POV: SCOTUS Exposes the TRAP Laws Charade
Wendy Mariner considers the Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt decision “a victory for reproductive rights” in this opinion piece for BU Today.
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt finally took women and their reproductive health seriously. After decades of simply accepting legislative claims that laws restricting abortion services were intended to protect women, the court took off the blinders and faced reality. Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws, like the Texas law before the court (described here), are promoted by abortion opponents and designed not to protect women’s health, but rather to reduce and discourage abortion services. They do not improve the safety of medical procedures. They make it more difficult for women to access reproductive health care.
This has been obvious to public health and medical professionals. When Justices Thurgood Marshall and Harry Blackmun were on the court, they reminded their brethren of how their legal decisions could work hardships on the most vulnerable, especially the poor and women of color. But in recent decades, in the rarified air of the Supreme Court, debate has been couched in doctrinal abstractions, and the real world effects of legislation have rarely been considered.