in Texas under a governor and lieutenant governor who will happily sign legislation for both open carry and concealed weapons laws. When it comes to women's health rights, however, you can almost hear the crickets chirping in Austin for the deafening silence from our state government.

Thank you to the Supreme Court for making the right decision today and upholding Roe v. Wade. There are parts of my state that are destitute (especially in the Valley along the Mexican border) and this decision keeps badly needed health clinics open.
Barry Schreibman (Cazenovia, New York)
Does this decision leave anybody in doubt why the need to defeat Trump is absolutely imperative -- a need that, well, trumps all else, including the sectarian ideological dismay of certain Sanders' supporters? A five to four liberal majority on the Court will -- finally! -- start to redress the enormous damage wreaked on this country by the Reagan counter revolution and begin, case by case, to put America back on a rational, progressive course. The impact of a solid liberal majority on the Court will last for a generation or more -- and not just on the law. The legal decisions of the Supreme Court are normative -- they shape culture and values generally. There is NOTHING more important that that. Don't like Hillary? Tough. Man up and woman up and vote for her. Think of the children and what kind of country they'll be growing up in.
trose (kent ohio)
I would rather let the house burn around me than let someone bully or scare me into voting for a person I don't believe in. Maybe if I came to the conclusion on my own, but never if someone makes me feel like I am making a choice at gunpoint.
jb (ok)
If you want to refuse to pay attention to someone you think wants to scare you, or someone explaining that the situation is dire--to the point of letting the house burn for your sacred stubbornness, do be sure it's only your own house. And handle the fire yourself.
Barry Schreibman (Cazenovia, New York)
Your attitude is so terminally selfish, I don't know where to begin. Here's the thing. It doesn't matter what you believe in -- because in the final analysis you (and I) don't matter all that much. What matters is the country -- and saving it from the ruinous course the Tea Party and now Trump has put it on. So get over yourself, OK? That burning house includes the next generation, and the generation after that. Think about that.
Peter Limon (Irasburg, VT)
Let's talk about the split in this decision: All the women on the court decided in favor of voiding the 5th circuits decision. One of those women is Catholic. All five of the dissenters are not only male, they are Catholic. So, one of the Catholics on the court was able to put her early childhood training behind her and defend women in America; because she herself is a women, and she knows what it's about. The Catholic men, not so much. They are trapped in their early upbringing, unable to get past it. So much for Alito's "neutral court" ideal.
Newyorkaise (New York, New York)
Peter, your analysis, while interesting, doesn't quite work because your numbers are off. There were only 3 dissenters, not 5 (it was a 5-3 decision).

Although it is true that all of the dissenters were Catholic men (Chief Justice Roberts, Justices Thomas and Alito), the 5-member majority included a Catholic man (Justice Kennedy) as well as a Catholic woman (Justice Sotomayor).

So it's hard to say what role religion played (the remaining justices in the majority are Jewish), or even gender, for that matter.
Dsmith (Nyc)
I think you meant three of the dissenters
Made in Brooklyn (Brooklyn, NY)
As a Christian I do believe that life begins at conception. However, as a woman it is my right to do what I feel is best for me and that unborn child. If I think that having a child would place me in a situation that is significantly unfavorable for the both of us, I should be able to weigh my options. If I get raped by an uncle or a pedophile (or both in the same person, in some cases), I should be able to not want a breathing reminder of that tragedy.

Some (and I stress 'some') pro-lifers are also anti-'government handout' when the mother needs help from public assistance or state-run after-school programs. Some pro-lifers are not protesting difficult and costly adoption procedures in the United States. Some pro-lifers aren't protesting the school-to-prison pipelines or the high costs of college tuition, so the cycle has less of a chance to repeat. Some pro-lifers are quick to call the cops when that same child is born autistic and is having a major tantrum in public, causing that child to end up in child protective services've guessed it...into the hands of a pedophile. If we're going to be pro-life, be pro-LIFE!

Before you stand outside of an abortion clinic and yell at a woman for her 'lack of morals," try counseling her or praying with/for her. Learn about her and her story. Help her, don't curse her. Or, if you're that pro-life, pay for her checkups and raise her baby instead.

Let's help each other in this country.
Edgar Pearlstein (Linolcn NE)
Medical questions—in this case, the safety of a procedure—should not be settled by raw politics.
njglea (Seattle)
There is another article in today's New York Times that shows responses to the ruling. One says, "“Today we lament another legal victory for the abortion lobby, coming at the expense of children, women and families.

Abortion lobby? That would be over one-half of America's population - women - and the men and families who love them and believe in family planning. Don't want an abortion or to use contraception? Don't. Leave the rest of us alone.
Michjas (Phoenix)
There IS an abortion lobby, led by the millions of dollars Planned Parenthood spends each year. And opponents of abortion believe it is murder so they are no more inclined to let you murder your "baby" than gun control advocates are inclined to let mass murderers use assault rifles. The abortion debate is violent, divisive and ignorant. Lots of people on both sides don't even understand what the argument is about. And their ignorance unnecessarily fosters hatred.. If pro-lifers understood that those who get abortions are generally aware of the moral and personal dilemmas, maybe they would stop with their holy roller rant. And if pro-choicers understood that pro-lifers equate the fetus with a baby, maybe they would better understand their fanaticism. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe everybody is too upset to be reasonable. But at least if everyone junderstood they were being unreasonable, they would understand how often they seem crazy to reasonable people.
njglea (Seattle)
Planned Parenthood is FAMILY PLANNING organization. Please get your facts straight.
It is unreasonable to ignore deny or subsume the rights of a life in being in favor of a life not in being. It is unreasonable to impose a general moralistic policy above the profoundly private interests of the individual deciding something that will affect her for the rest of her life.
Joan C (New York)
It shouldn't be so surprising that the Court upheld the Constitution. How very sad that it is. If we are to have any hope of continued respect for the Constitution on the part of this court, we have to do everything we can to get out the vote. The fragility of the Court has never been more apparent, weakened by partisan bickering and posturing, and by justices with personal political agendas.
Elizabeth Forquer (North Carolina)
Thinking that you have the right to dictate life choices of a woman that you've never met, will never meet, and know nothing about, is extremely arrogant.
Truth (Atlanta, GA)
The SCOTUS made the right decision. While I do not support abortion, I do support a women's right to choose. I am adamantly against Christians telling people what they can do or cannot do with their body just as I am against Muslims telling people what they can do or cannot do with their lives. There are many choices that cannot and should not be legally or governmentally regulated and must be between the person, their conscience, and their God. Abortion is one of those personal choices similar to smoking, drinking alcohol, having sex, and sexuality. I will not tolerate anyone telling me what I can or cannot do while they exercise freedoms that I may not agree with. I think it is irrational, illogical, and hypocritical to implement laws that diminish the personal rights of individuals. Christians must be careful to not criticize Muslim Sharia law in Arab countries while simultaneously trying to advance Christian personal beliefs on persona who may elect to believe or practice beliefs differently. As a Christian, I think the SCOTUS made the right choice by ensuring individuals have the freedom to make their individual choices realizing that there are some choices that cannot be legislated and left between the person, his or her conscience, and God. I am comfortable with God being God and the rest of us being accountable to him when the decisions are personal.
SFLREDOC (Florida)
An even more important point that the ruling itseld.

Once again, the limits in education associated with the legal profession comes front and center. The fact that the dissenters offer opinions as to other reasons clinics close is one of the major obstacles to reasoned judicial practice and needed reform. Can someone somewhere require that legal scholars be at least somewhat familiar with statistics? A knowledge of statistics and a few simple tests would likely suggest the dissenters' arguments as nonsense. Let's add some rigor to the profession.

Application of even the most basic forms of statistical inference could improve legal enforcement, better application of laws and perhaps most important, at least assign a probability or weighting to unsubstantiated opinion proffered by legal practitioners.
This is exactly the reason that a Democratic President must be elected.

The dissents by Alito and Thomas read like something from before Roe v Wade...the idea of retrogression on any of these social issues just plain wrong.

The conservatives argument of the Constitution and states rights have been used to beat back all sorts of progress...also, the states rights argument was used to defend slavery and segregation...going back in the 21st century is just not an option.
MIckey (New York)
Justice Alito - I have only one thing to say in response to your opinion about these laws "protecting" women.

I say, Sir, you lie.
RC (New York, NY)
Old white (& whitish) men, once again. Why is it always the old white (& whitish) men. Will that ever change?
Truth (Atlanta, GA)
It's the age and background and not the color. Thomas ain't White or whitish.
Mike Cambron (Munich)
Regarding the map of the USA, color coded to show distances to the nearest abortion clinic, I'd like to see additional designations for 80, 160 and 320 miles. Someone in Casper, WY or Rapid City, SD certainly has a much longer drive than the 40 mile color suggest.
Austin (Mexico)
Is it just me, or was anyone else terrified, after all the unexpected decisions taking place this week, that another step had been taken to pare economics and civil liberties back to the 1950s?

Take the victories where we can get them... Thanks Justice Kennedy: I don't always agree with you, but at least you've got a better head on your shoulders than those three Roe abolitionists on the bench.
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
You should agree with him all the time, after all he's a phony.
tashmuit (Cape Cahd)
Incoherent bloviation. Is your message that since (you believe) Justice Kennedy is a "phony", somehow the content of what Austin wrote indicates he should agree with other "phonies?" I think you have spent too much time navigating gaseous clouds.
Air Marshal of Bloviana (Over the Fruited Plain)
Sorry, I'm watching Elizabeth Warren, last of the political Cherokees double down while Hillary smiles like mountain of denial.
Tim P (Palm Springs, CA)
A significant victory for women and those who believe that women have the sovereign right to determine their own reproductive futures. A clear loss to those who believe that they have the right to interfere with women and the health issues that confront them. These are the same people who have no clue what women go through and what economic and health factors go into their decisions regarding having a child or not. These "pro-lifers" who speciously advocate for the life of the unborn are the same people who deny society's responsibility to make sure children face prosperous futures the moment they are born. The pro-life ideology ends as soon as the child passes out of the birth canal. This is a BIG loss for these phonies.
mbs (interior alaska)
I've been reading commentary provided through a separate front-page piece on the NYT, alternating between those supporting and those opposing today's decision. I expected those who support the Texas law to finally acknowledge that it really was about restricting abortion, because the law was so incredibly blatant. But they're digging in their heels even tighter.

So what is it? Are they truly convinced they were protecting women, or were they (are they) completely oblivious as to how much more the law required of clinics providing abortion services than of clinics that do other out-patient procedures? Or is it just as I've believed all along, the law was never about safety at all, but about restricting access?
njglea (Seattle)
They are supposedly radical christians which, by definition, means it doesn't have to make sense.
Mark Kessinger (New York, NY)
What makes this news even better is that the 5-3 decision means it likely would have gone this way irrespective of the political inclinations of whomever might have filled the Court's vacant ninth seat, had that seat been filled.
Louis V. Lombardo (Bethesda, MD)
How about the Supreme Court decision to not restrict political corruption?
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
The Court did not vote to " not restrict political corruption". And, it was a unanimous vote. Read the opinion -- then comment b
Roberto21 (Horsham PA)
Progressives need to unify. Hillary Clinton looked energized alongside Elizabeth Warren today. They looked comfortable together. There wasn't any Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter awkwardness in Cincinnati. The two looked positively youthful, unlike the deer in the headlights, teleprompter challenged Trump.

They have much more in common than differences. They've been in the trenches, fighting for women's reproduction freedom for forty years.

The patronizing Donald Trump will rue the day when he said women, who had abortions should be criminals. Everybody get behind the women, lead by Hilliary and Elizabeth.
TMK (New York, NY)
Credit where due: Ms. Greenhouse of the NYT for predicting this turn of events, and choicers for a hard-fought, well-deserved win. And yes to swinging Judge Kennedy for not hesitating to hit the reset button and leveling the playing field every now and then. It's done and dusted, time to (wipe egg from face and) move on.
Sandra (Boston, MA)
This is a resounding victory for anyone interested in living in the 21st century. Even Roberts and Alito would have handed the case back down to the lower court. That tells us that the defendants did not make their case, nor could they. If they are so concerned with "women's health," why not make any medical office that performs the slightest surgery into an ambulatory center.

I received a shot of steroids at the doctor and my insurance was charged for surgery. It looked like a regular doctor's office to me. But I guess the men and women who get shots and other "surgery" are of no concern to the state.

These regulations were designed to put abortion providers out of business. The governor of Texas said as much. Thankfully, the majority on the Supreme Court saw through the charade.
Terry Goldman (Los Alamos, NM)
What could the standard be for imposing a burden on a constitutional right OTHER than substantial benefits? The dissenting argument is entirely disingenuous. Further, "the causal link between the law and the closures was unproven" -- given the fact that so many closures occurred, wasn't it incumbent upon Texas to provide evidence that the other factors were at play? This baseless guessing displays innate prejudice rather than judicial balance.
Robert Cohen (Atlanta-Athens GA area)
Making abortion deliberately difficult is recognized as unconstitutional.

An unwanted fetus becomes an unwanted child, and an unloved child is seemingly perhaps prone to become a sociopath.

And the de facto forced motherhood of a Zika baby is immoral.

If the next President and the Senate is still GOP, their Supreme Court would surely decide the opposite.
alan (staten island, ny)
The majority is right and the three in the minority should be shamed. As to those who find no right to privacy in the Constitution, please learn to read. From the 4th amendment; "the right of the people to be secure in their persons.......shall not be violated".
AJ North (The West)
The first finding by the SCOTUS of a "right to privacy" was with Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); several amendments to the Constitution were cited (including the Fourth Amendment). The Wikipedia entry contains a useful overview, and appears to be accurate: .

As President Harry Truman once said, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know" (as quoted in "Plain Speaking : An Oral Biography of Harry S Truman" (1974), by Merle Miller, p. 26). Alas, this also applies to judges (not to mention a sizable number of the members of Congress...).
Spencer (St. Louis)
Women do not need the "protection" of paternalistic old men who have never had to face an unwanted pregnancy.
cruciform (new york city)
... except that, under the circumstances, they do.
KMW (New York City)
It is very disappointing that Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the majority group (Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan in striking down the abortion restrictions law. I really thought he would side with Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito. I guess protecting a baby's life is not that important to him. How very sad.

Of course, the abortion debate continues and the pro life side has their work cut out for them. Hopefully Donald Trump will be our next president and will appoint more conservative justices who will overturn Roe v Wade. Some day this will happen and many babies will be saved from the devastation and destruction of abortion. It will take time but it will occur.
LuckyDog (NYC)
We don't view those trying to take over women's bodies as "pro life" - they are really anti-women, anti-rights and anti-Constitution. They only picket women's clinics for their own selfish goals - so another name for them is "religious zealots" - call them what they truly are.
Dsmith (Nyc)
Definition of baby:

a very young child, especially one newly or recently born.
"his wife's just had a baby"
synonyms: infant, newborn, child, tot, little one; More

Fetuses are no t babies
pjc (Cleveland)
KMW, I respect your position, but your reasoning is dishonest. Your use of the phrase "Protecting a baby's life" is a textbook example of "begging the question."

The principle is, a pregnancy is an "incoming baby" when the woman decides it is. That is the root of the entire concept of women's reproductive rights in this context. But it is what you want to deny she possesses.

But she does. She really does. And it is our law she does. The woman decides whether or not to carry a pregnancy. Sometimes other people make decisions we ourselves cannot countenance. But sometimes, those decisions still must be left to the individual. The alternative is the State taking over for the individual, and dictating options, an outcome we need to be wary of when it comes to matters that cannot be decided except by conscience.
njglea (Seattle)
We may not want to celebrate just yet. An articles in today's Reuters says, "The Supreme Court has appeals pending in two cases involving admitting privilege laws in Mississippi and Wisconsin on which it could act as soon as Tuesday." We must be vigilant. It would not be the first time the male, catholic justices patted us on the back with one hand and knifed us with the other. Stay tuned.
Jeff (Chicago, IL)
It means something having female justices on the Supreme Court!
Paul Cohen (Hartford CT)
Justice Alito, a neutral court of law would not have selected the President in 2000; Would not have contorted the meaning of freedom of speech to include corporations and thereby remove all limits in purchasing elections on behalf of the wealthy elite.
Indrid Cold (USA)
The next step should be a removal of the ridiculously ill conceived impediments to fetal stem cell research. Fetal tissue from abortions contains the potential to benefit the human condition in ways that were once unimaginable. A fetus is NOT a person, however it has the potential to cure many of the diseases that afflict us. The time is NOW to fund a Manhattan Project that realizes the potential of fetal stem-cell therapies.
Ellis6 (Sequim, WA)
"Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, said the causal link between the law and the closures was unproven."

This kind of blatant dishonesty undermines confidence in the rule of law and the veracity of those chosen to decide what is and isn't constitutional. I suppose after years of practice each of the three justices could utter such a statement with a straight face, but that fact underscores their unfitness to serve as judges at any level. These are grossly dishonest men.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
You can't even prove the reality of evolution to these guys. All they know is they exist, so God must exist.
JayK (CT)
"This kind of blatant dishonesty undermines confidence in the rule of law and the veracity of those chosen to decide what is and isn't constitutional."

This should have been an 8(9)-0 ruling.

Joe (Queens, New York City)
It is pretty obvious that this law was passed to cynically reduce abortions in Texas, under the guise of safety for women (who must be protected in Victorian terms). If you wish to protect women: 1) eliminate the wage gap; 2) teach about sex and sexuality in schools: children should completely and fully understand their own bodies (o heavens!) so that they may make their own decisions, which will reduce unintended pregnancies 3) mandate maternity and paternity leave at full pay; 4) make contraception available for all; 5) improve child care so that women who wish to work may return to work and provide for their families and so that single mothers can provide for their families without so much struggle.
Ellis6 (Sequim, WA)
This decision makes it clear that there are three justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court who should be removed from the bench. Whether their decisions are based on adherence to their professed religion's doctrines or are simply part of their fealty to the radical right wing agenda in this country, Justices Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are clearly unfit to serve as Supreme Court justices.
Know Nothing (AK)
It amazes me how ignorant some(3) of these justices seem as they present what they consider logical, thoughtful reason. Driving extradinary miles is not a burden; requiring unused, elaborate surgical facilities nearby is surely necessary! What nonsense.

The court has lost much respect as a final, balanced judge of national thought. This decision's negativity reinforces that loss of respect in the clearest way. That the Chief Justice is a part is even more discouraging.
DRS (New York, NY)
I'm personally pro-choice, but find this whole line of cases going back to Roe an appalling example of judicial overreach. The constitution does not envision protecting a right to abortion, full stop. My guess would be that most pro-choice activists have never read Roe. It fabricates a right to privacy without any citations, because well, it should be there. The case completely makes it up! I agree there should be a right to privacy and to abortion, but as the constitution is silent on the matter this is a within the purview of Congress to enact. Or amend the constitution to cover what some think it should cover. This is judicial legislation to create a right that should be strongly condemned no matter what one's position on abortion.
jeff (nv)
Likely the "Founders" assumed private choices were not the Govt's business, and did not discuss.

On the other hand the "Founders" were clear about the "well-regulated militia, which the Supremes have ignored.
Janet Swanborn (Chicago)
Amendment IX.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The Constitution does not list any power reserved by the people, including personal autonomy over the internal processes of our own bodies.
EP (Park City UT)
Christians must stop telling everyone what to do! Abortions cannot be banned just because of your little imaginary friend and his dusty old book. Anti-abortion efforts are what I call Christian Sharia. Get your religion out of everyone's lives.
Indrid Cold (USA)
If republicans have demonstrated anything, it is their willingness to cynically pick and choose aspects of constitutional freedoms and bend them to their own form of "morality" when they so choose. Only a complete idiot could fail to connect the dots and see that these "women's safety" laws are just another way to limit access to abortion services.

Whenever there is a law that signals the advancement of social justice, you can be sure that some republican demagogues will be there to challenge it. The modern GOP is the 21st century version of "The Flat Earth Society."
Nedro (Pittsburgh)
This is a momentous decision that, hopefully, will outlast the constant and insidious attempts to unravel our constitutional rights perpetrated by red state legislatures. Come to think of it, I wonder how many in those legislatures would do the same if this were the 2nd Amendment. I'm guessing none.
Newman1979 (Florida)
The dissents show that Alito and Roberts do not "live in the real world" as SCOTUS Justices should. They would take away Constitutional rights on mere conjecture of possible rationals. It is on the state to prove the actions have no Constitutional deficiencies, not having Justices inventing possible rationales that are not based on facts,but mere conjecture.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
These are the same judicial clowns who believe it is an undue burden on faith-based charities to fill out a form transferring financial responsibility to provide contraception to employees to a third party insurer.
Gazbo (Margate, NJ)
Withdrawal of state funds, a decline in the demand for abortions and doctors’ retirements may have played a role, Justice Alito wrote. What is this guy smoking?
MEL (Dallas)
He was just grasping for straws. He knew what the correct ruling is, but he couldn't let himself vote for it. So he grasped at the weak straw of decline in demand/retirements/withdrawn state funds (that never went to abortion in the first place). He was overwhelmed by cognitive dissonance.
Ned (San Francisco)
It's funny how most Republicans argue that we need to keep government out of people's lives, at all costs, but are the the first to want to have government come between a woman and her doctor. Abortion is a last resort decision, and a wrenching one for most women. Let's try to make it rarer, by expanding sex education and making birth control widely and cheaply available. Of course, we have to fight the Republicans on that too...
Diana (Centennial, Colorado)
What a wonderful victory for women today. I escort at a clinic which provides pregnancy terminations, and was holding my breath until the decision came down this morning. While I was not at the clinic today, I am sure there was a huge sigh of relief from all who work there, because if the Justices had ruled for Texas, all clinics would have been in jeopardy of having to close.
I am glad the Supreme Court saw the laws in Texas for what they are - clear violations of the law as regards putting an "undue burden" on women seeking an abortion.
I would urge anyone who has not seen the documentary "Trapped" to do so if possible. It showed what abortion providers have to put up with, and how outrageous the laws in Texas and elsewhere in the South are regarding abortion.
One more thing, the pretense that these unfair laws were "to protect women" is purely fictional. If that were the intent, then those who provide cosmetic surgery (mostly to women) on an outpatient basis, would have been required to meet the same standards as abortion providers.
Thank you SCOTUS for upholding a woman's right to choose. As a grandmother of two young granddaughters I am thankful. I am thankful that all young women will not be burdened with laws that restrict their access to a safe, legal abortion, and yes, even as a clinic escort I think abortion should be rare, but it should be every woman's right to make that choice for herself.
Ch (Sf)
Thank you for being brave and working to help women in need of reproductive services!
Tanaka (Southeastern PA)
If the law were to protect women (and babies!), it would have required every properly equipped medical facility serving women in Texas to provide free abortion services so no woman would have to undergo far riskier childbirth without being informed of the relative risks to her health and life. If would not allow any childbirth outside of a hospital setting, where emergencies during childbirth could be handled more quickly and at far less risk to both mother and child. And it would require every medical facility serving women to provide a full range of contraceptive choices, free to impoverished women, so they could avoid the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.

These laws have never been anything but the unconstitutional imposition of the religious beliefs of some over those who do not share them.
C. Morris (Idaho)
"it should be every woman's right to make that choice for herself."

Agree, and that's all R. V W. sanctioned.

Due to some deep conservative psychosis they can't allow that.
richard (el paso, tx)
If a military style assault-execution rifle is a constitutional right then so also is the right to control your own body.
JavaJunkie (Left Coast, USA)
You do not have a right to "Military Style assault-execution rifle"
For two reasons:

1) They only exist as a term of propaganda for the
Gun Grabbing Left Wing Fringe

2) An "Assault Rifle" is by definition a FULLY Automatic Weapon and basically you can't own any that were made after 1986 those that were made prior to 1986 require a fairly stiff requirement as to background checks etc.
But the real reason you haven't seen one used in decades is they cost a fortune to acquire.

What the Constitution protects is your right to self defense.
and thankfully today as a result of the SCOTUS decision the right for women not to be unduly burdened by a bunch of Right Wing Nut Jobs pretending be concerned about women's safety/health
Laura (Lake Forest, IL)
Of course all of the Texas laws were an undue burden. Of course SCOTUS struck them all down. A first year law student knew the laws directly violated Casey. Texas republicans were pandering, and it is not more complicated than that. The crazy Christian leaders in this country (mostly white males) have convinced legislators to write abortion laws as if they are "helping and saving women" since their "personhood" and "life begins at conception" laws were scientifically flawed and, quite frankly, Nothing short of moronic. This is just the new attempt at pandering to constituents who are largely not smart enough to understand how abortion actually works in the 21st century. This is why we have lifetime appointments of federal court judges in order to keep legislatures on the take from ruining everyone else's (read: women) lives. Women know best in these cases. Women always have. Women always will. Simply one more shred of evidence that the white male "struggle" continues. And I for one am loving watching them gnash their teeth. Time to take your little hands and wave goodbye.
Alicein1land (SF)
Oh, thank God and any other deities involved. The steady erosion of women's rights in many states is very disheartening. Rights that were earned in the 60s and 70s are now being steadily eroded in Texas and other states. Very good news today!
Sam I Am (Windsor, CT)
The debate really isn't about the fact of abortion, or about the fact of choice. It's about access to safe services.

'Pro-choice' folks: guess what? women make abortion choices, whether the laws grant them authority to legally act out their decisions. There's no need to worry about whether women will continue to make abortion choices. They always have, and always will, regardless of the laws. No need to tell abortion opponents that they're choice opponents - that's just inflammatory and divisive.

'Pro-life' folks: guess what? woman terminate pregnancies, whether the law permits them to do it safely and legally or not. They always have, and always will, regardless of the laws. And the vast majority of those women think life is wonderful, and wouldn't harm a living soul, and look forward (or back) to reproducing and loving their children will all their heart. No need to call those women murderers - it's just rude & divisive.

The real debate is over whether safe abortion will be available, or not. Women will continue to make choices and women will continue to have abortions. But the law will dictate whether that abortion will be done in a safe, medically competent way, or will be done in an unsafe way that risks the life and reproductive ability of women.

Who out there really wants women to be killed or sterilized by back-alley abortions??
jeff (nv)
...or jailed, right Donald?
Sharath G (Los Angeles, CA)
Extremely scary that 3 Supreme Court justices - Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. - hold such a disgusting opinion on medical community not needing to meet women's critical needs for health care.
srwdm (Boston)
A great victory for women, for humanity, and for the practice of medicine.

But it is unnerving that such decisions are essentially under the control of a fickle, elderly, Catholic male—in our current democracy.

A physician MD
felderino (NYC)
Opting for abortion or not is a woman's choice. Is it not a man's decision to make. Or control. End of story.
The three judges in the minority are all Catholics.
Janet Swanborn (Chicago)
So are and were others.
I'mOnTheRight (monkey town)
I wish that meant anything. Kennedy is Catholic but again the only thing he's really consistent on is stupidity
Mtnman1963 (MD)
Abortion should be safe, regrettable, rare and not a vector for one group of people to force their religious beliefs upon another.
Harry Rednapp (Ajaccio)
Ever since five conservative judges elected George Bush president, it seems that the Supreme Court has become another legislative body. They decide on the outcome they want and then back-in to the reasons.
Naomi (New England)
Despite all the rhetoric about "killing babies," the anti-choice view acknowledges by its selective outrage that zygotes, embroyos and fetuses are NOT people.

First, they have not moved aggressively against in-vitro fertility clinics that routinely screen batches of zygotes, and throw away defective or surplus ones.

Second, with actual people, we do not get outraged only about murders. just as hard to prevent death from natural causes. Although activists like to call embryos "babies," they ignore the vastly higher number of "babies" expelled naturally, usually within the first trimester, same as most abortions . Half or more of all conceptions end on their own. If actual babies perished at that rate, we'd all be horrified. But I see no sign that anti-choice advocates are disturbed by miscarriages occuring by the same process as early non-surgical abortions. Where are the calls for prenatal care, family planning for oprimim fetal health, research on preventing miscarriage ot defects in sperm and ova? If they really considered all embryos to be babies, their activism would include more than induced abortions. This is about whether a woman controls her own body and future, or whether they are controlled by strangers.
I don't know (Earth)
If embryos and the like are not babies aka human, then why when a pregnant woman is killed does the accused get charged with a double murder.
steve (santa cruz, ca.)
To "I don't know": people are charged with double murder (sometimes) when the victim was pregnant because 1.) the victim was close to term and so the baby was viable (could have lived outside the womb) or 2.) the filing deputy in the D.A.'s office decided to charge it that way in hopes of greater leverage in resolution discussions with the defense. Nothing to do with whether a foetus is actually human or not.
Liz (New York)
So we'll package anti-abortion efforts under the guise of women's safety and saving "innocent lives," but tightening background checks for the sale of war-grade weapons to civilians gets the unconstitutional card?

Forget sides altogether - the constitution isn't a la carte. Neither is the bible for that matter. It is time this democracy evolves to eliminate the logical fallacies that have now become so ingrained in our political structure we have become desensitized, and worse, complacent. The constitution is being deconstructed and cited out of context to push agendas. That's not how this was meant to work.

Whatever happened to a collective sense of the greater good? How much longer are we going to tolerate divisive, self-righteous entitlement? The constitution doesn't stipulate that each citizen get everything s/he wants - just that these desires should be placed on a spectrum that fairly gauges cost and benefits for EVERYONE.

I am so tired of the back and forth over political hot topics for the sake of debate. We need real leaders, not demagogues, who aren't afraid to be parents and give Americans tough love. This country is officially in its teenage years now - smart enough to be dangerous; not smart enough to understand complexity and risks.
Health Lawyer (Western State)
Here's a challenge to all abortion foes: how about organizing to prevent the sale of assault weapons, to get military weapons off our streets?
I don't know (Earth)
They're not assault weapons and not military ones either. Just because the Democrats keep saying "assault weapons" doesn't make them assault weapons. You obviously have no clue what an assault weapon is.
HEP (Austin,TX)
What were they designed for? Certainly not for plinking cans off of a fence. The weapons that are called assault weapons were designed to inflict horrible body damage and death to human beings. You can play your little semantic games, but the weapons were designed to kill people. Your words raise nothing but the utmost contempt for you and your way of thought.
richard (thailand)
Religious views are one thing. Government is another. I am Pro Life. What other people believe in is none of my business. The question of when life starts is a religious view and nothing else.
wallace (indiana)
The map appears to show a great lack of doctors willing to perform abortion??
Without the doctors...there still isn't "easy" access.

I would go farther in preventing unwanted pregnancies by offering free vasectomies to men. Maybe even give them 2000 dollars if they have one.

Pat (NJ)
I'm beginning to conclude that the more women we have on the highest Court in the land, the better, as evidenced by this decision. How many would be optimal? LIke RBG, I'm thinking nine.
Allison (Austin, TX)
I'm also thinking that at least 50% of legislators should be women. And that it's time for an all-female presidential ticket. When we can do that, we'll see some real change in this country.
Nick Metrowsky (Longmont, Colorado)
There is irony here. The GOP blocked nominating a justice, possibly for this to end in a tie. If it did, the Texas law would have been upheld. One conservative joined the liberal branch of the court. So, effectively, by stonewalling, the GOP ended up, with a decision, that goes against the most conservative core principles of its party.

It is possible, that if they did approve Mr. Obama's nominee, the decision might have gone in their favor.

But, politics is a messy business, when you divide the country on social issues.
Max (CA)
Huh? I don't think so. It would've been 5-4 instead of 5-3. More likely 6-3.
Deborah (Ithaca ny)
My great-grandmother, Nancy Lydia Rittenhouse Hiob, died of a back-alley abortion in 1903. I have no idea who she was. Nobody does. No photographs. She's a ghost. She was married and had a small daughter, about three years old, my grandmother, Gertrude, whom I knew well ... a laughing, sturdy, slightly naughty woman who then lived a pretty hard life. It's likely that Nancy Lydia's husband, a tinsmith, Alfred Hiob, was complicit in this decision, because they decided that they couldn't afford more children so soon, and that Nancy died of septicemia.

I am shaken with gratitude for this decision reconfirming Roe vs. Wade.
David Illig (Maryland)
The Texas GOP legislature is once again reminded that the State does not own the female reproductive system or the right to limit womens' access to health care. This will stoke those Texas lunatics who want to secede in order to press their anti-human-dignity agenda.
West_Texas (Houston, Texas)
Yeah, and like the "UK leavers", those "Texan haters" would find going to the bank quite a shock the next day, when they wake up with their succession hangovers...

The Anti-Choice faction, con bumper stickers that say "Abortion Kills" or some such, are strikingly, often, dumpy white guys driving old cars...

Based on observation, over time, I'm convinced that the psyches of "control" go across the silos of gun rights advocates and restriction of women in whatever form they can think up.

My Texas is disappointing these days, sad to say - the lunatics and their passion for assault weapons and over-populating the planet have taken over...
Toni (Florida)
The already proven good news with this decision is that by allowing women most likely to desire an abortion, to actually have an abortion, we end up with a safer society 18- 21 years after the fact.
Janet Swanborn (Chicago)
So true. We saw the opposite a few decades after Reagan.
Ludwig (New York)
Since 1973, we have killed 58 million fetuses. Since about one American in a million receives a Nobel prize, we have killed 58 potential Nobel prize winner. Plus of course untold numbers of violinists, writers, even feminists!

But women exercised their rights, and isn't that the best thing? (frown).
Jen (Nj)
And how many child abusers, pedophiles, serial killers have we saved ourselves from? Or do only the exceptional get aborted?
C's Daughter (NYC)
Weak thinking. (frown). The abortion of certain fetuses allowed others to come into existence. The abortion of certain fetuses allowed certain women to achieve things the otherwise would not have.

Further, we do not abrogate women's rights to produce items of economic or cultural benefit.
sarasotaliz (Sarasota)
You're one of those folks who believe in "quantity over quality"--huh? Why, I bet, somewhere, in some impoverished home, there's a little (living) boy and a little (breathing) girl who could become something--something BIG--but never will because of the poverty they find themselves in, poverty that limits everything from the types of foods they eat, to the books they read, to the beauty that they are exposed to.
So, tell, me, friend, what have you done lately for a living, breathing child, or, like most of your ilk, do you reserve your time, treasure, and talents— such as they are—specifically for the unborn?
In my experience, those who protest loudly about the unborn don't do jack for the living.
Waterlily (Austin)
I've lived in Texas all my life, and contrary to what you might think from reading the NYT comments, there are actually quite a few of us here who are intelligent and well-educated. The struggle against this law has been vigorous from the day it began with Wendy Davis's filibuster. At last we have won. But in addition to great joy for all US women, I also feel so satisfied that this is surely a very unhappy result for Rick Perry, Greg Abbott and Dan Patrick, who were so earnest about the law's necessity to protect the health and safety of Texas women. Enjoy your day, boys!!
Harry (Olympia, WA)
It's a mystery to me, not a lawyer, how three justices could not see clearly that the Texas restrictions had one intent only, and it wasn't to protect patients -- It was to make it hard for them to get an abortion. This is justice?
Magic Numbers (California)
There's no mystery at all. Of course those three justices clearly saw that. And that's exactly what they wanted.
dino (Salida, CO)
Those three justices are Roman Catholics so it shouldn't be a mystery. Justice Kennedy is also a Roman Catholic but fortunately he can see clearly.
sdavidc9 (Cornwall)
It is somewhat absurd for the Supreme Court to reach a decision like this without any way to gather or examine relevant facts. A poll of doctors who were not unalterably opposed to abortions on moral grounds would quickly disclose that the Texas requirements were unnecessary to good medical care.

The Supreme Court must officially recognize that legislators are capable of lying and/or fooling themselves about the purpose for which they are enacting their laws, and that it is the Court's job to decide when this is happening so egregiously that their legislation should be resisted. This recognition would have made more difficult the long and sorry history of the Court in racial matters
Janet Swanborn (Chicago)
You took such a poll? Scientifically? An infected or hemorrhaging patient will be cared for at any hospital no matter which doctor admits her.
MEL (Dallas)
She doesn't claim otherwise. Read her comment again. She said these requirements were unnecessary.
B. (Brooklyn)
Well, very good.

About time states like Texas get slapped down when they try to interfere with a woman's right to birth control.

And that includes terminating a pregnancy.
Deb (Blue Ridge Mtns.)
"Blind Justice". Roberts, Alito and Thomas have blatantly given new meaning to these words. Every one of them is blinded by their republican ideology and/or religion, justice be danged. To the other five, who understand the meaning of the word, thank you.

Bernie supporters, I too am not thrilled about HRC, but it is imperative, and this can not be understated, that Trump is resoundingly defeated. The forced birth folks are not going to go away.
Scott (MA)
Abortion should be available, safe and rare. NO one is 'pro-abortion'. The majority of us want women to be able to control their bodies. the only anti-abortion argument is religious...the fetus is not human, it is a potential human. The anti-abortionists say their religion tell them it is human. Fine, then don't have one and leave your religion out of our secular government
Sherr29 (New Jersey)
Excellent decision by the more enlightened, intelligent and engaged members of the Supreme Court. Everyone needs to keep in mind that the future of the SC will be molded by the next president, let's ensure that Hillary Clinton is that president so that we have justices who make decisions guided by logic and legality and not by their prejudices against women and other minorities or the need to impose their will on others regardless of how their beliefs infringe on the rights of others.
Pete Kantor (Aboard sailboat in Ensenada, Mexicp)
The culture of Texas, as well as its republican loaded government, reminds me of a comment from a cabinet maker regarding Philippine mahogany. His words, "It has little to recommend it', are so very applicable to Texas. The Texas law regarding abortion is one of the most flagrant examples of conservative hypocrisy that can be found today. The court's decision is a long overdue breath of fresh air. Another rewarding aspect is that it would not have been stopped even if the unmourned Justice (?) Scalia were still alive.
Jeffery (Maui, Hawaii)
A light shines in the darkness.
Gordon (Canada)
The rest of the industrialized western world warmly welcomes America to the 21st century.

Nobody is pro abortion, but the vast majority in the world are pro choice.
Nuschler (anywhere near a marina)
“Nobody is pro abortion”

As a health care provider I am very much pro abortion..why? Because you haven’t seen a woman bleeding to death from a placenta that has separated from the uterus and I then MUST intervene with an immediate abortion to save this woman’s life.

I am very happy that I was taught how to do safe abortion technique when a pregnant woman comes in with malignant hypertension (extremely high BP uncontrolled by any medication) caused by toxins of pregnancy and I need to perform an abortion to remove the fetus that WILL cause stroke or death of the mother.

I thank my mentors who taught me that safe abortion procedure when ultrasounds and amniocentesis show a fetus without a skull and brain that will NEVER live on its own or a fetus who has died in the mother’s uterus and I am able to remove that dead or non-viable fetus from her body so that she can go back to living a normal life instead of being a human coffin.

THIS is the real world. This is MY world and only a sadistic monster would condemn these women to death and intense misery.

Yes! As a medical care provider I must do procedures that will keep your wife alive and keep you both from suffering.
Steve (UWS)
We need to vote, early and often! Tell your friends! Drive them to the polls. Go visit Grandma in Florida! Give money to your candidate! This we know: the higher the turnout, the more Democratic the result.
Paul F (Toronto, Canada)
About freaking time. If it is legal it is legal. The death by a hundred restrictions was a fundamentally dishonest approach to overturning Roe v Wade.

If the "pro-life" faction wants it illegal, then put it front in center in the election where it matters: president. He decides the Supreme Court nominations.

The restrictions proposed were only for the sake of restricting access, not to protect the mother.
Bystander (Upstate)
"Justice Alito responded with an extended dissent from the bench ... [saying] ... “There is no justification for treating abortion cases differently from other cases.”

That's right. And if someday a state legislature decided that all dental surgeries had to comply with the same regulations, for the same imaginary reasons, I would hope you would at least consider relieving the dentists of the burden of complying.

There's a reason SCOTUS is called "the court of last resort." When your state lawmakers are hellbent on passing unconstitutional laws that can cause serious harm to yourself or your fellow citizens, where else can you go to get them overturned?

Justice Thomas wrote, "After disregarding significant aspects of the court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”

It doesn't mystify me, Your Honor, and I didn't even go to law school.
Dave (California)
If a doctor is performing substandard care in a substandard clinic, they can be sued for malpractice and shut down. Unless he is providing abortions, then he is a hero and a martyr for the cause. Rather than upgrading their clinics and providing for emergency care backup at a hospital, they refuse to offer this level of care for their clients and instead force the state to accept substandard in the name of abortion. We must preserve the right to kill our young, destroy our families and ruin this country.
Ted (New York City)
What hospital would deny admission to a woman having complications from an abortion?


My neighbor is an oncologist. She has admitting privileges at the cancer hospital across the street from her apartment. But not the one twenty blocks away.

Stop looking at 9 months; look instead at 69. That is how long it takes for an embryo to become a kindergartner. I would happily pay more taxes to build bigger schools to accommodate the rise in new students. As it is, the private and parochial schools, not to mention public, would soon be filled beyond capacity.

What, therefore, is your Five Year Plan? Perhaps where you live it would not be a problem if there are no compulsory education laws.
Bob Trosper (Healdsburg, CA)
"Substandard care in a substandard clinic"? On what evidence are you basing THAT assertion? Complications from colonoscopies and abortion are about the same, yet Texas isn't trying to impose the same restrictions on colonoscopy clinics.
Laura (New Orleans)
Do you honestly think abortions are happening in substandard clinics in Texas? Watch the Independent Lens episode Trapped on, it will be an enlightening experience for you.
Deborah (USA)
The way I see it, if you care about the health and well-being of children, care about the planet, and want to decrease the size of the welfare state, then how can you stand against abortion? You should be a fervent supporter of completely free and accessible long-term contraception and of abortion. I grieve the number of innocent children born into unloving abusive situations. The torment they endure and then the torment and expense society endures if/when they follow a path of criminality or repeat the pattern of abuse on their own children. If a person is incapable or unwilling to raise a healthy, happy, productive citizen, I want to help that individual not procreate in every possible way I can.
InformedVoter (Columbus, Ohio)
"I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench. And I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." Roberts statement at 2005 confirmation hearing. Hogwash!
The far right bench players, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts' dissenting opinions leave only room for one conclusion: when it comes to passing draconian, regressive legislation that affect minorities (which includes women) , Lady Justices's blindfold is not only off but she's also suffering from extreme myopia. When the rationale and analysis doesn't make sense it indicates they're attempting to make the means justify the end instead of relying on constitutional precedence and sound jurisprudence. Their "hands off approach" pays extreme deference to state legislatures (states rights), letting them ride rough shot over the rights of minorities while turning a blind eye toward logicand rational analysis. Dispicable.
blueberryintomatosoup (Houston, TX)
"In dissent, Justice Thomas said the majority opinion “reimagines the undue-burden standard,” creating a “benefits-and-burdens balancing test.” He said courts should resolve conflicting positions by deferring to legislatures."
Um, no. Not when the legislature ignores science and the advice of medical professionals.
“Today’s opinion,” Justice Thomas wrote, “does resemble Casey in one respect: After disregarding significant aspects of the court’s prior jurisprudence, the majority applies the undue-burden standard in a way that will surely mystify lower courts for years to come.”
They may be mystified, but the public, medical professionals and women's advocates are not mystified at all.
I am so glad it was decided that way. The presence or absence of Justice Scalia would not have affected this decision.
It's interesting that the strongest advocates for no restrictions or limitations on the 2nd Amendment, have so much difficulty understanding that abortion is a constitutional right as well.
Edgewalker (Houston)
A strong, correct Constitutional decision. Good. And with Kennedy's agreement, a good omen. However...A plea from Blue Texans:

Up to 45% of the electorate in Texas votes Democratic--all races and ethnicities (and that includes large numbers of Caucasians). Austin, El Paso, Dallas, San Antonio, and Houston voted majority Dem in recent presidential elections. Please have mercy on us. We have to live with these right wing nuts running our state. So, please, when you (writers, readers and commenters) express general condemnation of Texas, please acknowledge that almost half of Texas, half of proud Texans, city slickers mainly, are Blue, and suffer more than you, and wish for the day that Texas government returns to a rational state.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Thanks, Edgewalker! Now if only we could get all of those Texans who are disenfranchised by overly stringent voter registration laws registered and out to the polls during off-year elections, we might see the color of the state tinged even more blue.
Stephen (<br/>)
Just another nail in the coffin by certain men to control all women regardless of race, creed, or nationality. However it will probably take up to one thousand nails to nail the coffin shut once and for all.
galtsgulch (sugar loaf, ny)
The notion that any supporter of this bill is today lamenting a setback to women's health care is the kind of ridiculous that can only be GOP.
Richardthe Engineer (NYC)
Life and death are religious decisions and, by our Constitution, should not be decided in court, in legislatures, or any public institution.
Protecting religious freedom is important and only by not imposing religious beliefs on other religions can religious institutions be able to maintain their sacred beliefs.
Controlling abortion through legislation is a severe challenge to religious freedom. May God keep us free.
Shiba (US)
Are life-and-death decisions religious decisions for those who are atheist or agnostic?

There has to be a better rationale for protecting individual reproductive freedom.
Joe From Boston (Massachusetts)

Why is it YOUR business what a person that you have absolutely no relationship with does with her body, based on her discussion with her doctor?

Who gives YOU the right to impose your religious beliefs, of any kind, on any other person?

If you are opposed to abortion, do not have one. As a guy, I promise you I will never have one. There, does that make you feel better?
Spencer (St. Louis)
Richard, please return to your ISIS encampment and leave the women of this country alone. There, you can have all of the religious freedom your want.
Radx28 (New York)
A victory for humans and the power of evolution.
Jbr (los angeles)
Contorting laws to the extreme for political and religious agenda, in the name of 'protecting' women's health, has been delivered the blow it deserved.
nzierler (New Hartford)
Kennedy will continue to be pivotal in several upcoming cases. What is most concerning is if Hillary wins, what's to say if Republicans continue to control the Senate that they won't table any Clinton nominee? After all, if they are refusing to give Merrick Garland, a judge respected and lauded by Chief Justice Roberts, an up or down vote, the tidings are dire.
njglea (Seattle)
WE have to make sure socially conscious democrats and independents control the Senate, U.S. House and all other political and judicial offices, nzierler. Very simple - WE have the votes.
Someone (Northeast)
That's why they need to NOT control the Senate!
Michael (Southeast US)
As the elections draws near you will see Mitch McDonnell beginning to chill in regard to Judge Merricks nomination, due to the more progressive choice which would come from a president Clinton. I for one hope if this occurs president Obama will withdraw his nomination.
Retired lawyer (US)
I hope that everyone who applauds this profoundly important, high-impact decision takes a moment to go to the Planned Parenthood website to donate something – – anything – – to Planned Parenthood to thank them for their tireless work on this litigation and to help to begin to refill their depleted coffers.
Lonestar (Texas)
Could we please have referendum on "Texit?" While I'm glad for this decision, I'm so sick of hearing about the Texas legislature, the Texas governor, the Texas school board, and Texas-originating presidential candidates. This latest case never even should have had to happen. It's a waste of federal resources. And I won't be surprised if the Texas legislature is already convening to plan its next unconstitutional law. Unless the gas guzzling, gun toting people of Texas can start contributing positive something to this country, and something besides oil dependency, bigotry, sexism and voter suppression, I say we hold a vote about letting them go.
"Texit"--love it.

And maybe Trump can build his wall... on Texas' NORTHERN border!
Susan (<br/>)
It is not "abortion rights".

It is the right of American women to have full access to safe, efficacious, timely, affordable, private reproductive health care.

It is the right of American women to seek objective, compassionate counsel when determining whether or not to proceed with a pregnancy.

It is the right of the American woman, and only of the woman involved, to hold final authority for her own reproductive decisions.

It is the right of American women to be unencumbered by, and protected from, the miasma of ultra conservative ideology crippling the nation.

It is the right of American women to rely upon a landmark decision made nearly a half century ago.

It is the right of American women to have their health, well being and security be independent from their economic, social, racial or ethnic status.

To be clear.....

These are not the wishes, dreams, favors, requests, supplications or pleas of American women.

These are the rights of American women.
njglea (Seattle)
Right, Susan, and WE must now demand that the Equal Rights Amendment be added to OUR U.S. Constitution to guarantee that NO LAW is passed in America that attacks a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body and life.
Larry (NY)
So, let me understand this: some states cannot have draconian regulations about abortion because of the case law that supports the availability of abortion, but they can have draconian regulations about guns, despite Second Amendment rights and all the case law that supports those rights. Seems unfair, doesn't it, especially when you consider that abortion definitely ends a developing human life, while guns only have the potential to do so.
dino (Salida, CO)
What draconian laws about guns are you specificaly referring to?
NJB (Seattle)
Only a gun zealot would think that any of the gun restrictions in force either nationally or by any state, even California or New York, are "draconian". They are simply sensible and common-sense. Our gun laws are certainly the most relaxed among advanced societies. That's why we have the highest rates of gun violence and homicide in the industrialized world.
John in the USA (Santa Barbara)
What draconian regulations about guns are you referring to?
Glen (Texas)
Texas's abortion law(s) is nothing more nor less than an effort to impose religious dogma (with the real irony being the bible ignores this topic altogether) on only one half of the state's population. (Actually, the imposition is limited to only the fecund portion of Texas's females.)

Ignoring the fact that this law should never have gotten out of committee, let alone get the governor's hearty endorsement and his signature, the way they religious right framed it as meant to protect the health of women is a lie as transparent as the cellophane on a package of cigarettes, a product that really should be outlawed, if the goal is to benefit the health of the state's population...all of them, not just those with a uterus capable of menses.

The Texas "Lege" could use a double dose of Molly Ivins right now.
Flowerfarmer (N. Smithfield, RI)
I breath a small sigh of relief over the Supreme Court's vote to strike down Texas's attempt to end legal abortion. Thank you to Justice Kennedy, but I a extremely nervous that my right to control my reproduction comes down to the vote of one man. Our rights will never be secure until terminating a pregnancy is seen as a simple medical procedure and done in every hospital and outpatient center by any and every ob-gyn physician in the country and given the privacy as any other medical care. Please remember the pendulum can swing the other way, depending on who are the next justices of the Supreme Court.
Tom (California)
The death of Antonin Scalia is leading to the restoration of the rule of law.
Marco Polo (St. Louis)
State legislatures around the country need to be slapped into place, so they don't spend 95% of their time trying to, not-so-cleverly, endrun the supreme law of the land.
Leonora (Dallas)
I am a TX attorney. The Fifth Circuit is an embarrassment, abd the Texas legislature is a tag team joke. Dan Patrick is a former talk radio host for heaven's sake.

Interesting that the dissenters are all old men. Zero credibility.
No one likes abortions. Birth control is better, but unless you have been in the shoes of pregnant woman who for personal reasons can not or will not give birth, step out of the argument please.
andrea (ohio)
"In dissent, Justice Alito said there was good reason to think that the restrictions were meant to and did protect women. “The law was one of many enacted by states in the wake of the Kermit Gosnell scandal, in which a physician who ran an abortion clinic in Philadelphia was convicted for the first degree murder of three infants who were born alive and for the manslaughter of a patient,” Justice Alito wrote."

Just to be clear for my next point I think the restrictions placed on the clinics were unnecessary and solely meant to restrict access to abortion services.
So to Alito, restrictions meant to protect the public at large while denying a constitutional right are just fine and dandy when it comes to abortion. I bet he'd be singing a different tune if we were talking about guns.
Shiggy (Redding CT)
I have friends who got pregnant before abortion was legal and had to have the unwanted children. I have an aunt who had a back alley abortion. She was butchered and could never have a child afterwards. We can never allow this right to be taken away from us and those of us who know what it was like before Roe V Wade must continue to stand witness to it. We can never go back.
Stevenla (CA)
Justice Alito continued "Indeed, it could be the case that more individuals are practicing the divine law of abstinence. This, along with adoption of the rhythm method, and strict adherence to use of the missionary position, during the act of procreation, have resulted in the need for fewer clinics." Justice Alito concluded by saying "our impotence [sic impetus] today is to reiterate our objection to the very act of copulation itself. In short, we find sex to be nasty and icky."
njglea (Seattle)
Yes, he speaks as a catholic man, not as a true protector of OUR Constitutional Rights. That should be grounds for dismissal because America was founded on the principle of SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE to protect US from people who think like him.
Allison (Austin, TX)
According to the dissenting justices' decision, sex is always completely premeditated, practiced only by couples who communicate clearly about birth control, entirely dependent upon impulse control, and has nothing to do with spontaneity, desire, or any other real life factors. And in the jutices' idealized world it most certainly has nothing to do with rape or incest!
Tom Barrett (Edmonton)
What does it say about Roberta, Alito and Thomas that they are willing to pretend that a scheme devised precisely to deny women their legal right to have an abortion was actually designed for their benefit?
Mark Carolla (Pittsburgh)
If the right would put the same effort into preventing unwanted pregnancies through education, easy access to birth control and family planning the need for abortions would shrink drastically. I guess that would be construed as being pro-sex and they just can't have that.
Someone (Northeast)
There was a documentary on PBS recently, and I think it was focused on Texas, but I can't remember. It involved shadowing abortion clinic providers and interviewing them, etc. There were plenty of cases where teenagers had to travel hundreds of miles, then stay two days in the city where this clinic was (because there's a required "waiting period" between the initial appt and the procedure). There's no way that's not an undue burden! And the doctor featured in the show was being denied admitting privileges at the hospital just because the local area and hospital administrators were so against abortion, not because of his qualifications or safety record. I really wish abortions weren't done so much, but I'm sick and tired of the same people opposing abortions who also oppose birth control, health care access (for mother and children), food programs that would help people feed new mouths, etc. If these people really cared about life or really wanted to reduce abortions, they'd get on board with making it easier to decide to have the baby.
Laura (New Orleans)
The show is Independent Lens available at the episode is titled Trapped.
MarkAntney (Here)
Why expect the court to do more than you're willing to do?

Maybe, just maybe a Court would be more inclined to rule in their favor if they just passed a Law to Outlaw it?

1. They (claim they) really believe in something, preach about it to high heaven, protest in front of clinics,...but won't pass a Law on Outlawing it?

2. They have a cause, seem to Really, Really believe in it,...just won't act on it??
If pro-lifers want to end abortions, a great place to start would be to 1) get on board with scientific, frank, age-appropriate sex education for grades K-12 and 2) birth control availability/education for teenagers (grades 6-12).

But I bet never. Conservative and/or religious parents want the "choice" to teach (or not teach) their children what they want about sex.

I humbly suggest that since you believe abortion is our national holocaust and the public health concern of our lifetime, stop being so afraid to let your children learn about sex and human sexuality. Stop demonizing the idea of sex for pleasure. Stop relegating sex to a Puritanical, heteronormative purpose.

Believe me, nobody looks forward to an abortion. Every woman to whom I've spoken who's had one says the same thing, "I'm grateful I did it and I hope to never do it again."
MarkAntney (Here)
I'll go one further, I'd respect their position a lot more, if they just actually tried to pass a law outlawing it?

Seems they're willing to do any and everything but that?

This (sorta, don't know exactly how, it just does) reminds me of the issue of when Gays weren't allowed to adopt just because they're Gay,..and people were willing to have (unwanted, many special needs) children languish in group homes, just so Gays can't adopt?
njglea (Seattle)
Supposed pro-lifers simply want power over others.
Jon (NM)
It's about time.

A woman is faces the tough choice of whether to have or not have an abortion is in a pickle. It can't be an easy choice for many.

What we don't need is for states like Texas to impose restrictions that have nothing to do with protecting anyone women but which rather seek to outlaw all abortions by making each woman's uterus into government-owned property.
c (sj)
Abortion is far safer than pregnancy and birth. That women risk their lives to bear a child is a decision they need to make on their own, not because the government forced them to do it.
Tom (California)
If Trump becomes president, you can bet his Supreme Court appointees will reverse this ruling within a couple of years. And that will be just the beginning...

While it is true that Hillary Clinton is one of the most arrogant, self-entitled, self-serving, poor judgement, pathologically deceptive, patronizing, pandering, war loving, fracking backing, massively unpopular, finger-in-the-wind, Wall Street owned politicians we have ever witnessed, her party's ruling global corporate elitists thrust her upon us anyway.... Effectively putting the even scarier thought of a Trump presidency in play....

There is no good choice left for the American people this time around... But there is clearly a worst choice.

Get out, hold your nose, and cast your vote in November, Folks... Yes, if Hillary becomes president the middle class will likely continue their slow but steady decline into poverty due to top secret corporate sponsored trade agreements, expensive unnecessary wars, and a sure uptick in Wall Street thievery (repayment for the "speeches"), but it's better than the absolute division and demolishment of our nation the know-nothing hateful Donald Trump would bring on day one...
njglea (Seattle)
Ms. Hillary Rodham Clinton has my grateful vote and I'm not holding my nose, Tom. My vote also goes to other socially conscious women and men who believe in America and want to restore democracy.
dino (Salida, CO)
I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton and I won't be holding my nose. She's not perfect but it looks like you can use a lot of negative adjectives about her without providing any facts.
paul (blyn)
If the conservatives had any sense they would make contraception more available and thus cut down on the number of abortions or concentrate on the last semester where the fetus has the most rights.

Instead they do these stupid onerous, illegal delaying tactics...
Adam (Paradise Lost)
"Justice Thomas said ... courts should resolve conflicting positions by deferring to legislatures."

And when a reading of law comes into dispute it is returned to the court.

This is called an infinite regress, Thomas does not offer a solution, only an empty platitude.
richard schumacher (united states)
Excellent news. Now can we have the Texas legislature arrested for attempting to practice medicine without a license?
Jim (Richmond)
How disingenuous can Justice Alito be when he wrote: "there was good reason to think that the restrictions were meant to and did protect women." There's one and only one reason for the proliferation of laws that strict abortions -- and that's to make legal abortion unavailable to the women who need them.
Scott Schilling (Houston)
I've never understood the internal contradiction of conservative viewpoints on this and related issues. Conservatives rail about the "browning" of America and a vast system of poor people leeching off government services. At the risk of sounding indelicate, does not restricting access to abortion providers for poor women help perpetuate that very situation? (And, be honest now, it is poor women we are talking about. If you think that a state senator's daughter who turns up with an unwanted pregnancy will be forced to carry to term, well,...bless your heart!)
Robert Roth (NYC)
Wonder who these misogynistic judges will try to beat up next. I feel very bad for whoever will be anywhere near them for the next few days.
Cheryl (Houston)
I don't know why this was even a debate.

The Texas government officials who wrote these laws have always been very open, when quoted in the press, that their aim was to reduce the number of abortions performed. They referred to their bills as "pro life" bills and cited the decreased number of abortions being performed (as "innocent lives saved').

And why must there be separate abortion clinics at all, so that every woman walking in is picketed and harassed? For most anything else, when a person walks into their doctor's office or a ambulatory surgical center or hospital, no one knows what they're going in for -- which is as if should be.
Newyorkaise (New York, New York)
Actually, Cheryl, I don't know that there are that all many clinics that provide only abortions...but that doesn't stop the virulently angry protesters from assuming that every woman who sets foot in her local women's health clinic is there for one. Most of the women's clinics I've visited throughout the country offer an array of women's (and sometimes men's) health procedures.

I've used such clinics for annual check-ups or mammograms, particularly when newly arrived in a city after a job move. I've never obtained an abortion at one - yet I'm still a "baby-killer" in the protesters' eyes as I enter.

And unfortunately, as the Catholic Church continues to take over many of the larger hospital groups in the country, fewer and fewer abortions (or even contraceptive services) will be offered in the anonymity of an ambulatory surgical center or hospital.
Dr. James S. Kennedy (Nashville)
Where's the uproar about and the advocacy for the millions of unborn babies being slaughtered in our nation's abortion clinic? It is disingenuous for the Democrat party to decry Orlando and other mass murders and not address their role in promoting genocide in America's abortion factories.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Because it's not the same thing at all, and you know it. Drawing a comparison is a logical fallacy.
R (The Middle)
False equivalency, Doctor.
jules (california)
False equivalency; embryos are not viable outside the womb.

Dr. Kennedy, please state your position on progressive tax increases to pay for all the unwanted children, from birth through adulthood -- as the vast majority will be born to poverty.
Sara (Wisconsin)
It was about time for a common sense decision.
Rob Swain (Appleton WI)
I fought this fight in Federal court more than 30 years ago. After a clear warning from the judge the community withdrew its ordinance and the clinic operates to this day. It's about time this kind of phony "health law" was put out of its misery.
Joe (NYC)
Clarence Thomas should resign as quickly as possible. He serves no purpose other than being a mouthpiece for extreme right wing views. He is not a jurist.
Jan (South Carolina)
Maybe we'll get lucky and Thomas will decide to retire - soon.
AJ North (The West)
Or, he could simply join his recently-departed ideological doppelganger, with, I believe the appropriate phrase is, All Deliberate Speed.
Fed Up (USA)
or he could spend a night at the same hunters lodge in TEXAS that Scalia did.
LuckyDog (NYC)
It is an American tragedy that health care is denied unless you can pay for it - and surgical procedures in outpatient settings are unregulated. So people going for vocal cord exams in ENT offices may die (RIP Joan Rivers), people going for liposuction in dermatology offices may die, people going for colonoscopy in inexperienced doc's offices may die. These are all real risks - but they go unnoticed and unregulated. But abortion services - those who work hard to deny women their medical rights and privacy have worked hard to pretend that surgical standards not required for outpatient procedures should apply to abortion, which has a low risk of complications - that just shows how twisted and manipulative they are. No Higher Power could support such lies, such hatred of women, and such corrupt use of our tax dollars to set up such an evil system. Thank you Supreme Court for recognizing the lies, and overturning the evil - now go get our tax dollars back by making the haters pay for the case, and for all legal costs incurred by their corruption. Make them pay in dollars for their hatred of women!
Fed Up (USA)
Thank you Supreme Court! Men and male controlled religions should NEVER think for one second that they have any rights to control a woman's uterus.
KarlosTJ (Bostonia)
It's good the the SCOTUS can determine what the health benefits are for abortion patients. They have some good medical professionals on that bench.

Once upon a time, states got to decide what was right and what was wrong for their citizens, determined by elected representatives from those states. If you live in a state that didn't have laws in your favor, you could leave. Now, we have a Federal government diktating how you can and cannot live your life, a thousand or more miles away from those whose lives will be affected. Oh, and it's according to a political agenda that you're not represented by.

Yet another nail in the coffin of liberty.
Martiniano (San Diego)
Well, you have to ask yourself, are you American or are you Texan because in the case of Texas it seems they are not patriots so much as whiners, constant, steady whining with a tinge of glossolalia is the sound Texas makes.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Uh, I didn't vote for any of these legislators except the ones who stood up and objected to the law. They represent my views and the views of the many Texans who don't want religion shoved down our throats. Don't assume that the gerrymandered Texas legislature represents all Texans.
SMB (Savannah)
Fortunately, all of the major medical associations in this country support women's abortion rights and Planned Parenthood including the AMA and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who strongly denounced Texas's abortion laws. See also last summer's editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine supporting Planned Parenthood and the essential healthcare that it provides women.

The unlicensed medical folks were the Texas governor and legislature who were overriding the medical expertise of physicians and others.
Sam (Nc)
The only thing one needs to consider whether this law is an attempt to improve patient safety or just to shut down abortion clinics: did the legislature adopt requirements similar to this for any office based procedures of similar risk to abortions? The answer is no, which basically proves that this is solely to create an unnecessary burden on abortion providers.
Erich (VT)
I think the most striking part of this decision is that the right wing of the court will put their religious beliefs before the law, no matter how tortured the logic has to be. Pure intellectual dishonesty.
Falstaff (Stratford-Upon-Avon)
I wonder how those who supported this unconstitutional restriction on abortion would react to a similar restriction on places where one could buy gun?
Kristan (Washington | California | NY)
I wholeheartedly support Texas' right to EXIT the United States of America. Along with Mississippi and Alabama who are last in anything but poverty, racism and ridiculous laws like this aimed at tearing down Roe v. Wade and the Voting Rights Act. Oh, and they are TAKERS of our federal dollars for their poor people they won't support through state programs. Buh bye Texas! Have fun in your own Alamo, creepy world without my federal dollars. After all, fellow Liberty Lovers like Glen Beck love it there. Have him and Rick Perry rule your new world order...sans Social Security and Medicare.
jb (ok)
Kristan, there are people down here you would like, and some you might even love. There's land down here you would like, and creatures that might delight you. Your stereotyping and hating other people shouldn't go so far as it does. I know that you may feel righteous because you believe people in the places you've lived are a superior sort, but there are bad people there, too, as surely you'd know if you wanted to pay attention to reality. The world is complicated, and hatred of those you think inferior, no matter how proven you think that inferiority is, no matter how righteous you think your contempt to be, is wrong. It doesn't prove your superiority at all. You'd fit in very well with people here whose faces also twist with contempt, who will not hear reason, and you don't know it. It's mercy, tolerance, and love that make good and evil different--not the Mason Dixon line, whoever you are.
Fed Up (USA)
They should take the rest of the "Bible Belt" states with them as well. None of the southeastern states, along with Kansas and Oklahoma. are worth keeping.
the dogfather (danville ca)
Mr. Justice Alito's views on reproduction and contraception argue for much better sex education in schools. It is remarkable that he has offspring.

To point to an unrelated instance of criminality, that would not have been prevented by the TX law, to justify the utterly transparent attempt to end-run the Constitution is laughably/tragically bad jurisprudence.

BTW, is there any way to arrange for a Texit?
Coop (Kemp)
It's sad that the court pushed this down. These requirements are on every other health locations even those that don't do surgery. This law might have saved the lives of dozens of women
andrea (ohio)
Did you read the article?

"Abortions taking place in an abortion facility are safe — indeed, safer than numerous procedures that take place outside hospitals and to which Texas does not apply its surgical-center requirements,” he wrote, reviewing the evidence. “Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient’s own home.”
C's Daughter (NYC)
"These requirements are on every other health locations even those that don't do surgery" (sic)

Blatantly false. Read the opinion.
Anonymous (Texas)
Can you cite any references that "these requirements are on every other health locations"? Watch Independent Lens episode Trapped on Abortion complications are rare.
Kevin (Red Bank N.J.)
I know I am a am a liberal and side most times with that side of the court. But there have been times when I thought the conservative side was right. But has there ever been a case then Alito or Thomas especially Thomas ever voted with the Liberals? Just look at the map in today's paper. If you don't think states legislatures are not trying to block abortion you are a fool.
Gloria (nyc)
The content of this article aligns perfectly with the graphics interspersed throughout the article. Reading this, I was able to quickly grasp the specific legal issues at play and see data showing the real world implications of the Texas law that was struck down and the Supreme Court's ruling. The NYT has hit it out of the park with this article & accompanying graphics. Well done!
Anthony N (NY)
The restrictions imposed by Texas in this case clearly violated the parameters set out in the Court's decision in Casey. Both the Circuit Court and the dissenters here strained, in a rather convoluted way, to conclude otherwise. It is the majority opinion, that is actually an example of judicial restraint.
Hambone (Davidson, NC)
It is a distortion of language to liken the abortion of a previable fetus to the murder of an autonomous human being. In the United States, one has a legal right to the religious conviction to believe that "life begins at conception" and abortion at any stage of pregnancy should be outlawed. But that is a religious conviction or simply an opinion and those of us who believe otherwise ought not be legally constrained by it. To argue that 24 hours after conception, an undifferentiated mass of cells should have the same legal rights as an eight year old is simply a vast logical leap to which I do not subscribe.
AyCaray (Utah)
This Supreme Court decision represents a victory for the many health care providers and others in Texas, Mississippi and Alabama who fought against controversial TRAP laws intended to close clinics. Every one should view "Trapped" on PBS Independent Lense program. I was moved by the dedication, sacrifice and patience of the individuals involved in the surviving clinics. Their work was arduous and dangerous. They demonstrated in the program how ridiculous and wasteful the state demands were. Operating rooms in the clinic were equipped with machines and instruments that were never used because the procedures were not that complicated. This made it more expensive for clinics. Women had to travel to the clinics and wait for days going through tests and waiting time. This is also expensive for those seeking the procedure in a timely fashion. This is what is called an abusive burden on women; making it ultra difficult for them to seek help. Thank you to those brave souls who lawfully went about seeking a ban on repressive measures such as the TRAP laws.
Mark Thomason (Clawson, Mich)
As good as the abortion decision is, the decision defining the money in politics as not bribery or corruption is just that bad.

The dissent in the abortion case shows how the other case could be seen that way. One dissenter simply denied that the law would close clinics, simple denial of plain reality. Another sought to allow states to "balance" women's rights against the "bad" of abortion, deferring to them to end abortion access.

It is exactly that thinking that refuses to see the bribery and corruption of money in our politics. That calculated refusal to see found a majority in one of two cases.
Martiniano (San Diego)
Texans are not far off from ISIS and Taliban in their desire to force their mythology on everyone. Thankfully, our nation is designed to protect against such ridiculous, childish insanity. (Anyone recall how Texans flipped out over Jade Helm?) They are like a 2 year old who needs guidance. You'd think that spiritual growth would raise their consciousness but, in the case of Texas, it lessens their humanity.
Metastasis (Texas)
Hey, let's be fair. There are many Texans who don't support the actions of the religious extremists. It's just that the politicians pander to them and we can't get enough of a majority to vote them out of office. Don't worry: they demographic tide is shifting, which is why racist xenophobia is on the rise.
pjl (satx)
this may surprise you, but Texans are not all of one mind or one mythology. i know this may complicate your world.
Martiniano (San Diego)
It's so hard to tell because you are so silent and allow the conservatives to run rough shod over your state and embarrass the rest of America. I lived in Texas, I know there are good people in the Republic of Austin and in Montrose.
Amy R. (Minneapolis)
My eyes welled with tears while reading the news. At last! At last! One more little nudge towards women no longer being treated as second class citizens. This is, after all, 2016.
Abel Fernandez (NM)
Keep in mind that this is a Republican issue, not a Democratic one. Republicans have done everything they can to undermine the Constitutional right to an abortion. They have done everything in their power to ensure that women do not have the right to make their own health care decisions. Republicans only really care about the Constitution when it comes to their ability to access guns and ammo and weapons of war. And in terms of abortion rights the Republicans have become a death panel. Their opposition has nothing to do with the love of a fetus -- it has everything to do with loathing poor women.
Robert (New York)
One hopes the sound logic that supports this decision extends to rulings on voter ID laws. Just as Texas did with the abortion law - claim it was for one purpose (patient safety) while actually intending another (making abortion excessively difficult for women) - so too are states dishonestly pushing voter ID. While they claim those laws are designed to eliminate voter fraud, everyone with a pulse knows the real purpose is voter suppression. Courts (especially the Supremes) should see through that abject dishonesty and rule accordingly.
Kate (Jersey city)
Thank you SCOTUS. You gave me some faith in our system and our future today.
John Wallace (Denver)
"We are supposed to be a neutral court of law," Justice Alito writes. He must have been laughing. This neutral court of law handed W the presidency and gave us Citizens United, just two of their most notable and recent disasters. The next election takes on even more importance when men like Alito can be so blind to - or cynical about - their own prejudices.
Martiniano (San Diego)
This is the problem with conservatives in America, they have convinced themselves that their own fantasy is reality and that as long as things flow with their fantasy then it is God's will. But as soon as reality peaks through the curtain conservatives panic and react with out-of-control emotion.
Ed Burke (Long Island, NY)
And the New York Times will bear its share of the massive sin it celebrates, that of murdering millions of God's most innocent children within the womb of their own mothers. May God have mercy on your souls.
Metastasis (Texas)
Embryos? Really?

I know it's hard to for people to wrap their minds around, but the Constitution does not allow us to apply religious yardsticks to legal questions. "Souls" and "sin" are immaterial.

And, as a professional biologist, I object to this superstitious hooey. There is no evidence of a soul. At the point when even later abortions occur, the fetus is not viable. Not alive.
Prairie Home Contrarian (Minnesota)
Our society and government, and the NYT, celebrate many sins -- greed, anger, lust, envy, gluttony, and lying among others. A certain small minded (and small handed) presidential candidate seems all but the embodiment of these.

At the same time our society and government continues to perpetuate the
R (The Middle)
Where do the fathers play out in your casting of sin?
Nancy (Great Neck)
I am thankful and elated.
zula (new york)
This is a beautiful day for women's equality! Thank you, Justice Breyer! Now it's time to reinstate the buffer zones.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The Court needs to stop treating verbal assault at clinics as a constitutionally protected free exercise of religion.
dbsweden (Sweden)
The anti-abortion crowd is joined by the three conservative members of the Supreme Court, all conservative Catholics, by the way.

If you look up the definition of conservative you will note that it essentially means clinging to the past. These folks want females to return to the bad old days of back-alley dangerous abortions although they pretend to be concerned about females. What's more, they resort to lies.

I look forward to the day when any female can get an abortion for any reason as long as her decision is free and not coerced.
Larry Gr (Mt. Laurel NJ)
What do you call four liberal drones on the court that are incapable of voting against the Democrat party dictates?
Angry female (Everywhere)
I look forward to the day when woman can keep their legs closed and realize sex is a responsibility not a privilege.
Stevenla (CA)
A. Intelligent
Q. What do you call conservative Christian justices who follow the dictates of the Trump, I mean Republican, party?
A. Delusional
Maita Moto (San Diego)
Yay!!! Rememeber when you voter in November that according to our vote we might endure more sinister-Dark Age-justices like Roberts, Alito and Thomas?! Imagine! And, funny, justice is blind? Ha!
Madeline Conant (Midwest)
The landscape of abortion has changed quite a bit since the Roe v Wade decision was handed down. We have better methods of contraception, the ability to terminate early pregnancies with medication, morning after pills, and better access to information. And well-educated, affluent young women have the knowledge and ability to navigate all these services, plus that of induced abortion, in spite of the roadblocks the Republicans have attempted to erect to prevent all of them. When necessary, these young women can easily fly to another state to acquire an abortion.

The women who are hurt, whose lives are held hostage to fake-protection laws, are poor women. The insistence of Republicans that they pass these TRAP laws to protect women is a cruel mockery, when they are only being passed to close down abortion services. The right wing knows their hypocritical TRAP laws are being used against those women least able to support raising a child, and least able to find a way around the roadblocks to care.

The Supreme Court has finally acknowledged the LIE inherent in these obstructive TRAP laws. Thank you!
Michjas (Phoenix)
Before Roe v Wade, you went to a clinic, generally at some distance ,and got a simple abortion which didn't cost much. Now, with restrictions placed on abortions by many states and demonstrators outside many clinics, an abortion can be unduly traumatic and relatively more expensive. The fact of the matter is that abortions, prior to Roe v. Wade, were often more convenient and cheaper for the poor and the wealthy.
George Deitz (California)
Where did 'you'go to any clinic for an abortion before Roe? Mexico, I'd guess. Not in these hypocritical US of A. It was illegal, unethical, immoral, and just plain taboo.
Michjas (Phoenix)
It was legal in a number of states, including New York. Many young people did not think it was unethical, immoral or taboo. It was the 60's after all. I don't know where you got your information, but it's all wrong.
Montesin (Boston)
The three dissenting judges in this case would probably have seen nothing wrong with a state-imposed use of chastity belts on women. After all, they are males, as were those in the middle ages who saw the virtue of such custom as a God given religious mandate.
Jimmy (Greenville, North Carolina)
Time to end the war against abortion. Universal abortion should be the standard and women should be able to make the choice anytime up until actual delivery.

No limitations! Be done with it once and for all time.
ChesBay (Maryland)
The usual knuckle dragger dissenters. This is a good first step back towards full health care rights, and privacy, for women.
Michjas (Phoenix)
Nobody should have to travel unreasonable distances to secure an abortion. But before Roe v. Wade, lots of women did. It's mot that expensive and it's not that traumatic. Myself, I think ultrasounds and waiting periods and other unreasonable delays once you get to a clinic are a worse intrusion. Jumping through those hoops is an oppressive form of psychological warfare when you just want to get the abortion done. Driving with a loved one or a close friend to talk to, music to listen to, and a phone to distract you doesn't seem to me to be nearly as bad. Just saying.
Robert (Out West)
Let's make YOU responsible for skipping work, finding child care, driving there, amd walking through a rank or so of shrieking jerks, then. Twice, given the waiting periods.

How difficult can it be?
Michjas (Phoenix)
Robert, shame on you if you would make your wife or girl friend find child care and drive to the clinic. Your presence at an abortion is pretty much as important as at the delivery of a baby. If you don't know that, you shouldn't pretend to be a sensitive guy.
blueberryintomatosoup (Houston, TX)
That's fine for those that can afford a car, and gasoline. Remember that Texas has one of the highest percentages of people in poverty. Many poor women don't have access to transportation, public or otherwise. Going to the next town over to get help with an electric bill is an ordeal. How much more of an ordeal would it be to travel hundreds of miles, pay for lodging and food, and make multiple visits to the clinic? If that isn't an undue burden, I don't know what is.
Howard (Los Angeles)
"Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas, said the causal link between the law and the closures was unproven. Withdrawal of state funds, a decline in the demand for abortions and doctors’ retirements may have played a role, Justice Alito wrote."

Well, let's do some elementary science. Justice Alito's statement can - and will - be tested. Let's what happens when we have "withdrawal" of the law. If most of the closures are reversed, Alito et al are wrong.
bkw (USA)
Because Republican will be Republicans, I'm wondering what underhanded strategies they will come up with attempting to have it their way. After all, they are mostly a compatible bunch blinded by a need to overall be in control, even by devious means necessary--ask President Obama--of everything including a woman's body and rights (and making that fact even worse is that they often they are anti something just because, just to habitually say no to anything agreed upon by liberals and Democratic--and often with no deep rational convictions or arguments one way or another. So beware of their next devilish move. It's coming.
Justice Holmes (Charleston)
"We are supposed to be a neutral court of law." Yes, that is what they are supposed to be but SCOTUS under Roberts hasn't been neutral on has been pro corporations, pro religion, pro gun. One could go on and on. When reading the quotes from the dissents one almost laughs at the unbridled and unashamed duplicity. I say almost because these Justices continue to strip humans of protections and rights while giving corporations more and more and more. Humans get very little protection and humans of the female variety might as well forget it. I'm glad to see that at least on this one the majority got it right!
Paul (Ithaca)
To the 3 dissenters, what in your minds WOULD constitute an "undue burden?" The answer, which they might never utter, is that when it comes to abortion restrictions (and perhaps all issues that disproportionately affect women), NO burden is undue.
fastfurious (the new world)
Thank you again Wendy Davis!!!

We're in your debt for fighting for us. This victory is also yours!
Teed Rockwell (Berkeley, CA)
Where was this claim that "We are supposed to be a neutral court of law" when the conservative judges voted against affirmative action policies in colleges? This conservative tirade against "activist judges" is sham, applied only when they don't like the activism.
Victor [email protected] (Birmingham)
I am surprised--nay, outraged--that this was not a unanimous ruling. There was NO evidence that the clinic requirements (admitting privileges by staff physicians, clinic physical regulations) had any aggravation of a woman's health. NONE.
The dissent by the three justices indicates to what extent our judiciary will apply non-evidentiary opinion in their rulings. Shame on them!
Nagarajan (Seattle)
Here's the crux of the argument: “Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient’s own home.”
No legislature dare touch childbirth at home. Abortion on the other hand invites all sorts of restrictions since that is what a very vocal minority demands.
SCOTUS done good.
Richard (Ma)
This is outstanding news for everyone. We need a health care system in this nation that is free from interference from religious zealots and cynical politicians.

This decision is a step in that direction however we have a long way to go before single payer universal health care is available to all and that clearly should be the goal. Employers should have no say over what care their employees require or opt for and employment should not be a criterion for access to health care. Top flight Health Care including abortion and birth control on demand is a basic human right.
Laura Reich (Matthews, NC)
Great decision. As someone who has seen first hand how "pro-lifers" try and dictate their beliefs I am happy that the court recognized the sham of these laws that were supposed to "protect women". The pro life crowd has only one goal, save the fetus, no matter what. It really is only about control, in my opinion. I thank the court for recognizing that women can make their own reproductive decisions without mostly male legislators telling them what to do.
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The three people who voted against this ruling on the grounds that legislatures can do whatever they want don't even know how constitutional limitation of government works. The whole process that put them on the court was a lie.
Objective Opinion (NYC)
Abortion activists were attempting to weaken abortion laws. The decision today was almost as meaningful as the attempted overturn of Roe v. Wade in 1992. I'm glad to see women will still have a choice and that state regulations will not interfere with those decisions.
Peter Willing (Seattle)
This ruling fills me with the great feeling of relief, and perhaps a tiny sliver of hope.
L M D'Angelo (Westen NY)
I do not understand how we women have an unfettered "right" to kill our unwanted babies in the womb. It seems all liberals believe that I think only with my uterus. The right to privacy, and therefore to abortion, is a spongy right somehow discerned in the constitution. The right to due process for the fathers of said babies is not. After a child is born it is a felony to kill the baby. But before hand, not so much.
As I have written before, in cases of rape or incest I cannot begin to understand the anguish of a woman or teenager. However, for their healing, I think the requirements for hospital privileges and the increased clinical standards are a plus for these victims.
I also do not understand how the Supreme Court Justices really think they have the medical background to emphatically state these precautions are deemed unnecessary.
andrea (ohio)
And I for one do not understand how the legislators in Texas really think they have the medical background to deem those over the top restrictions necessary.
Robert (Out West)
First, Roe v. Wade doesn't provide unlimited abortion rights.

Second, your religious views are legit for you; the Constitution does not allow you to impose your religious views on others.

Third, the explicit purpose of these "regulations," was to make abortion more difficult, not help women.

Fourth, the logical conclusion of your claims about men's choice is that rapists and incestuous daddies and uncles get to have a say. That's revolting, as you should know.

This is simple:

R (The Middle)
"I also do not understand how the Supreme Court Justices really think they have the medical background to emphatically state these precautions are deemed unnecessary."

Nor the right to enforce Biblical "law" on women.
Alexandra (Chicago)
Unwanted children start life with compromised emotional supports, and this deficiency can cause long term psychological problems. Some unwanted children may grow up to cause great harm to others (think guns because killers are angry people). I read that there is a study that shows that during the years abortion rights were strong, the number of children who later grew up to be criminals was pretty low.
All children should be wanted!
Will (New York)
Ah, the Texan way: there's nothing more important than the rights of an unborn child. Once he or she comes into the world however, it's another manner: that baby will be surrounded by guns, in a state with the death penalty, and since Gov. Perry did not opt in to the expansion of Medicaid, the child's mother may have no heath insurance as well.

The hypocrisy is sickening.
Getreal (Colorado)
Any so called "Law" affecting or influencing what a woman can do with her own body is criminal
LarryAt27N (<br/>)
If “dry and technical” points of legal doctrine are all that must be argued at the Supreme Court, then we no longer need black-robed justices. A simply-programmed computer will do.

A laptop. Even a tablet. Even an iPhone.
Shiba (US)
As a retired lawyer, I can tell you that this is simply not correct.
William Mauceri (Plainfield NJ)
Or even a Magic 8 ball!
LarryAt27N (<br/>)
Shiba, it is a bit of satire. Mauceri (below) got it.
Niles (Connecticut)
We always err on the side of abortion. As a society, we are rightly concerned about all (most actually) living things. We gasped when a dentist murdered a lion. We seek to protect non-human living things when they cannot protect themselves. For example, elephant-killing poachers for their tusks. Greenpeace to protect baby whales from Japan's whaling ships. If poachers were forcing an abortion of some mammal for gain, we would be outraged. Yet, when it comes to unborn human children, we balk at protecting them from abortion for convenience. The only difference between abortion and murder is on what side of a membrane an unborn child resides. We have achieved the nth degree of decadence and callousness in our society.
zula (new york)
False equivalence
Steve Bolger (New York City)
You people don't even care whether the fetus actually has a brain.
R (The Middle)
What you define as "convenience" might mean something a lot more to someone else who has problems you do not. Arguing against the right to choose what one does to one's body without a shred of self-awareness while doing so is indeed the "nth degree of callousness".
Timothy W. (Oregon)
I wonder how the babies feel about this? Though their hands are too small to hold picket signs and their mouths aren’t developed enough to chant, I’m willing to be that they don’t want to be killed by their mothers.
lottie (c-town, ohio)
Don't try to play that game. You're misusing "feel" and "want" to suit your own agenda.
Shiba (US)
Are you in communication with fetal tissue? Such that you know the wishes of tissue unable to form a wish?

I thank God and today, the US Supreme Court) that you and those who think like you are not in charge of my body, my future, my decisions -- or those of my daughters.

I hope other readers will be inspired to join me in supporting Planned Parenthood to keep it that way.
jb (ok)
The cells that are removed have no brains or nerves, so your imaginary trauma is only your own.
Steve Fankuchen (Oakland, CA)
This decision, when combined with today's ruling in the McDonnell case, gives a good picture of how the Court should function, of what its proper judicial review role is. There is no Comments section for the McDonnell case, but I would strongly suggest people read Chief Justice Roberts' ruling or, at least, that which is quoted in the Times article.

Most Americans simply do not understand the Court's proper role, which is as much one of method as of substance. Folks mostly want the Court to function as a supra-legislative body, undoing actions of Congress, the President, the states, or lower Federal courts that they do not like. If it acted in that manner, there would be no legitimate justification in a democracy for nine appointed people negating the will of elected representatives, representatives who, unlike the Justices, will be held accountable for their decisions at a subsequent election.

Some of Roberts' dicta in the McDonnell case from the Times article:

“There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that,” the chief justice wrote. “But our concern is not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the government’s boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute. A more limited interpretation of the term ‘official act’ leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with the text of the statute and the precedent of this court.”
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The Constitution defines only a limited set of powers that have been delegated by the people to agencies of government. Legislation that presumes greater or different powers is unconstitutional.

None of the many powers reserved by the people are listed in the Constitution.
fastfurious (the new world)
Thank you to Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy.

To Justices Thomas, Roberts, Alito: you can have my uterus when you pry it out of my cold dead body!
Django (New Jersey)
If the rationale for the Texas legislation is the protection of women's health, then how is it a legitimate response to the lack of facilities in West Texas to say that women living there can simply cross the border into New Mexico - which does not provide such "safeguards"?

Does the principle of deference to the will of the legislature apply even when it is clear that they are lying?
Steve Bolger (New York City)
The people who enacted this law had no evidence that these clinics were inadequate for their purpose.

What a farce to see three stooges on a constitutional court happy to accept blatant lies as justification for burdensome legislation.
lottie (c-town, ohio)
Am I the only who's incredibly excited about this as a sorely needed victory not only for women, but also for basic logic?These seem so few and far between these days given our anti-scientific, morally simplistic legislatures.
Majortrout (Montreal)
Finally, some sanity in the US!
Quandry (LI,NY)
Where is The Donald's always immediate tweet on this? Usually he's quick on the draw. Paul Manafort's influence? Maybe a little NY family input? This is the "Kennedy" Court, a Justice with an often reasonable viewpoint.
The Buddy (Astoria, NY)
Whatever your belief about a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy, blatantly mendacious laws with the pretense of ensuring medical safety, which almost no one on the anti abortion side even has bothered to keep up appearances with; would have created an extremely dangerous precedent.

Imagine if local governments imposed unsustainable building code regulations on your local church, for the purpose of "protecting worshippers' safety". What's the difference?
Kim (NYC)
Imagine if the government required a staff ratio of 100 staff per patient. That would effectively close all abortion clinics. The state cannot be allowed to intrude into legitimate businesses that way.
Grisha (Brooklyn)
It Texans really cared about human life they would care about allowing sales of weapons to anybody who wants to buy them.
HRM (Virginia)
The laws they blocked were phony and structured on lies. They had nothing to do with the health of the woman and the court saw through them. Before abortions became more available, the leading cause of maternal deaths in Texas was by far illegal abortions. Who could be surprised? The objects that were used included coat hangers, catheters, and even dirty pop-cycle sticks. For $300 the sticks were promised to infect the uterus causing the abortion. On the other hand if the person came from influence or money they could always have the procedure in a hospital, They were called by other names like incomplete miscarriage or abnormal bleeding/ It was the poor women who went into back rooms and basements. There will be other attempts to interfere in a woman's right but hopefully this sends a strong message that they won't get away with it.
cort (Denver)
Thank god for Anthony Kennedy. It;s hard to believe that anyone would dissent in a case like this..Roberts, Alito and Thomas are just appalling.
alexander hamilton (new york)
"Texas Gov. Greg Abbott decried the ruling. 'Texas' goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.'"

Got that? According to the governor, the primary purpose of the law was to "protect innocent life," i.e., make it virtually impossible for a woman to obtain an abortion. Too bad abortions are legal in all 50 states, and have been since 1973. Hey, Governor: read much besides the sports page? (And by the way, does that make a woman seeking an abortion "guilty life?" Just curious.)

Does anyone remember the last time the Texas legislature passed a statute actually aimed at promoting the health and well-being of women? Me neither. Right-to-carry laws? Now that, the legislature has time for. You know, to "protect innocent life."

It would not have been injudicious for one of the Justices to have declared very clearly that the Texas law a sham, for surely that is what it is.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Abbott is a fundamentalist Catholic trying to impose his narrow definition of true religious belief on everyone else. Let's hope more Texans wake up to realize how narrow-minded religionists are actually hurting the cause of real religious freedom -- the freedom of everyone else to believe or not believe according to our individual consciences.
George Deitz (California)
Ah, maybe the country isn't sliding into an abyss of hateful, unsympathetic ignorance after all.

Hey GOP congress and especially you, worldly statesman, Mitch McConnell? How do you like your 'unbalanced' Supreme Court today?
Paul (Bradley)
I agree with the decision.

In our of the arguments I heard some of these clinics called "Mom and Pop" shops. I know if someone I knew was in need of this type of service I would not want them going to a "Mom and Pop" operation. I realize it was just an expression pointing out why they could not do all the things major centers did but why should have a little control so we do not end up with "Back Alley" abortions again.
David Henry (Concord)
Kennedy gets it right, but I deplore his inconsistencies, no one knowing what he's basing opinions on.

He needs to retire.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas “Today’s ruling sets a dangerous precedent for states like Texas, which the Constitution makes clear should be free to pass laws that are in the best interests of our citizens..."
Excuse me Senator, but how many women did you speak to before legislating what's 'in their best interests?' Do you see, Senator, how dangerous it is for states to violate the Constitution for ideologues like yourself?
Byron Jones (Memphis, Tennessee)
Besides, perhaps Sen. Cornyn forgot that the USA is a federation. The Confederacy was aborted 150 years ago.
Boo (East Lansing Michigan)
Yes! I was so dreading this day, but the Supreme Court did the right thing today, voting 5 to 3, to affirm women's rights. As I said all along, how were the Texas law and other TRAP laws not a challenge to a woman's civil rights? If you don't want to get an abortion, fine, that is your decision. but you do not have the right to make it almost impossible for a woman to do so. Even the two dissenting justices were dissenting weakly on technical issues. Finally, someone has seen through the TRAP laws for the step-too-far they represent. I'm a 67-year-old mother and grandmother who applauds this decision for what it means for my daughter, two daughters-in-law and three granddaughters.
c harris (Rock Hill SC)
Why didn't the Texas Law state that one had to a division of Marines at the ready or immediate contact with the President?
Larry Gr (Mt. Laurel NJ)
Somewhere in a dark, danky cell in Pennsylvania Kermit Gosnell is feeling vindicated.
incredulous (Dallas, TX)
The first thought that flashed through my mind when I heard this was what a fitting decision for Congressional Republicans who refuse to even consider an Obama court nominee. Fine. Donald Trump is their representative for the White House, the court is leaning left, and more and more people are understanding that this "party" is over.
Lester (Redondo Beach, CA)
The Texas law was so transparently meant to end abortion in Texas or at least to lower the number that could be performed that the three Justices who voted in favor of that law were not motivated because they believed the transparent falsehood the women's health was the justification. No, they voted in favor of the Texas law because they are against abortions. They are Catholic, a religion which only a minority of Americans belong but yet is against abortion and these three want to impose their religion on the rest of us.
Michjas (Phoenix)
Courts normally show deference to the findings of state legislatures. Here, the majority gave little credence to Texas's justifications for the limitations they placed upon abortions in state. Over and over, the Court stated that the Texas law did not serve a constructive purpose. Nonetheless, it did not insult or demean the legislature. The regular dialogue on abortion is extremely hateful on both sides. If anybody is interested, the Court demonstrated that justice can be done without resorting to the lowest level of discourse.
MEL (Dallas)
Because those justifications weren't based in reality. There are no medical reasons whatsoever that support any of those new requirements. The legislative findings were obfuscations to cover their real purpose, to reduce the availability of abortion in Texas.
Josh Hill (New London)
After years of dismal decisions that were based on a desire to support right-wing causes rather than an honest interpretation of the Constitution and the law, it's a pleasure indeed to see an honest ruling from the Supreme Court The Texas law and others like it are blatantly dishonest attempts to circumvent Roe v. Wade. I am glad that the Court ruled honestly, and a bit ashamed to see that three men voted against this affirmation of a woman's right to control her own body.
Catherine (Brooklyn)
I am so happy and relieved, I feared this would be another 4-4 split and leave the onerous Texas law in place. Great news.
Fibonacci (White Plains, NY)
Making healthcare unattainable and inaccessible is not a winning strategy. The people know what they need. And Republicans cannot be chronically working against society's best interests.
Jan (South Carolina)
It would be wonderful for Texas to simply secede from the union and, therefore, be unable to pass their ridiculous laws that attempt to thwart women's constitutional rights.
jb (ok)
No. The union protects the people of Texas from the madnesses that may take over local or state governments at various times. And not just those of Texas. A person in South Carolina should find access to federal protections reassuring as well; I know I do, here in Oklahoma. And before poking too much fun, the people of Michigan, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Indiana, and others might consider their own situations...
Ian (Sweden)
Actually Trump has a point when he states a judge might be biased for personal reasons. There was a lot of nonsense spouted about the "interpretation of the Law being neutral" after Trump made his statement. If nothing else the fight over nominations to the Supreme Court shows this.
mmb (U.S./Canada border)
The ruling from the Supreme Court is a surprise. The "woman" was finally properly considered for her right to reproductive choices. The long line of Republican presidential hopefuls that were bumped off the stage one by one a while ago through their idiotic untruths had progressed from pro-life to owners of all wombs. They look pretty silly now. Too bad one remains. Maybe their distorted harangues had a lot to do with their prospects.
The Real Mr. Magoo (Virginia)
Is it too much to hope that anti-abortion groups will once and for all accept that they will not prevail, focus instead on improving access to birth control throughout the land, and, thus, actually reduce demand for abortions?
njglea (Seattle)
We can't take the change, Mr. Magoo. We must demand that the Equal Rights Amendment be added to OUR United States Constitution to prevent ANY law from being passed that infringes on a woman's inalienable right - given to her by her creator - to choose what she does with her own body and life.
801avd (Winston Salem, NC)
In a few words: Yes. Probably. hey will not be giving up because of this. They are single-minded maniacs and are unlikely to quell their own manias.
Sally B (Chicago)
Mr. Magoo – sadly, yes, it is too much to hope. The anti-choice people will not stop trying to take away women's rights, so those on the enlightened side must remain vigilant – and work to make sure a Dem names the next SCOTUS justice(s).
Ridem (KCMO (formerly Wyoming))
I have a problem with the "Average distance to nearest
provider, women ages 15-44, 2015 map.

In Wyoming many population centers ARE over 100 miles apart. Riverton to Casper, for instance. Same distances apply to SE Oregon, and west Texas. If a population center needs to be greater than 2000,then southern Utah,Nevada, and some other western states need to be included. If you have ever driven in these states you would realize that MOST things are 50 or more miles away.
John M. (Virginia)
Its interesting that the three dissenters were male. Compliments to Breyer and Kennedy who were able to see through the shallow ruse that cynically tried to use "women's health" as a means to make abortions unsafe for women.
northern neighbor (North Georgia)
Clinics performing abortions should meet or exceed the requirements for facilities performing similarly invasion medical procedures. I don't know what those requirements are, or whether the Texas laws exceeded those requirements, so I can't judge this decision.
Shiba (US)
One of the points of appeal was just the point you raise:

Abortion clinics were singled out and slapped with far more burdensome requirements and regulations than other types of outpatient centers performing procedures of similarly low risk.

Why you think that abortion clinic should potentially "exceed" the requirements for facilities performing procedures at an equivalent risk level I cannot guess.
Jim Hansen (Salt Lake City, UT)
The color coded regional maps project a dramatic graphic of the impact for positive values Sec. Clinton as First Lady to a term limited Gov. Clinton in Little Rock, Ark. A reflective illustrative of her positive contribution to the rule of law at last constitutionally affirmed by SCUSA in the solid south, now the reactionary and extremest wing of the GOP. Without legal portfolio as Arkansas First Lady, she spearheaded effort to upgrade Central Ark to a center for public health care for children, women. and their respective health care facilities and services. Her very positive legacy is depicted in the dramatic protection of Little Rock Ark. as cultural oasis in the ideological desert of her 21st Century opponents. As First Lady of the US, she undertook, also without portfolio, the national task to expand health care using the Medicare model not significantly different from Sen. Sanders single payer model. That valiant effort failed in the GOP controlled Congress.
Ken (New York)
Fisher v. University of Texas ( race preferences in college admissions) and this case suggest that Anthony Kennedy is becoming Harry Blackmun. Good on him!
NatashaWell (DC area)
Though I oppose using abortion in lieu of birth control, I welcome this decision. My personal feelings about abortion don't override my common sense, which says you cannot eradicate the practice. Throughout the millennia, women who feel they cannot go forward with a pregnancy have always found ways to end it. Abortion will always be with us; the only question is, what kind: legal, safe, medically supervised procedures? Or coat hangers and back-alley procedures? I wish the so-called "pro-life" camp would demonstrate the same level of concern for the child post-partum. When we end poverty, when we invest in educating our young people, then abortion rates will fall without need for legislation and court decisions.
me (world)
Nobody favors abortion in lieu of birth control! Keep your red herrings to yourself! Commenter Christine McMorrow said it best:
"Like many liberal women, I am always alarmed when a constitutional right is threatened. It's nobody's business what a woman does with her uterus: abortion should be her choice. Like many, I fervently hope that access to clinics will ensure that abortion is safe and ideally, rare. These clinics provide important education about the use of contraceptives, with the goal of ensuring a woman's visit there is her last."
In sum: abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. SCOTUS was right, and it needs more women; 4 would be better, 5 would be ideal.
Victoria Rubin (North Carolina)
You're right, but you're also making far too much sense...
Erin Schmidt (Ohio)
there is actually less abortions now (per population) then there were back in the 1950's. basically 1 million now to 1.2 million then. And our population has doubled since then (thus twice as many women, but less abortions)

There will always be a some level of need for abortions. Medical science has not found a way to make pregnancy much safer then it was 100-500 years ago. What they have found is just a way to prevent women from dying in pregnancy, but not any of the other effects or not from almost dying.
Hydraulic Engineer (Seattle)
People need to remember that this was not a decision on the constitutionality of abortion. It was a decision on the question "Given that Abortion is currently legal, is it an undue burden upon a person who wants to avail themselves of this procedure to require abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at a neighboring hospital?" The justices have just decided that this requirement was merely a sham, with no medical purpose, meant solely to impede access to a legal procedure. The battle to reverse Roe v Wade will continue unabated, with ever more devious tricks attempted by politicians eager to curry favor with single issue abortion voters, and to divert attention to this perennial wedge issue.

Meanwhile, our ship of state heads forward in a sea filled with ice bergs, while the Dems and Republicans, and whatever Trump is, fight for control of the helm. God help us.
Mark Schaffer (Las Vegas)
GOOD! It is time to leave stone age mythologies in the stone age.
HJ Cavanaugh (Alameda, CA)
This was in some sense a class decision. Upholding the Texas law as the three dissenters did since they understood the well-off would not be materially affected if indeed they sought an abortion. They always have had that opportunity even before Roe v. Wade, while the less well-off sought nearby and often dangerous options.
Judy (Canada)
Well done SCOTUS. This shows how important the election is for so many issues like abortion rights and voting rights as the Supremes age and will have to be replaced. A GOP President will appoint right wing justices undermining these and other rights in the fashion of Scalia the strict constructionist who nevertheless managed to twist and turn the law and Constitution to suit his political and religious views.

A thought on abortion. I wish anti-abortion activists would channel their energy into fostering/adopting abused and unwanted children rather than trying to impose their views on others. If life is so sacred, how about doing some good for children already here.
John California (California)
What is more than ironic? That Texas and the other state legislatures are so supposedly concerned about women's health in this one aspect and so ready to intervene in medical decisions that ought to be matters left to patients and their doctors, yet they rail against Obamacare and take no interest in improving people's access to good health care in general.

Hypocrisy unchained!
Every once in a while they get it right.
Sally B (Chicago)
... and somewhat heartening that the outcome would have been 5-4 if Scalia had still been here.
doug hill (norman, oklahoma)
The evangelicals who come up with these diabolical roadblocks to women's health care are not quite as clever as they thought. Hooray for a reproductive rights victory.
masayaNYC (New York City)
'Justice Alito read an extended dissent from the bench.... “We are supposed to be a neutral court of law,” he said, outlining what he conceded were “dry and technical” points ... he argued should have precluded the petitioners from presenting the challenge in the first place. “There is no justification for treating abortion cases differently from other cases.”'

So Alito's strongly objects to the procedural allowances made by the Court to accept the case in the first case. Really, he's saying, he isn't so much upset about striking down burdens on the practice of abortion; rather, he's just upset because this case should not have been decided by his Court.

And he's so upset by it, he wants to castigate his colleagues from the bench.

And of course, this is nothing like the Fisher case, decided a week ago, with a plaintiff who had been solicited by an ideologically-driven attorney self-admittedly seeking to strike down racial diversity's use in college admissions criteria.

Alito's pretext in dissent mirrors that of the conservative Texas legislators who produced this onerous law with the nakedly obvious intent to curb abortion throughout that state while proclaiming it was in the name of women's health.

When I read of such hypocrisy, I wonder if I'll be so blatantly dishonest with my child in attempting to teach him morality and what I feel to be right -- if I'll have the courage of my convictions. A large swath of right wing ideologues apparently don't.
John (Stowe, PA)
When Hillary appoints the next jucstice we can see an even greater return to rule of law away from the cynical hijacking of the court by conservative activists. A great day for freedom.
Susan (Berkeley)
Wonderful news, I love it when common sense and rule of law prevail. I can't believe the right to an abortion is still something we need to work so hard to protect but I appreciate all who work to do so. This issue has been on my mind even more this past week after watching the wonderful video on this site about Yashica Robinso MD in Alabama. A brave woman, my new hero.
christv1 (California)
Wonderful! A day to cheer for women's right to control her own body.
Don Shipp, (Homestead Florida)
After perusing Justice Alito's 43 page opinion, one factor illustrates it's disingenuous essence.He never once refers to the protected Constitutional right of every American woman to have an abortion without an" undue burden".
babs freeburg (the beach)
sigh of relief I remember how awful it was if you found yourself in a family way before roe versus wade. My one good friend was raped and was so desperate she did the coathanger thing and almost died.
ritchie nixon (ohio)
Can't we just dump Texas. If they want to leave the union, let 'em go. No big loss.
Genny (<br/>)
Thank goodness for this decision. This law driven by "morality police" politics restricted the rights of women, especially poor women. The fact of the matter is that any rich man's daughter in Texas could get an abortion by going out of state. Poor women, restricted in contraceptive access, were always the targets of this law. Now we need to make contraceptives freely available as over the counter drugs or on-line physician perscriptions.
njglea (Seattle)
Senator Tim Kaine, who is on the short list to be our next Vice President, was on Meet the Press yesterday and was asked about his "pro-choice" thoughts. The moderator tried to suggest that Senator Kaine had changed his position. Senator Kaine's answer says it all. He said he is a practicing Catholic and doesn't believe in abortion or the death penalty. HOWEVER, he knows he has no right to force that belief on any other American and that women must be free to make their own choices. THAT is why America is strong - SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Separation of religious beliefs and politics. Quite simple really - it is the job of the United States Supreme Court justices to protect OUR constitutional rights - not take them away.
Saddle Sore (Hitching Post, Blue Country)
Thank GOD for this decision! Maybe our country will stop wasting its time on abortion and focus on creating new industries and competing in a global economy. When Roe was decided China and India had a combined GDP that was like .02 percent of ours. Now 40 years later China and India have rocked their economies and they're lapping us while we waste untolled resources fighting the Roe battle over and over. Maybe this decision will end this gigantic waste of time in terms of our national dialogue and focus on end running Roe. I'm so sick of these antiabortion forces dragging our country down. Enough already.
Katz (Tennessee)
Good luck with that. I think the GOP is going to have to be trounced at the polls until politicians get the message that blatting on and on about banning every form of abortion, including in cases of rape and incest (as Marco Rubio and other GOP candidates advocated during the GOP primary) and restricting access to contraception won't earn enough votes. And that's just not the case in some parts of the country.
cecilia (utica, ny)
My prediction (and fervent hope) is that when HRC wins to be the POTUS, she will pick pro-choice judges to assign to the Supreme Court and we can finally (after almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade) cast that amendment in stone so that any legislature hoping to minimize Roe will be flatly denied and thrown out of court. It's time women stepped up to be an EQUAL partner in our democracy. We've waited long enough!
anyfishinsea (Denver, CO)
A lot happened on January 22, 1973. George Foreman defeated Joe Frazier (6 knockdowns in 2 rounds), Lyndon B. Johnson died of a heart attack at age 64, and the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in Roe v. Wade that the states could no longer ban abortions. No one ever challenged Foreman's victory. There were no attempts to resurrect Lyndon Johnson. But, sadly, Roe v. Wade started a movement in the religious right reminiscent of the Taliban.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court continues to recognize the maniacal claims of the religious right as simply another attack on women's rights.
Lee (Tampa Bay)
Finally the right wing evangelical stranglehold on women begins to loosen. i look forward to the day when these white male extremist legislators who delight in imposing Christian sharia law on their constituencies are finally replaced by the younger, secular generation.
Jean (Florida)
Like Marco Rubio? He would ban all abortions. Remember that when you vote in August, & November.
Mike (McWhozit)
Congratulations America! These are the two best stories of the day (see NYT -"CIA Arms..." link below too). This government has so much blood on its hands it's appalling. Set aside for a second that we agree that women should have the same rights and safety as men. This administration (and past) continue to focus on rights, and fail to focus on common ground, where the MAJORITY of Americans agree. And that is that abortions (the slaughtering of human babies) are deplorable. Since Roe v Wade... ~60 MILLION?? Is that not APPALLING to anyone? Meanwhile, the administration and Congress decries gun violence while grandstanding for gun control. Yet they simultaneously supply weapons to terrorists, which are stolen by terrorists, and resold on the black to terrorists... now, where are the candlelight vigils for the two Americans killed in Amman thanks to the flooding of "assault rifles" onto the black market? How many babies have been thrown in a trash can this year in America? Where are their vigils and filibustering for them? We have become a sick, demented and disingenuous society who flails emotionally on every nightly news soundbite! Democrats, Republicans... does it really matter who's in control? Will one shed less blood than another? I'm sure it will get better with "Election 2016" ... will it be the 'Criminal' or the 'Fool?' Which will shed less blood!? []
Dr. Eli (Arlington)
Yeah, going to have to call shenanigans on that. 60 million abortions since Roe v. Wade? Let's do the math!

Roe v. Wade was in 1973, so 43 years ago. 365 days in a year equals 15,695 days since abortion became legal (rounding a bit).

60,000,000 divided by 15,695 means that by your math, there have been 3,800 abortions a day, every day, since Nixon was president.

Um, no.
Brenda WallaceI (MA)
I would vote for anyone who would make birth control mandatory, semi permanent, starting at menarche (good age for boys too). It should have to be kept up with until after marriage, when both partners have stable jobs. Then they can have it removed, try for a baby. If the miracle happens, the second miracle happens (normal healthy baby) birth control would be restarted until you have enough of a career to support your child. One job, the other parent takes care of the child. Life goes on that way. If it is against your religion you have choices. 1. No sex, ever. 2. Permanent contraception. 3. Sterilization. Even the Catholic Church says no sex is ok. Of course if you know you are sterile before marriage you can't get married 'in the church' and the wedding will be refused to you. Check out the overpopulated sections of the world. Most are majority Catholic. So when the Earth dies, we know who to blame. Celibate men. I sure wish they were all .........nope won't say it.
Mike (McWhozit)
Dr. Shenanigans,
You are "missing the Forest for the Trees"... I know, it's an "inconvenient truth," but that doesn't make it go away. Thank you though for highlighting how disgusting the problem is. Fortunately, we are finally below an average of 3,000 per day in America, but those earlier years really helped skew the average. Here are some links where you can maybe explore some facts. Had you spent a similar amount of time doing such, rather than showing your math skills, maybe you would have a little more credibility. Or, maybe if you had actually provided an alternative fact, supporting that you believe it's only ~50 million, because... but, "Um, no" is not a fact, nor is it responsible, it's just more ignorance being spewed to through people of the trail of truth...




I wonder what kind of Dr. he is? A Proctologist maybe?
Joe (Menasha, WI)
After this ruling I really expect Texans to vote to leave the EU (!) too. All them foreigners telling Texans what they can't do...
Lou Good (Page, AZ)
Encouraging to see the court recognize the unadulterated hypocrisy of the Texas legislature and former governor, neither of whom could care less about the health of Texas women.

Just another loss for the out of touch, disingenuous Republican Party as they circle the drain of national relevance.
NYChap (Chappaqua)
Still trying to figure out why so many unwanted pregnancies? Don't we provide free birth control to everyone?
mae (Rich, VA)
After the presidential election, I hope they drain into irrelevance. They've been on that path for quite some time.
drdave39 (Hamilton, OH)
No. Try to keep up.
haapi (nyc)
The hypocrisy that a handful of lawmakers insisting that they want to "protect" women from abortion are the same that don't have the same values when it comes to protecting women, and men, and children from gun laws gone wild, is breathtaking.
Brenda WallaceI (MA)
They will tell you they need all those automatic weapons for 2 reasons. One to protect women and to protect themselves from those very dangerous deer they won't even eat.

I believe in the Right to Arm Bears!
Ted (Austell, GA)
A five year old with good reading comprehension could have seen that these Potemkin village restrictions weren't legal under Casey. I'm glad to see the decision but it should have been 8-0. Roberts is apparently a serious jurist unless the issue revolves around a woman's womb. Then that old time Catholic religion takes over. Instead of a gavel they should give him a tambourine.
NI (Westchester, NY)
Thank you Justice Kennedy. You really consider women's health as very important. The hypocrite pro-lifers who disguise their real intent with lies about their concern for women's health have been un-masked. Just imagine if it was a tie. It goes to the lower partisan court. Our female deaths could perhaps rival a third World Country.
John Neitzel (Newport Beach, CA)
The hypocrisy of the anti-abortion crowd makes me sick. If men were the gender that actually got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
A Philadelphia Republican (Philadelphia)
Well, if you saw abortion, as many of us do, as the destruction of a human life, then perhaps efforts to stop it might not seem quite as hypocritical.

There are conservatives out there that find abortion's results not all that different as those from capital punishment, gun violence, and unnecessary war, which we also oppose.
mae (Rich, VA)
...especially if their last names were Roberts, Alito, and Thomas...
Katz (Tennessee)
You see abortion that way because of your religious beliefs. I believe we are biological organisms, and that women have a constitutional right to make decisions regarding their bodies without government intervention.

In a country with separation of church and state, abortion rights make sense.

The only place they don't make sense is in a theocracy. I'm grateful we don't have one. Aren't you?
When will right-to-lifers stop trying to enforce their will on a populace that doesn't support their extreme views? Here is a fine example of the highest court in the land doing what it is supposed to do - protect the fundamental rights of all from a narrow minded attack that benefits few.
Keith (USA)
A relief to many women and families. Praise God.
Sequel (Boston)
It was always clear that this law was unconstitutional. What has been ignored is the underlying reason that so many states hastened to pass unconstitutional abortion laws all at the same time.

National organizations that sponsor state laws that clearly violate the federal Constitution have been growing in popularity for years. They are experts at stirring up massing political interest from feverish right wing groups, and they do so to create the impetus for state politicians to try to make their mark on national law.

In the past, States tiptoed up to the constitutional boundaries because there was common agreement that we must abide by the Constitution. That no longer exists. These groups blaze past clearly-defined boundaries (such as the central holding in Roe v. Wade regarding first trimester abortions. They rely on public ignorance and public rage to produce an outcome that benefits someone's personal interest, while fraying civil society and the rule of law at the edges.
Observer (Backwoods California)
Dear Justice Alito:

“We are supposed to be a neutral court of law,” he said, outlining what he conceded were “dry and technical” points of legal doctrine he argued should have precluded the petitioners from presenting the challenge in the first place. “There is no justification for treating abortion cases differently from other cases.”

You mean like you did in Bush v. Gore or Citizens United (where you brought up a broad constitutional issue not raised by the plaintiffs or the lower courts and overturned SCOTUS precedent on that issue)?
jules (california)
Special thank-yous to Anthony Kennedy and Stephen Breyer for allowing common sense to prevail.
jb (ok)
Men are at least half responsible for every abortion, so it's only right.
George (Central NJ)
I'm waiting for states like Texas to come up with another ruse to prevent women from obtaining their constitutional right to an abortion. It won't be long. Watch.
Jerry Steffens (Mishawaka, IN)
The argument that abortion clinics need to meet the same standards as an outpatient surgical clinic was shown to be nonsense by this conclusion of a 2012 study published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology:
"Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion."
(Abstract available here:
the doctor (allentown, pa)
The state of Texas' argument for closing abortion clinics around the state were patently dubious. The state wasn't concerned with "women's health". It wanted to deny access to the fundamental right to choose. This decision should have bee 6-2 (Alito and Thomas are hopeless, but I'd hoped that Robert's legal mind would have seen through this backdoor violation of civil liberties).
PaulB (Cincinnati, Ohio)
The positive news of this decision needs to be tempered by the fact that three SCOTUS justices, including the Chief Justice, dissented, presumably because the Texas restrictions really were meant to improve women's' health.

That leads to two likely conclusions, both of which are troubling: one, the three dissenters are incredibly naive and out of touch with Texas' clear intent to abolish abortion in the Lone Star State -- in direct conflict with a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Or, two, they three dissenters are fully aware of the transparent motivations behind the Texas restrictions, and that the restrictions are clearly unconstitutional, but they don't care because their personal and/or political beliefs trumps Constitutional law.
John (Cologne, Gemany)
So, can we at least tone down the fearmongering about a conservative Supreme Court?
jules (california)
No we can't John. The balance is still precarious.
John (Cologne, Gemany)


Even with Scalia, the Court handed down a number of decisions favorable to liberals, including same-sex marriage and two Obamacare decisions. Without Scalia, the Court still supported affirmative action and abortion rights.

Sure, there were pro-conservative decisions on immigration, gun rights, and campaign finance as well.

On balance, however, I'm just not seeing that the Court has a significant conservative bias.

I suppose that neither side will be happy until they will 100% of the time. My concern is that in the meantime, people are tearing down one of our more functioning institutions just to get votes.
John (Cologne, Gemany)

I meant to also include the link to another Times article today, which I think supports my point.

Hopefully, everyone can keep in mind that fearmongering is not a harmless pursuit.
Jodi Frank (12809)
This is a victory not only in terms of women's rights, but also in terms of addressing the gap between the poor and the more affluent being able to obtain the professional medical services needed. With such Texas laws in effect, a woman with money and mobility is able to travel through vast portions of Texas to obtain an abortion: a poor woman will be forced to have a baby with few resources available to her.

Conservatives will fight to the bitter end for right to life of a fetus, but they deny the resources that poor people need to help their children grow and thrive as human beings.
Joe Bob the III (MN)
Leave it to Alito, Thomas, and Roberts to defend the indefensible but ruling the Texas legislation un-Constitutional was the only legally justifiable result. To do otherwise would be to upend Planned Parenthood v. Casey because the Texas laws made a mockery of the “undue burden” standard established in that ruling.

I don’t know how one can conclude that a law which puts 75% of clinics out of business doesn’t break the undue burden standard. The fact the Texas law was based on a completely specious assertion of medical need was just adding insult to injury.
jb (ok)
The claims that the restrictive laws were to protect women's health were false on their faces. And everyone knew that, and knew the purpose of the claims was to create undue burdens that would in fact deprive women of their Constitutional rights under the law. Pretenses to the contrary are absurd, and it's high time we made that clear, for heaven's sake.
ExPatMX (Ajijic, Jalisco Mexico)
The Supreme Court did something right? Be still my heart. I was a student nurse pre Roe V Wade and saw what back street abortions did to women and their families. I am not able to be involved with abortions but that is a personal choice and not to be imposed on others. Though I do not like them, they are necessary and should be available. I am pro choice and object to being called pro abortion.
Jack (Asheville, NC)
Alleluia! Reason prevails, but I fear it's another log on the fires of the TExit movement.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
As long as they realize every drop of oil, cow, and blade of grass is owned by the US. Just empty desert they get and we fence that part and give, just that to the bigots. Oh, no machinery. Picks and shovels. Cities go to the US. Hospitals too. Doctors can immigrate to the US with no citizen penalty. Every minority can come with the rest of us. Whites, not so much. If they can ace a civics exam, maybe, otherwise they are only Texans on 100th of the state to live in, with all money and products belonging to the US.

The real problem is that we gave the South back it's citizenship way too early. We should just be discussing it now with them immigrants. The land is American. People lost that right. Except the 'minorities'.
Sam I Am (Windsor, CT)
Will anti-abortion crusaders ever stop?

Look, people, the issue is not whether or not women will terminate pregnancies. Woman always have and always will. If you want less women to terminate pregnancies, make keeping the baby a better option by creating a world where having children doesn't undesirably hurt a women's prospects for a happy life.

The issue is simply whether abortion will be safe or not. Those of us who are pro-choice are not favoring abortion over children; we are favoring safety over danger. We humbly concede that we can't - and shouldn't - make the choice for a pregnant woman. She won't let us and she never has let us. So the best we can do for our wives, our sisters, our daughters, our nieces, our granddaughters, is to make abortion safe, should they ever choose to have one.

Is that really so much to ask? I'm not asking you to have an abortion, and I'm not asking you to approve of anyone else's decision to have one. I'm just asking you leave well enough alone, to understand that women make this choice and always have, and you have no choice in the matter, and to help us ensure that girls aren't killed or sterilized in the process of making their decisions.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
You a pro life anti contraception person? Any woman would choose contraception as a first choice over abortion, but, so many 'prolifers' hate birth control as to make getting it perfectly legal as it is impossible.
Saying NO is not an option in many, if not most, young married's homes. Why? All the men know why. You want it, when you want it, as often as you want it. Even if supper burns. Give men the birth control so they can't impregnate anyone until it is reversed. Make it mandatory. Then I'll believe you care for the women. I'll never trust most men to believe it. They prefer spraying to loving.
Susan (Paris)
What wonderful news for women and the men who believe that women have the right to make their own reproductive decisions!!!
mikecody (Buffalo NY)
So, the Supreme Court has decided that Washington has the right to decide on medical requirements rather than allowing the people of the individual states to do so. Not a surprise, in these days of dismantling all lower levels of government. The states have the rights to enact any laws they like, as long as they are laws that the Federal government agrees with; yet another nail in the coffin of the 9th and 10th amendments.
C Wolfe (Bloomington IN)
No, the Supreme Court has decided that states don't have the right to interfere with or impose undue burdens on medical decisions that individuals are entitled to make for themselves.
Incredulosity (Astoria)
The states only have the right to pass laws that do not violate the Constitution. That's what this case was about.
SMB (Savannah)
If we left it to states' rights, we would still have slavery and Jim Crow among other backwards ideas and policies.
Mitchell (New York)
Fortunately, there was enough of an outrageous breach of hard earned freedoms, to break the log jam at the court. I am more amazed at the other decision, which was UNANIMOUS, to overturn the conviction of Governor Bob McDonnell. The Governor clearly accepted lavish gifts to arrange introductions and meetings with various state officials. The new ruling, now requires the rarely found smoking gun of an overt act of influence peddling, rather than the more common and widely understood act of sending an implicit message of support when setting up meetings or other access for a constituent who has bribed the official. The fact that it was unanimous, across party lines, shows what politics is truly about. While the Supreme Court helped support abortion rights, it gave a giant present to Democrats and Republicans alike and took away a huge weapon in the fight against political corruption.
Tom (California)
Hopefully, this wise decision will lead to another Texas call for secession... And this time, let's take them up on it! America would improve overnight....

Once accomplished, let's build that wall Trump is always crowing about... But let's build it around the northern Texas border...
Allison (Austin, TX)
No, don't do that! We need the support of other states if we're going to restore sanity to the Texas legislature.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
Then around the coast. All offshore assets belong to the US, not Texass. They never did spell it right.
jb (ok)
The poor women of Texas, and there are many, and so many others, would then be left to the "mercies" of the powerful there, with their wealth and long-time locks on power. I don't think you'd want that if you knew the suffering, of children as well, that would follow.
Lawrence Imboden (Union, NJ)
I looked at the map "Distance to Abortion Clinics" and it made me wonder how far people have to drive to purchase a firearm? Are there only a handful of places to buy guns in Texas or are there gun shops every 1/4 mile?
Seems to me the extremists in government are focused on the wrong thing.
RDS (Florida)
Republican legislatures in Texas, Mississippi and Wisconsin continue to wage their war on women under the guise of protecting them. They, and the people at the national level of their party, including their presumptive nominee, will continue down that path while claiming to be dumbfounded as to why they do not have the support of women at the ballot box (or, in the case of their standard bearer, will continue to lie by saying, "I'm very big with women. Women love me.")
They will not stop. Their sick self-righteousness will not let them. We must stop them, at the ballot box, and by later reinvigorating the Supreme Court.
Today was merely a fortunate interlude.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
On her 18th birthday every woman should be given a pistol and ammo, free, by her state. It will be legal to shoot any male who doesn't understand the word 'NO'. Close all but one gun shop in the state but make ammo for women free and abundantly available for them. Gun clubs and shooting ranges set up for all women, cost nothing. All guns sold to men would come with a 1,000,000% tax. Can't afford it? Sorry. Constitution says nothing about paying for them.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
Self aggrandizement is really big with men. For most it's the only thing that's big. The bigger it gets the more the rest shrinks.
JenD (NJ)
Thank goodness! I feel enormously relieved. But no complacency -- I am off to make another donation to NARAL and Planned Parenthood.
charles (Pennsylvania)
We all should be very happy that the Supreme Court made the correct decision. However, we should also ask what is going through the heads of the two Judges, Alito and Thomas, these two have been useless and obstructive to the functioning of the Court and should be retired. They have made no intelligent contributions nor made any major decision benefiting the majority of Americans. It is time to end the "life term" of these judges and permit the people to replace them when they demonstrate a lack of judicial interpretation and common sense.
Bob Wood (Arkansas, USA)
They are both part of the legacies of the Bush family. George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to replace Justice Thurgood Marshall. And, his son, George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito. Alito, of course, wrote the opinion in the "Citizens United" case, essentially eliminating what little remained of the campaign finance laws enacted after Watergate.
Kona030 (HNL)
"Justice Alito read an extended dissent from the bench, a sign of deep disagreement. “We are supposed to be a neutral court of law,”

This is typical conservative sour grapes...So Ailito is saying the Supreme Court was "neutral" in Bush V Gore, and Shelby Voting Rights case from 2013, but not in Texas abortion case...If anything, the court was far more activist in the former 2 cases, stopping the count in Bush V Gore, and tearing apart the Voting Rights Act from 1965 in the 2013 Shelby Case...
SMB (Savannah)
In Hobby Lobby, Justice Alito acknowledged that there was mistaken scientific fact, but still said that the owner's beliefs overrode women's health. Anyone who could make such a sweeping judgment while acknowledging it was based on false facts has no neutrality.
penny (Washington, DC)
Thank you, Justice Kennedy.
It's about time Texas owned up that it doesn't care about women's health--it's all about controlling women's lives.
Mark Bosco (Pittsburgh)
As I predicted. The court has and will shift more to the left. The immigration decision means little. No one in this age group will most likely be ever deported. The reason they end up working for less.
masayaNYC (New York City)
Think it's more accurate to describe it as "...shift back to the center and away from the right turn it had taken."
Deirdre Diamint (Randolph, NJ)
Thank you Supreme Court for doing your job and protecting access to women's health. I am fortunate to live in a state where my OBGYN performs all services I would need - I don't understand a doctor who only does certain procedures and abandons their patient to a clinic for needed health care
That really is the shameful part here that in many red states women still need to utilize a different provider to end a wanted but unhealthy pregnancy
Brenda WallaceI (MA)
I'm fortunate to be too old now and to have a husband who didn't give me the line 'condoms ruin my enjoyment'.
Jack (Mammoth Lakes)
Let's also recall that this was the very pernicious law that Wendy Davis so courageously filibustered.
xmas (Delaware)
Three key take-aways from the opinion. One, it is a majority opinion, not a plurality like Planned Parenthood v. Casey (the last Supreme Court opinion on abortion which has been relied on to enact the restrictive measures seen in the past 30 years). This makes it a stronger, more binding opinion. Two, it requires courts to independently evaluate the medical evidence and not simply defer to legislative findings. So when a senator says abortion causes cancer and suicidal thoughts and consensus from the medical community is that it not true, then science, not the senator, wins. Three, the appellate court was wrong to review the legislation under the least restrictive test (rational basis review). Meaning, courts are going to have to give these laws greater scrutiny, making them harder to enact.
Carolyne Mas (Pearce, AZ)
There are published studies linking abortion to breast cancer...many of them. I remember reading about them, because I had several abortions when I was younger and I was worried. It is a money making procedure, so doctors will of course say that it is completely safe...but nothing unnatural that we do to our bodies is ever completely safe. I had great difficulty getting pregnant when I wanted to, so who knows what kind of damage abortion did to my body in the long run. Mind you, I am pro choice, but it is a choice that haunts me.
Matthew W (Northern Westchester)
If every single family with a man or woman that is pro-life adopted a baby born because abortion was illegal, I would still have the view that no one should be able to tell me what I can and can't do with my body, as long as it doesn't physically hurt anyone else. However, adopt the babies with special needs first, and then the rest, and we might not need abortion (which is far from the point, however). But, you don't and never will see this happen. You're more than willing to impose what you believe on someone else, no matter what economic, physical, educational, psychological, etc. etc., costs are. Just because you believe something is right, doesn't make it so, and if it's not hurting you, don't make the cost higher on others who disagree with you.
jorge (San Diego)
I really feel for the young and poor who live in communities of relative poverty with faith-based education and regulations (Mississippi, Texas, etc.). It must be difficult to see a brighter future in the face of such institutionalized stupidity. Thank God for the Supreme Court.
Dr. LZC (medford)
Thank you, Supreme Court, for defending the rights of people and families to make their own family planning decisions.
A.Moscarella (Mexico City)
Fantastic! A piece of good news amid a lot of horror, especially the tie vote last week on illegal immigrants. This will allow the Texas clinics to continue to provide a much needed service, regardless of political-religious viewpoints.
Dick Purcell (Leadville, CO)
Please stop using the label "Liberal" for decisions that are Civilized.

Elsewhere in this paper, the natures of decisions are deceptively mislabeled with terms such as Liberal v. Conservative, Left v. Right. Responsible reporting and opinion would use the labels Civilized v. DarkAges.
Rebecca Rabinowitz (.)
Thankfully, we have another moment of sanity from SCOTUS, when it comes to women's ability to control our own healthcare decisions; physicians' ability to provide medical care without fear of imprisonment for doing their jobs; and at least a momentary respite from the extreme right wing religious misogynists. I would like to see the Gonzalez v. Carhart decision vacated, as well, given that there is no such medical procedure as a "partial birth abortion," which was a deliberately inflammatory, incendiary term concocted to depict late term abortions, only done in the immediate threat to a mother's life, or in the circumstances of a catastrophic fetal anomaly incompatible with life. During the time that I ran a women's primary and reproductive healthcare facility, I watched the daily parade of screaming protesters, several of whom I had arrested for violating our court-ordered injunction regarding their distance from our front door; I watched our medical director's constant fear for his own life as he was followed by these crazed fanatics all over northern California; my office had bullet/shatter-resistance glass; and we even had several abortion patients whose parents were among those screaming protesters. None of these regulations is about anything other than relegating women to the status of serfs with no rights to make our own medical choices. It is long past time to shove these medieval extremists back to their caves! The rest of us inhabit the modern world.
Chiva (Minneapolis)
Oh poor little Alito (Sorry I could not resist my internal Trump) who said: “There is no justification for treating abortion cases differently from other cases.”

Justice Alito, abortion is a constitutional right. Yet you apply your biased opinions vs nuanced legal reasoning to treat the rights you like one way and the ones that you do not like in another way.

Because of you and the other activist justices our country is worse off with more guns, more money in politics and more voting restrictions. The Robert's court is losing all credibility as an unbiased caller of balls and strikes.
Elias Guerrero (New York City)
I am pleased SCOTUS saw the Texas et al mendacious policy for what it is! Finally, the adults in the room prevail!
Aurora (Philadelphia)
I expected Thomas and Alito to be their corrupt selves, but I'm almost shocked that Robert's didn't join the majority on this ruling. The Texas law in question was nothing more than an attempted end-around on Roe v. Wade. Anyone could see that.
Jean Howard (Michigan)
Yes! This is a ruling that supports women and the right to control their own bodies. Hopefully it will help other states to stop even thinking of adding more unnecessary restrictions on a procedure that should be a personal decision between a woman and her physician.
Hillary Clinton's response to this ruling was spot-on: this is a "victory for women." Republican legislators spend public time writing laws around women's bodies and try to control women alone for making basic medical choices for themselves. Thumbs up to the 5 Justices protecting women and to a President Hillary Clinton upholding women's rights.
daddy mom (boston, ma)
What is wrong with TX? Really.

School Board denies books with evolution, makes Moses honorary founding father. You can carry a gun into Applebee's but if you're seeking a legal abortion look out.

Federal judges had to strike down TX anti-gay laws as well.

Rick Perry. George Bush.

Last in diplomas, last in mental health spending...what's up Lone Star?
Brenda Wallace (MA)
Texas is using the historically available ways to lower the minority population in the state, and raise the white. Look at the clinics to be closed. In majority white and or wealthier parts. Many around big cities where there are more poor and minorities. Schools are poorer. LBGT are hated so band together, in cities. Time to break up Texas into more handle able sizes. Let all the pieces stay territories for 1 or 2 hundred years, for retraining as true Americans. Make 2/3 of the mini states Hispanic majority. Anyone wants to leave must immigrate legally through their territory. They will not be citizens of the USA automatically. Then at least they will have had a touch of what they do to others.
jb (ok)
Brenda, your angers are clear in these comments. But I ask of you that you consider how many good people are in the places and the groups that you are willing to lump together as evil. And that your ideas about dictating to people in a democratic republic based on your opinions of those groups are actually cruel in themselves. I do believe your heart is in the right place; but your unrestrained angers and judgments are wrong, and that spirit is the opposite of what we need as a nation (and as human beings together) now.
Anonymous (USA)
The fact this case had to get to the Supreme Court is sad, but I am thankful for a rational decision. We need to stop letting people use their religion to make decisions for the citizens of this country. One can only hope that as a people we make the right choice in November and elect Hillary.
Brenda Wallace (MA)
Please show the respect everyone does to Trump. Call her Clinton, or Ms Clinton. Unless you know her personally and she has given you permission to call her permission. I guess insulting names seem to be ok now too, but, it's the Trumpaneezes who do that. And other bigots.
Maria Bucur (Bloomington, Indiana, USA)
I am so thankful for Obama's decision to appoint more women to the Supreme Court. There is no doubt that without them, this decision would have gone down differently. And then there is the 'wild card' of Justice Kennedy, who has been listening to the evidence with an open mind. Thank goodness for that. Now we can start digging ourselves out of the shameful hole the GOP dug for all women over the past decade. As the UN has recognized recently, women in the US face discrimination that no other developed country legislates any longer: . We are twentieth in the world in terms of gender parity. We can and need to do better.
KMW (New York City)
This is devastating news. As a pro-life woman, I am very disheartened to learn that there will not be safeguards put on abortion clinics in Texas. This is so upsetting to hear that so many abortion clinics will remain open and that innocent babies will be lost to the terrible effects of abortion.

Of course, there is always hope that abortion will be overturned some day and that we prolifers will not not stop until we see this occur. We cannot risk losing more babies to this ghastly and sickening procedure. We have already seen over 50 million infants die from this horrendous act and we do not need any more to do. I will be sending a donation to my pro life group and be doing more volunteer work to see the devastation end. I want to see babies live and have a chance at life. That is our utmost goal.
LHan (NJ)
KMW complains only that "babies" will be "killed" and doesn't even attempt to defend the tommyrot of "protecting the health of the mother" by having wider hallways. Since abortion is the law of the land, it is equally pathetic that three justices still pretend they are protecting mothers.
A2er (Ann Arbor, MI)
Why not adopt one of the many babies up for adoption?
idnar (Henderson)
Perhaps you ought to direct your efforts to making sure the children already alive are taken care of. I think it is sickening to bring children into this world who will not be loved and cherished.
S. Bliss (Albuquerque)
Bless Anthony Kennedy. Back to being deciding vote.

Want money out of politics? The Supremes can reverse Citizens United, that's the only way it'll get done. That makes this election so important.
Vanessa Hall (Millersburg MO)
Thank you Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. If it's not your womb it's not your problem. Patriarchal condescension and its spermal supremacy will not be tolerated.
Chantel Archambault (Charlottesville, VA)
Pregnancy is a health issue.

It is not a religious issue, nor is it to be politicized.

It is a HEALTH issue.

Maureen (New York)
Welcome news for women. Welcome news for all Americans. Welcome news for people, like me, who believe that a woman Has the right to make her own healthcare decisions. Good news for Americans who believe Roe v Wade was based on sound Constitutional principles - and cannot be gutted by self serving politicos.
Nailadi (Connecticut)
While this ruling will definitely be a pleasing outcome to Abortion Rights groups and will be much derided by the Conservative divisions, what is most visibly at play with this and other recent rulings is that when the High Court bench is less packed with ideologues, the resulting decisions seem to be more embracing of the overall diversity that defines current day America. Future leaders elect will be wise to notice this trend for their political legacy is usually enshrined in the rulings that are upheld as opposed to divisive measures that get rejected. Too much is made of appointing judges that adhere to one philosophy or the other and not enough to those who might adjudicate sensible judgments. There is little point in nominating judges who simply reflect the opinions of a given political party. That endeavor hardly provides an assurance of maintaining appropriate checks and balances.
Roy Lowenstein (Columbus, Ohio)
So unless Republicans take over the government this fall and put more right-wingers on the Court, we have finally defeated this strategy and we have given the "undue burden" idea some teeth. The pro-lifers will find other strategies though. They are never going to give up.
Patricia Ryan (Austin, TX)
Everyone should know that former Governor Rick Perry's sister has ownership in the type of ambulatory clinics that were mandated in SB 2 when he signed that bill. This is a very good day for us Texans!!!
Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent in which he opined that today's decision "would mystify lower courts for years to come." Excuse me, Justice Thomas, but do you not respect the highest court? Is the Supreme Court not supposed to be the arbiter of upholding the Constitution? How many people must be deprived of their Constitutional protections before Thomas stops washing his hands of professional obligations and finally puts aside his personal beliefs in favor of the law?
Tom (California)
I didn't know he could write... He certainly can't think or reason...
soxared040713 (Crete, Illinois)
@NM, NY: Clarence Thomas is the disaster we all get when Republicans get to the White House. Only Geo. H. W. Bush knows what legal lights he saw in this complete failure of a jurist. Tomas de Torquemada in blackface... and I say this as an African-American.
Jasr (NH)
The decision is a mystery only to Clarence Thomas.
soxared040713 (Crete, Illinois)
Mitch McConnell: How's an eight-member Court working for you now? How can you be sure how a Justice Garland would have voted? There are *no* guarantees.
terry brady (new jersey)
Restricting abortions is like outlawing toilet paper as everyone uses the paper and abortion is more common than house flies. Figuring the facts of over fifty million abortion so far means that there are 100 million people that are the two sides of the abortion coin. From that 100 million each had a mother and father adding another 200 million very close relatives, and if my math is correct that's very close to an American universe making everyone genetically complicit and thereby as common as a house fly. Abortion is akin to taking aspirin or belching.
sarasotaliz (Sarasota)
My dear, for you to say that "abortion is akin to taking aspirin or belching" simply means that you've never had to face that decision.
Trust me, buddy, it ain't that simple.

("Taking aspirin or belching" my...eye.)
Tim Smith (Palm Beach, FL)
I am personally opposed to abortion. But since I don't have a uterus, what I have to say matters little. I am happy that the Court struck down the Texas law. In fact, I think the Court should just, as a general rule, strike down any law from Texas that comes before it. I'm in my 50s, and hope I live to see a day when middle aged and old white men aren't calling the shots for millions of people that they aren't. I hope that in the not too distant future, no legislator thinks wasting time trying to suppress women's, LGBTQ, poverty-stricken, Latino, or African-American rights is a worthwhile pursuit. While it's a good day for women's access to healthcare, it's just a day, and the zealots will be back.
manfred marcus (Bolivia)
Although most of us would love to see the need for abortion a thing of the past, and also know it is a most difficult decision under adverse circumstances, it is a constitutional right for women to choose (or not) abortion. And none of us, particularly men, have the right or claim moral superiority, to tell women what to do. Firstly, we are intimately involved (heard of unprotected sexual intercourse, by any chance?), and secondly, unable to bear the consequences of our act(s) in any shape or form physically speaking. So, lets stop our hypocritical stance...and shut up. Let us legislate in favor of the multiple yet unmet needs of society, and leave the 'abortion issue' were it belongs, in the privacy of women's mind and body to decide. Besides, this is a secular country, where religious meddling must stop, free to advance its dogma to willing believers only, and in the privacy of their own choice. Any legislator who, willingly or not, seeks to impose his/her own faith to the rest of us, ought to relinquish his call to duty and go home, where the 'joy' of his beliefs belong.
Li'l Lil (Houston)
For Roberts to put his religion before the law is a violation of separation of church and state. The late Governor Mario Cuomo of New York was in office at the time of Roe v. Wade. Gov. Cuomo was a devout Catholic, from a large devout Catholic family. He was educated in Catholic schools from kindergarten through graduation from St. John's University Law School. When he was asked what would he do about the new law he said he could not allow his personal, religious beliefs to obstruct or interfere with the new law. He said while he was personally opposed to abortion, he could not allow personal, religious beliefs to interfere with his duty as a public servant, which is to uphold the law of the land. This is the meaning of separation of church and state. The late Gov. Cuomo was a brilliant, reasoned man and was wanted for the Supreme Court, yet he felt a commitment to the people of New York. He was a man of integrity who knew his faith, the law, and government and knew the great importance of separation of church and state.
Mike (NYC)
It's nice to see that Roe v. Wade continues to prevail in the USA, even in Texas.

If you are anti-abortion don't have one and stop telling people what to do insofar as reproduction goes.
Mark Lebow (Milwaukee, WI)
If you can't ban something you don't want, whether it is women seeking abortions or low-income voters, you pass a law that claims some other high and moral justification but which has the same result. Just like the Supreme Court struck down this law, so too should it strike down voter ID apart from registration.
Mike Iker (Mill Valley, CA)
So long as the GOP-controlled states try to outlaw abortions by cloaking their efforts in terms of medical necessities, the courts will need to be the evaluators of medical procedures and needs. It's obvious that neither the legislatures nor the courts have any actual expertise in these matters, but we live in an era of fact-free opinions and naked ideology driving lawmaking. It's a stupid situation for us to be in, but so long as the GOP is run by zealots, in this case anti-abortion zealots, stupid is what we will get.

If only the Supreme Court to see the issue of religious necessities with equal clarity, we couldn't have stupidities like Hobby Lobby being inflicted upon the women of America. And if they could see, or if they care, that voter-ID laws are equally ideological and equally devoid of a factual foundation, maybe the citizens of our country would actually be assured of their right to vote and we might have less GOP stupidity to fight off.

The stakes could not be higher this November. Vote for candidates who will preserve your rights.
Peter Rant (Bellport)
The answer here is obvious, abortion clinics everywhere should also sell guns. No self respecting Republican hack would ever want to close down another clinic. The NRA would be out in front picketing for them to stay open. "It's in the Constitution!" Even Roberts, Thomas, and Alito would have to agree, "Can't get rid of a gun store! It's American!"

And, Gail Collins, when you see this comment I want you to steal it. I do, however, want attribution.
Lindsey (Burlington, VT)
So immensely happy the Supreme Court went this direction; actually brings tears to my eyes. They're mostly happy tears, but also sad and angry. Sad and angry because we women STILL have to expend so much of our collective energy fighting for basic healthcare and for control over our bodies when that should be a settled issue. We should be able to direct ourselves towards other pressing issues of the day: mass incarceration, climate change, economic inequality, etc., but instead we are constantly forced to return to the same issue again and again. But today I'll focus on happiness & relief that the court saw through the ridiculousness.
GreaterMetropolitanArea (NNJ)
Big relief. Reasonable access to a legal procedure was the obvious point. For our top justices to have accepted the patently false and opportunistic arguments of the side pressing to close the clinics for specious reasons would have been a terrible thing. Nevertheless, this should have been unanimous.
charlesbalpha (Atlanta)
So how many laws have been overturned on the grounds that they contradict the "constitutional right to an abortion" ? This "right" is mentioned nowhere in the constitution and is just a legal fiction to block laws the Court doesn't like.
NSH (Chester)
The right is not the right to abortion which as you point out is not in the constitution it is the right to bodily integrity (what was in another era covered by the term privacy, not a legal term we understand today). The constitution is very, very clear on the right to bodily integrity. It specifies the extremely limited instances in which the state has the right to abrogate that right, the draft, incarceration (but only after due process) and jury duty. There are some threat to life and health issues in regards to mental competence/safety that also abrogate it but that is a rigorous legal process. Thus, people have been playing fast and loose with woman's right to bodily integrity. The constitution is also quite clear on who gets citizenship rights--those born in the United States--thus being born is privileged above being merely conceived. It is a legal marker in the constitution (as it is in some religions).
Texas Feminist (Dallas)
As a resident of Texas, I have a front row seat to the right-wing ridiculousness that passes as normal here. But today paternalism and misogyny LOST!!! Forced birthers need to accept defeat and leave Texas women alone. Hard to believe that in 2016 there is still such open hatred of women and women's rights, but it's real life for those of us unfortunate enough to live in the state that elected Ted Cruz to the US Senate.
reader (Maryland)
"signed into law in July 2013 by Rick Perry"

Did we need to know anything more? The very same that said supporting Trump is a no-brainer. Exactly.
Michael B (New Orleans)
Were Texas legislators sincerely interested in "protecting women's health." they would have long ago have limited Texas men's access to lethal weapons. A law requiring a domestic partner's consent for purchase and ownership of a lethal weapon would go far in this regard.
Michael B (New Orleans)
And additionally, the Texas legislators would have provided for universal pre- and post-natal care for mothers and their children.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Oh, but that would require money from the state, and consequently labeled "too much government interference." If it costs the state money, they don't want to do it -- unless it involves giving subsidies to wealthy "free-market" capitalists.
Annie Dooley (Georgia)
If these kinds of restrictions on gun ownership were advocated "in the interest of gun owners' safety," there would be a revolution. Let's see. Guns must be stored in heavy combination-locked metal safes permanently affixed to a structural element of the owner's house to prevent theft and use of the gun against the owner by a home invader or mentally incompetent or drug/alcohol-influenced family member. Guns carried on the owner's person must have technology permitting only the owner to activate the trigger to prevent an assailant from wresting the gun from the owner and using it against him. All in the interest of the protecting the gun owner. Of course.
Charles W. (NJ)
"Guns carried on the owner's person must have technology permitting only the owner to activate the trigger to prevent an assailant from wresting the gun from the owner and using it against him"

And will such laws also apply to the police and our Dear Leader's Secret Service goons or just to "ordinary people"? If these so called "smart guns" are that reliable why aren't they being used by the corrupted creatures of the corrupt government?
C Wolfe (Bloomington IN)
So, Charles W., your problem with gun regulation is that you want to be prepared for a shootout with the police or Secret Service, and you want to make sure you're armed as well as they? Does that mean you're also willing to undergo training as extensive as theirs before being allowed to carry a weapon?

Anyway, thanks for clarifying what gun extremists really imagine themselves defending against.

The gun comparison is apt here: the right is thrilled to enable anyone with a temper, grudge, fanatical cause or loose screw to obtain a gun without restriction and to kill dozens in a spray of bullets, but when it comes to a woman choosing to remove a fetus from her body (that in some cases would never be viable due to developmental issues), then suddenly they're all about protecting a merely potential life. Mind-boggling.
letter writer (CA)
I think you are missing her point, which is that currently such laws are rejected and seen as an attempt to restrict gun ownership, not protect gun owners from accidental injury. But the same folks who want to protect gun ownership over gun owners have the hypocrisy to pretend that TRAP laws are meant to protect women, not restrict access to abortion.
Darcey (Philly)
NYTimes: "The lower courts are divided over whether they must accept lawmakers’ assertions about the health benefits of abortion restrictions or instead determine whether the assertions are backed by evidence."

To maintain needed separation of powers, and give validity to the vote, courts are restrained, correctly, from evaluating legislation for "accuracy and reality". Meaning the law was democratically passed and a court should not get involved.

But if the clear intent of the legislation is to merely stop abortions and not protect the mother as Texas claims, and it has no rational basis in fact, science, medicine or reality, how can any legitimate court with a straight face allow such a law to stand.

If we are so concerned with procedure, such that we allow medicine-free substantive laws to stand, we are doomed. Style over substance is wrong.
If only anti-abortion politicians would put some effort into promoting constructive things that would help reduce the need for abortion, like access to contraception and sex ed, instead of trying to criminalize a basic medical procedure.
NSH (Chester)
Amen. We have so much better and more effective contraception these days that non-health related abortions can easily become a true rarity for women and girls.

The numbers are already going down as it is, why not really ensure it?

Because of course this isn't about the welfare of the fetus but the sexual freedom of the woman in question.
Socrates (Downtown Verona, NJ)
The Grand Uterine Party receives another valuable lesson in Constitutional law, women's rights, privacy and human decency.

Bye-bye, Christian Sharia Law, and thanks for playing American Justice.

Have a good trip back to the 4th century.
Peter (New York)
I recognize that there are honorable people who oppose abortion, but this legal case was nothing more than a dishonest effort under the guise of protecting women's health, to advance the anti-choice position. Three Supreme Court justices couldn't get beyond their own personal prejudices and ruled in favor of restrictions that defied fundamental logic. What a sad example of judicial partisanship.that seems more and more inescapable.
William Case (Texas)
Abortion clinics are difficult to finance in portions of Texas that border Mexico because women who need an abortion simply cross the Rio Grande and purchase Misoprostol at Mexican pharmacies. Sold under the brand name Cytote, the drug is considered safe, doesn’t require a prescription, and is about 90 percent effective during the first two months of pregnancy. It is the standard method of inducing abortion in Mexico. American abortion doctors sometimes pair it with the drug mifepristone to produce a “medical abortion,” a method considered more effective than using misoprostol by itself. But Cytote is quicker and much cheaper—about $4.50 a pill—than a U.S. abortion clinic. There’s no waiting period or sonogram. It’s also more anonymous. The women often just send their husband or boyfriend to fetch the pills, which can also be purchased at flea markets on the U.S. side. Cytote is one reason there are few abortion clinics in South Texas. The more effective pills used to induce “medical abortions” rather than “surgical abortions” in U.S. abortion clinics should be available over the counter at U.S. pharmacies.
Andy (Virginia)
So the argument is we should let Texas fanatics do whatever they please to burden women's constitutional rights because they can go to Mexico for services? I am suddenly picturing a lot of women trying to climb over President Trump's "big beautiful wall" and facing prosecution if they manage to return.
Jon Dama (Charleston, SC)
In other words - as far as actual effect - Court this decision is much about little.
William Case (Texas)
No. I am saying that women should not have to go to a clinic to get abortion pill when they could buy them by then at a drug store for about $20.
Dr lalitos (Texas)
It is Interesting to see how people who have no clue about medicine make decisions about laws concerning medicine. As a physician, those provisions placed in Texas seem fair, and were placed with patient safety in mind. I ask to why should abortion clincs be substandard for patient safety?
Arman (Irvine, CA)
Maybe because these laws did nothing to protect a woman's health. Texas legislators have in the past shown no particular interest in a woman's health; why now, for the first time? Organizations that have shown an interest in women's health, AMA and ACOG, among others, have said that these laws do nothing to advance women's health. I, too, am a physician. Having admitting privileges does nothing for a woman's health. Having standards for a surgical center for a minor medical procedure does nothing for a woman's health. No, these were not "fair" and had nothing to do with "patient safety". Instead of asking why should abortion clinics be substandard, maybe you should ask why other procedures significantly more dangerous than abortion don't have similar requirements. The reason? Because Texas legislators only wanted to get rid of abortion.
Phil (ABQ,NM)
You are a physician, yet unaware of the rates of serious complications of abortion compared to other procedures that are performed in clinics that are not subject to these requirements? Are you this considered about oral surgery, which is far more dangerous?
It's people with no clue about the practice of medicine that came up with these restrictions in the first place. In what possible way does requiring a physician to have hospital admitting privileges increase patient safety?
Matt (upstate NY)
I am a physician as well. Your statement that the clinics need to have these restrictions for patient safety is disingenuous, and you surely know it (unless you are perhaps not a medical doctor, which makes your post misleading at best). This was a blatant attempt, admitted by many with a " wink, wink, nod, nod) to skirt Roe v. Wade.
cdawson65 (Ithaca, NY)
I am glad for this decision. Now if we could get to the real issue:

Rather than fighting it out over how permissive or restrictive state abortion laws should be, advocates on both sides of the fight should be working where they share common ground. Good-hearted, well-meaning people from both sides should put down their placards, turn down their volumes, and get to work on reducing the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. Women and girls should get good information about how pregnancies happen. They should also have access to affordable, safe, and effective birth control. If we can reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy, we can reduce the number of abortions carried out each year. From a peak during the Reagan years, the rate of abortion in the US has dropped considerably--especially during the Obama years. Let's look at what is working rather than passing ever more restrictive laws that get overturned, but in the meantime do real damage to real women.
Minnie (Paris)
How about targeting men and boys with education and "blame" ? They are the ones who do the impregnating. Enough with blaming women alone for becoming pregnant - they can't get pregnant without sperm.
Andy (Virginia)
Unfortunately, reason is lost on this crowd. The real issue for the hard right is not really abortion, it is their fear of women's sexual freedom. If women can live like men, then white male privilege is doomed. They will never agree to compromise. Women must know that power and freedom are never given. They have to be taken.
Chantel Archambault (Charlottesville, VA)
Why are you holding women alone responsible for pregnancy?
Garrett Clay (San Carlos, CA)
Laws follow public opinion, nothing more. If they don't revolution follows. Don't thank anyone, change public opinion if you want laws to change. The Supreme Court is nothing more than theater, put on to impress us.
Sasha Love (Austin TX)
This is a great day to celebrate women's right to choose in the not so great state of Texas.
Jim (NYC)
The Supreme Court ruled added requirements of the Texas abortion law does not provide benefits sufficient to justify the burden imposed? Really? Wouldn't that call into question just about every regulation that the government has imposed? What about the regulation of guns? We have a constitutional right to bear arms, don't we? If you think access to abortion in Texas is tough, try getting a gun permit in NYC. But that's ok, because we're for abortion, but against guns, right? Over regulation has affected every industry from nuclear energy to air travel, but I don't see the court over-turning these laws/regulations any time soon. Big government and over regulation have made just about everything more expensive, less productive, and more bureaucratic, often will very little "bang for the buck". Has the court just set a precedence to overturn other laws and regulations that they DO agree with politically?
Suz (NOLA)
Typical right wing rant. They're against government imposition into everything except women's control of their own reproductive lives.
Garrett Clay (San Carlos, CA)
If you don't like regulation move to Somalia, it's a scarce resource there. Mankind has a long record of despoiling the commons, going back past the last Ice Age (seen any woolly mammoths lately), without regulation the powerful do whatever they want. And ever other organism, each with the right to an unfettered existence same as us, suffers.
If we don't have birth control overpopulation will destroy this planet in very short order. Quit pretending there is an angry bearded old man in the sky who tells us how to live, that's so 14th century.
Waggtail (Knoxville,TN)
Good for the Court (actually, good for Justice Kennedy)! I think it is time for Texans and the US to consider a Texit referendum. Surely both sides would be happier with an amicable divorce.
anon (Boston)
A victory for women, and for Rule of Law. It sends a message -- and hopefully sets a strong precedent -- that State legislatures may not nullify Federal court Decisions by creating laws under transparently false pretext for the purpose of undermining Federal authority.
Charles (NYC)
The anti-abortion argument placing clinic restrictions was "to protect the safety of the women." When they then insisted that, for abortions after 20 weeks, anesthesia was required, it was "so that the fetus won't feel pain."
Anesthesia increases the danger to the woman.
It's mendacity. Period.
Allison (Austin, TX)
Oh, happy day!

Those of us in Texas who watched these sanctimonious hypocrites in the legislature argue that they were "protecting" women from "dangerous" clinic infractions -- such as not having walls wide enough to push a gurney down a short hallway (when most women seeking abortions never even have to see a gurney during a procedure) -- are celebrating. But we're also disgusted, because these are the same hypocrites who refuse to expand Medicaid in the state, helping to ensure that Texas ranks first in the number of residents without health insurance -- 25.7%, according to the Texas Medical Association.

So much for caring about people's health. Let's get rid of these pietistic phonies, Texas!
Melissa Scully (San Antonio, TX)
Sometimes being Texan is very, very frightening. It's a bit less scary today. Many thanks to the SCOTUS for some adult supervision.
James (Hartford)
Totally agree with the ruling. Backdoor state laws circumventing federal precedent should be quashed.

But, also, it is important to note that no Supreme Court opinion can ever establish the medical justification of any procedure. It is still an open question whether abortions themselves offer sufficient medical benefit to justify offering them to patients.

Not a question for the Supreme Court--just an important question.
SMB (Savannah)
Every major medical group supports the option of abortions for women as necessary health. That includes the AMA, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other groups that strongly oppose these restrictive laws.
Allen S. (Atlanta)
Abortions are not generally intended to provide medical benefits, they are intended to prevent an unwanted birth. When Roe vs. Wade was decided, it was on the basis of weighing the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy against the right of society to protect the rights of the incipient child. In resolving that issue, the Court was not concerned with any medical benefits. There is no requirement of medical benefit to perform elective plastic surgery, to having a vasectomy or tubal ligation, or to having a wart removed. Doctors have ethical and legal obligations to eschew useless procedures that present significant risk, but in most cases it is the well-informed patient who makes the choice.

I understand you are speaking more about medical ethics than of laws and constitutions, but if doctors otherwise willing are prohibited by their professional organizations from performing abortions, the issue will become a legal one in a hurry. I would imagine we would hear about all sorts of expensive procedures doctors perform routinely without being concerned about medical necessity or the fear of professional sanction.
George (Michigan)
There is an unreality approaching Orwellian dimensions when these laws are argued. Everyone--every legislator in Texas, every advocate on both sides, every judge on the Fifth Circuit that upheld the law, and every Justice on the Supreme Court--knows that the purpose of the law was to prevent abortions.

Mr. Liptak, because he is a journalist, could not phrase the issue in this case accurately: "must courts believe a stated motive for a law when they are certain it is a conscious lie?"
We are increasingly reminded of the Supreme Court's immediacy in our lives. Vote for a President who will nominate Justices that believe in our rights and vote for Senators who won't obstruct filling the Supreme Court.
Vote for Hillary. Sanders is done.
See also