Public Health in the Supreme Court
Policy makers, consultants, administrators, program evaluators, advocates, educators, and any number of other public health professionals may have to react to what could, in essence, be a dismantling of Roe v. Wade on March 2. At least, that was the case, until Justice Scalia died and left the Supreme Court short one conservative vote and open to a 4-4 split.
On Wednesday, the Court will hear the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case concerning a Texas law drafted to shut down women's health clinics that provide abortion services in the state. Some people might remember the law from the publicized filibuster by Senator Wendy Davis on June 26, 2013.
The law, enacted despite Senator Davis's efforts, places restrictive obligations on abortion providers in the state of Texas. Two provisions are at the center of this case: the first provision requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals; the second requires clinic facilities to meet standards equal to those of outpatient surgical centers.
In the past, the Court has split 5-4 on abortion cases with the conservative vote in the lead. With only eight sitting Justices, however, there could be a tie, meaning that the decision of the lower court would be upheld without a precedential ruling. If that happens, the issue is likely to come back to the Court when the bench is full.
The state and its supporters argue that laws like these ensure safety and protect women. On the other side, Whole Woman’s Health, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, holds that laws like these restrict access to abortion under claims of increased safety that are unsupported by evidence.
You can read more details about this case on SCOTUSblog, and the court will be deciding on whether these laws are constitutional—do laws like these actually promote and protect health as they are said to, or do they impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to choose?
Ultimately, this decision, however tenuous following Scalia’s death, will be about access. This is something we, as public health students, know a lot about. We know the effect that lack of access has in any health service and we understand the importance of improving access to mitigate disparities. We need only look at the amicus briefs written by Public Health Deans in Texas and the APHA to see how our colleagues and professional organizations feel about the subject.
Magda Schaler-Haynes, a Health Policy and Management professor who is a consultant to the Center for Reproductive Rights, says, “By studying public health law and landmark cases like Whole Woman’s Health, public health students can learn to lead the charge against false health claims in legislatures and courts.”
Following her call to action I, will be in attendance at the argument on Wednesday, March 2, and I will be ready to follow up on Mailman Student Voices with my thoughts and notes on the experience of watching a public health battle play out in front of me.
Supreme Court decisions like this one have an enormous impact on public health and we, as students across departments and as practitioners all over the field, should be paying more attention to the cases on the SCOTUS docket each year.
Some legal scholars believe that Justice Kennedy may side with Whole Woman’s Health in this case, voting to strike down the Texas law and call into question similar laws in other states. Only time will tell.
The highest court in the land is about to rule on access to care, something we all work to improve as practitioners of public health. It matters. And we should all be paying attention.
If you would like to contribute to Mailman Student Voices, please send a three to five-sentence pitch outlining your topic to mailmancomm@columbia.edu.