{
  "id": "R44205",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44205",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 454719,
      "date": "2016-07-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:41:18.271778",
      "title": "Abortion and Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt",
      "summary": "In Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt, the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) invalidated two Texas requirements that applied to abortion providers and physicians who perform abortions. Under a Texas law enacted in 2013, a physician who performs or induces an abortion was required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the location where the abortion was performed or induced. In general, admitting privileges allow a physician to transfer a patient to a hospital if complications arise in the course of providing treatment. The Texas law also required an abortion facility to satisfy the same standards as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). These standards address architectural and other structural matters, as well as operational concerns, such as staffing and medical records systems. Supporters of the Texas law maintained that the requirements would guarantee a higher level of care for women seeking abortions. Opponents, however, characterized the requirements as unnecessary and costly, and argued that they would make it more difficult for abortion facilities to operate.\nIn Hellerstedt, the Court concluded that the admitting privileges and ASC requirements placed a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking an abortion, and imposed an undue burden on the ability to have an abortion. In applying the undue burden standard that is now used to evaluate abortion regulations, the Court explained that a reviewing court must consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits that are conferred by the law. The Court also indicated that courts should place considerable weight on the evidence and arguments presented in judicial proceedings when they consider the constitutionality of abortion regulations.\nHellerstedt has been recognized both for its impact in Texas and for its perceived refinement of the undue burden standard. Because at least 25 states are believed to have either an admitting privileges or ASC requirement, Hellerstedt is expected to have an impact in other jurisdictions. This report examines Hellerstedt and discusses how the decision might affect the application of the undue burden standard in future abortion cases.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44205",
          "sha1": "8fd3d2287973d1da9ad77273993ac0f61cd3193f",
          "filename": "files/20160726_R44205_8fd3d2287973d1da9ad77273993ac0f61cd3193f.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44205",
          "sha1": "4ca4ac1cbe7f6caabd4163432c488e45db318baa",
          "filename": "files/20160726_R44205_4ca4ac1cbe7f6caabd4163432c488e45db318baa.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4846,
          "name": "Civil Rights & Liberties"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4848,
          "name": "Abortion & Family Planning Services"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 451199,
      "date": "2016-03-28",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:52:57.532761",
      "title": "Abortion and Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt",
      "summary": "Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case that is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, involves the validity of two state law provisions that apply to abortion providers and physicians who perform abortions. Under a Texas law enacted in 2013, a physician who performs or induces an abortion must have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles from the location where the abortion is performed or induced. In general, admitting privileges allow a physician to transfer a patient to a hospital if complications arise in the course of providing an abortion. The Texas law also requires an abortion facility to satisfy the same standards as an ambulatory surgical center (ASC). These standards address architectural and other matters related to the physical plant, as well as operational matters such as staffing and medical records systems. Supporters of the Texas law maintain that both requirements guarantee a higher level of care for women seeking abortions. Opponents argue, however, that the requirements are unnecessary and costly, and contend that they will make it more difficult for abortion facilities to operate.\nFollowing an adverse decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit), Whole Woman\u2019s Health sought review by the Supreme Court. In seeking review of the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision, Whole Woman\u2019s Health asked not only about the validity of the admitting privileges and ASC requirements. The abortion provider also asked the Court to resolve a conflict between the Fifth Circuit and the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Ninth Circuits involving the application of the undue burden standard that is used to evaluate abortion regulations. This report examines Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Cole, the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision, as well as the undue burden standard, and the contrasting approaches used by the federal appellate courts to determine whether an abortion regulation imposes an undue burden on a woman\u2019s ability to have an abortion.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44205",
          "sha1": "3fafcfed51f6d40621064cc10b49d5215324cf1e",
          "filename": "files/20160328_R44205_3fafcfed51f6d40621064cc10b49d5215324cf1e.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44205",
          "sha1": "db19ee9559cc88b2cdd03672279c6eee2e8a89ec",
          "filename": "files/20160328_R44205_db19ee9559cc88b2cdd03672279c6eee2e8a89ec.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 3178,
          "name": "Abortion, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810309/",
      "id": "R44205_2015Sep25",
      "date": "2015-09-25",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "Abortion, Hospital Admitting Privileges, and Whole Woman\u2019s Health v. Cole",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20150925_R44205_02e6cfaf206ce747dfac874d08f3aede53792593.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20150925_R44205_02e6cfaf206ce747dfac874d08f3aede53792593.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Health Policy"
  ]
}