Just weeks after the death of pro-life Justice Antonin Scalia, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up one of the most important abortion cases in recent history by limiting just how far states can go when regulating abortion clinics.

The Associated Press is reporting on the case known as Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt which will attempt to repeal a Texas law that would impose new regulations on the state’s abortion clinics. These regulations include requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and to meet the same health standards as other outpatient or ambulatory surgical centers.

Although these requirements seem to be common sense, abortion politics has allowed many U.S. clinics to operate under sub-standard conditions, such as the clinic operated by the infamous Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia.

In addition to being convicted in 2013 of the first-degree murder of three infants born alive after an abortion, Gosnell was also convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of a young woman who was just barely alive after a botched abortion when medics arrived at the filthy clinic. They struggled to extricate the dying woman from a building with hallways too narrow for gurneys and a locked back door for which no one could find a key.

The Gosnell case caused many states to enforce tough new laws requiring abortion clinics to meet the same safety standards as other outpatient clinics and Texas enacted some of the toughest in the nation.

Abortion providers routinely dismiss these laws as attempts to limit women’s access to abortion. In fact, they have dubbed the Lone Star state’s new law as “the Texas clinic shutdown law” because 22 of 41 clinics in Texas have closed since it was passed in 2013.

Challengers of the law are hoping to win the majority of justices to their side, based on the 1992 precedent that requires the high court to strike down any law that imposes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion. Their case hinges on convincing the court that the law caused so many clinic closures in the state that women’s access to abortion has been severely curtailed.

However, as the state will argue today, not all of these clinics closed due to the law, such as five clinics that closed after the law was passed but before it went into effect.

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller told Reuters that the abortion providers’ characterization of the law’s impact is “revisionist history.”

The providers want the court “to infer that all facility closures” were caused by the law, Keller said. “The facts don’t bear that out.”

For instance, some shuttered as the result of budget cuts and aging abortionists.

Challengers will argue that even if other factors contributed to some closures, the law played at least some role.

Stephanie Toti, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represents the providers challenging the law, says that in some cases, clinic providers who knew the law was coming decided to close when their licenses expired rather than try to meet the costly new standards.

The key to the case will be the decision of Justice Anthony Kennedy. If he sides with the court’s liberal justices in a 5-3 ruling, which seems likely as he already sided with the liberal justices in having the law put on hold until the case is decided, the case would set a precedent for how far a state can go in imposing abortion restrictions.

If Kennedy sides with the conservative side of the bench, it would result in a 4-4 split. This would allow the lower court ruling to stand – which would mean upholding the law and allowing the state to put the new regulations into full effect.

However, an evenly divided court could also mean the justices will decide to rehear the case after a successor to Scalia is named. That may not be until 2017.

A decision in the case is expected by late June.

© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly®/Women of Grace®  http://www.womenofgrace.com