The Supreme Court this week delivered its strongest affirmation of a women鈥檚 right to abortion in two and a half decades. By a margin of 5-3, it struck down two key provisions of a Texas law restricting the procedure.
But where does the decision in fit into the court鈥檚 long history of outlining abortion rights and restrictions? And what impact might the case have on similar laws in other states and this fall鈥檚 elections? Here are five insights about the case that provide some context:
1. It鈥檚 the first big win for supporters of abortion rights in a long time.
The last time abortion rights forces were on the winning side of a big case at the Supreme Court was 16 years ago, when a 5-4 ruling in struck down a Nebraska law banning a specific procedure abortion opponents called 鈥減artial birth abortion.鈥� That win was effectively reversed in 2007, however, when the court upheld a similar federal law banning the same procedure, also on a 5-4 ruling, in . The substance had changed little, but the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O鈥機onnor with Justice Samuel Alito in 2006 gave abortion opponents an extra vote, which was enough to change the outcome.
After Monday鈥檚 decision, many abortion foes complained that there were few restrictions on abortion that would pass muster with the high court. But, in fact, in the years since the court first legalized abortion nationwide in in 1973, about half the major cases have been clear wins for abortion opponents, including upholding state laws requiring , , and to pay for abortions.
2. It will put pro-abortion rights forces on offense for the first time in years.
Since Republicans took over Congress and most state legislatures after the 2010 elections, states have enacted ; the most in any five-year period since Roe v. Wade was decided. Many of those were the same types of that were struck down by the Supreme Court this week. Those laws include requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and requiring abortion clinics to meet the standards of facilities performing more involved surgical procedures.
The justices have already responded to petitions from some states with similar laws. Just a day after handing down the Texas ruling, they rejected appeals from , where physician admitting privilege laws had been blocked by lower court judges. Those laws are now permanently blocked. Officials in also dropped their defense of a similar law.
But the decision does not automatically invalidate similar laws in other states because the impact of such statutes is different in every community. For example, what may amount to an 鈥渦ndue burden鈥� in Texas because of the sheer size of the state might not be so burdensome in states with clinics closer together.
In states where lower court judges have already blocked laws, those blocks are almost certain to remain in place. But in other states opponents of the restrictions will have to work to overturn each law individually.
They say that is exactly what they plan to do. 鈥淲e will now will take this fight state by state to challenge and repeal laws all across the country,鈥� Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards told reporters in a conference call immediately after the ruling.
Planned Parenthood announced on Thursday that it would pursue efforts to block or repeal similar laws in eight states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia.
Abortion-rights supporters are also taking aim at some long-standing abortion restrictions in federal law. The that will be finalized at the party鈥檚 nominating convention in late July includes a plan calling for the repeal of the , which has banned most federal abortion funding since 1977. That provision was by presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton鈥檚 campaign, noting that it represents the first time such an explicit vow has been included.
3. Abortion opponents are not giving up.
While the latest Supreme Court ruling was definitely a setback for abortion foes, they are not giving up. For one thing, of state legislatures and governorships, and that鈥檚 unlikely to change following this year鈥檚 national elections.
鈥淎mericans United for Life will continue to fight 鈥斅爄n legislatures and in the courts 鈥斅爐o protect women from a dangerous and greedy abortion industry,鈥� said AUL Acting President and Senior Counsel Clarke Forsythe. Americans United for Life has been at the forefront of restricting access to abortion.
The anti-abortion movement has a much larger menu to choose from than the two issues the high court addressed. For example, many states (including Texas) have passed or are considering . Many of those bans are being but none has yet reached the Supreme Court. Other popular restrictions include requiring pregnant women to have ultrasounds before an abortion, to make multiple visits to an abortion provider, and banning the use of聽 for medical (as opposed to surgical) abortions using the abortion pill Mifepristone.
Abortion opponents say they are not giving up on pursuing health and safety standards like the ones struck down in Texas, either. 鈥淭his issue of safety standards is not over,鈥� said Marilyn Musgrave, vice president of government affairs at the anti-abortion group, the Susan B. Anthony List.
Even some similar laws could pass muster if they are crafted carefully enough, said Kristi Hamrick, a spokeswoman for Americans United for Life. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 have a one-size-fits-all bill to send to the 50 states,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he law is specific and so the tools must be too.鈥�
4. It might shake up national politics.
Both sides in the long-polarized abortion debate are already pointing to the case in an effort to mobilize their supporters.
鈥淭his certainly makes the November presidential election even more critical,鈥� said Musgrave of the Susan B. Anthony List. 鈥淚t is so obvious that we need to elect a pro-life president.鈥�
On the opposite side, Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, concurs. The decision 鈥渦nderscores what the election means for Supreme Court jurisprudence,鈥� she said. With one vacancy already on the court and others likely in the next four years, she said, 鈥渞eproductive freedom is very much on the ballot this November.鈥�
Hillary Clinton鈥檚 campaign hailed the decision. 鈥淲e need a president who will defend women鈥檚 health and rights and appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law,鈥� said a statement from the candidate.
And while presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump鈥檚 campaign was silent on the issue in the immediate aftermath of the decision, Musgrave said abortion opponents are confident he is on their side. 鈥淪ay what you will about Donald Trump, his commitment to nominate pro-life justices 鈥斅營鈥檝e never seen another candidate do that,鈥� she said.
5. The younger generation will have a lot to say about the future of abortion rights.
Among the many things the two sides in the abortion debate disagree about is how the younger generation feels about abortion. Polls tend to differ dramatically depending on how the question is asked.
Musgrave says, 鈥淥ur polling shows more and more millennials are pro-life, particularly when you look at things like 20-week (abortion) bans.鈥�
But Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood, says they are seeing the exact opposite 鈥斅爐hat younger women are more supportive of abortion rights. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e so social justice oriented,鈥� she said.
And Laguens says that coming , including a more diverse electorate that could tilt Democratic, are a main reason for the recent spike in anti-abortion legislating.
鈥淭hey feel it slipping away,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey can see the demographics, too, and they want to lock this stuff in.鈥�