In her dorm at Otterbein University senior Carrie Coisman shows me the signs she’ll take to Washington. Blacks letters etched onto shiny white poster board spell the simple messages she’s hoping to get across: “Keep abortion safe” and “Ohioans for Texas.”
That last one she says, shows solidarity across state lines. After all, both states have similar laws that sharply regulate abortion. Wednesday, Coisman will join over a thousand pro-choice advocates from around the country for a rally outside the US Supreme Court; tonight she and several other Otterbein students will catch a charter bus.
“We’re not staying anywhere, so we’ll be driving all night and then going to the protest at 8 a.m. at the Supreme Court,” said Coisman.“Then as soon as it’s over, we’re heading back home. So it’s going to be a whirlwind of a trip.”
Coisman wants to be there for what many expect to be the biggest Supreme Court case on the issue of abortion in 24 years. Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, will examine laws in Texas that regulate how abortion providers operate. The clinic wants to annul the laws that mandates all health centers that offer abortions, comply with requirements for Ambulatory Surgical Centers in Texas.
This means that clinics must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their location. That law has proved hard for many clinics, namely those that are isolated rural areas. Since these laws were enacted in 2013, about half of the state’s 40 abortion clinics have been forced to close.
In Ohio there are similar laws. Abortion clinics must have a transfer agreement with a nearby hospital, but Ohio law also says public hospitals cannot have transfer agreements with abortion clinics, and Catholic hospitals refuse to grant them. As a result the laws have shuttered at least four clinics. Planned Parenthood’s Nicole Evans says these regulations are really aimed at stopping abortion.
“It’s a safe medical procedure and so there’s no need for a doctor to have admitting privileges,” said Evans. “There’s no need for all these unnecessary steps.”
Abortion opponents, like Mike Gonidakis at Ohio Right to Life, argue that these laws are in place for a reason.
“Regardless if you’re pro-life or pro-choice, it is a surgical procedure,” said Gonidakis. “So should abortion clinics have a loophole in our state’s regulatory scheme? Well the answer is no of course,” Gonidakis said.
Gonidakis will also travel to DC for the hearing. He says this case could define a much bigger issue: whether states have the right to regulate abortion services.
“Ohioans get to speak on this and Ohioans are different than those that live in Idaho than those that like in California,” said Gonidakis. “So each state should be able to set their own policies.”
OSU Law professor Ruth Colker, says the impact of this decision will really come down to how the court defines “undue Burden” stated in the landmark 1992 Supreme Court case of Casey V. Planned Parenthood
“So the question in this case is whether these kinds of regulations conflict with that re-understanding of Roe and Casey,” said Colker. “Whether these are an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose terminate her pregnancy.”
If the justices strike down the Texas laws, Ohio laws could be challenged, but Colker said with the recent passing of Justice Scalia, she doesn’t think that’s likely to happen.
“So it’s of potential dramatic importance, but I’m not going to hold my breath. I just don’t think the court’s going to be inclined with only eight members to do something dramatic right now,” Coker explained.
And if the ruling is a 4-4 tie the lower court decision stays in place and the Texas and Ohio laws remain unchanged.
