The Law Offices of David Simon

giving good people a second chance!

make sure you choose an attorney who understands the immigration consequences of your plea

Honored to join this exclusive group

Bad things happen to good people when alcohol is involved. If you or someone you know had an encounter with law enforcement this 4th of July weekend contact our firm at 619 356 8260 for a free consultation #wegetresults

**THE SUPREME COURT PROTECTS WOMEN’S ABORTION RIGHTS BY STRIKING DOWN TEXAS ABORTION ACCESS LAW** Today, the U.S. Supreme Court in Whole Woman’s Health, et al. ...v. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services, et al. (2016) 579 U.S. ___, issued a holding protecting women’s abortion rights by striking down two provisions of House Bill 2 (H. B. 2); a law enacted by the Texas Legislature in July 2013. The Court held that the law’s two provisions did not provide medical benefits sufficient to justify the burden imposed upon a woman’s access to abortions. Instead, the law created substantial obstacles in front of any woman seeking a previability abortion. Texas Law (H. B. 2): Two provisions were attacked. The first provision was the admitting-privileges requirement, which required any physician performing or inducing an abortion to have an active admitting privilege at a hospital not further than 30 miles from the abortion clinic on the date of service. The second provision was the surgical-center requirement, which required the abortion clinic to meet the minimum standards for ambulatory surgical centers under Texas Law. The majority held these provisions violated the Federal Constitution as interpreted in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Casey (1992) 505 U.S. 833 (Casey). In Casey, the Court concluded an undue burden exists on a woman’s right to decide to have an abortion. Consequently, a provision of law is unconstitutional if the purpose or effect of the provision is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. (Id. at 878.) The Casey decision was made by a plurality of the Court (meaning the majority of Justices agreed on the judgment but disagreed on the rationale supporting the judgment). Before the act’s passage, the evidence demonstrated abortions in Texas were extremely safe with particularly low rates of serious complications; and virtually no deaths occurred because of the procedure. There were also more than 40 licensed abortion facilities in Texas. This number dropped by almost half leading up to, and in the wake of, enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement in late-October 2013. Had the surgical-center provision been allowed to take effect September 1, 2014 then that number would have reduced to about 7-8 clinics in Texas. Approximately 5.4 million women of reproductive age in Texas live within a geographical area of nearly 280,000 square miles. Abortion clinics would exist in Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and the Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan region (one facility in Austin, two in Dallas, one in Fort Worth, two in Houston, and either one or two in San Antonio). The closure of so many clinics would result in less doctors, longer waiting times, and increased crowding; all to the detriment of a woman trying to exercise her right to choose. In fact, when the admitting-privileges provision became effective the number of women of reproductive age living in a county more than 150 miles from a provider increased from approximately 86,000 to 400,000; the number of women living in a county more than 200 miles away from a provider increased from approximately 10,000 to 290,000. The Court also found that requiring all abortion facilities to meet surgical center standards was not beneficial and unnecessary. It all created undue hardship. The provisions were detrimental to a woman’s health and right to choose. We are happy the U.S. Supreme Court voted to protect women’s rights.