Let’s be charitable and say that state officials do not lie when they say what they are doing — but are just being selective for purposes of persuasion.
They want you to buy their version of the story. They’re like the folks at the car lot, trying to sell you a vehicle without talking about the scratches and other defects.
That’s why the sales pitch for 2013’s abortion restrictions emphasized women’s health. The Legislature passed a law that cut the number of abortions but camouflaged it as an effort to protect women seeking abortions.
Not everybody wanted to make it harder to obtain abortions — or to be seen doing so — but it was hard to argue against top-notch medical facilities that could benefit everyone involved. That was the easier way to sell it, an effort to make the debate something other than a straight-up fight over abortion.
Women have a constitutional right to abortions, if they want them, and Congress and the states are blocked from putting an “undue burden” on them that impedes their access and blocks that right.
The 2013 effort to circumvent what was spelled out over time by the U.S. Supreme Court would have been easier still with some study or some evidence, but that wasn’t part of the sales pitch.
The effects were clear, though, and became crystal clear — to the state, at least — when the statistics on abortion were compiled by health officials.
The statistics argue against the state’s interest in a case that was completed last week, when the U.S. Supreme Court declared two provisions of that 2013 state law unconstitutional.
The calming sales pitches of state legislators and other officials notwithstanding, the law did just what you might expect. If you close women’s health clinics, you shut down whatever those facilities were doing. Forcing women to travel longer distances for what are supposed to be widely accessible services means fewer women will get those services.
We all know this. It’s how marketplaces work. If you shut down half the clinics in Texas, you’re going to serve fewer patients.
Sure enough, regulating those centers out of business cut the number of legal abortions performed in Texas to 54,902 in 2014 from 63,849 in 2013, a 14 percent drop. The number of drug-induced abortions dropped 69.5 percent over the same period, to 4,938 from 16,189.
They don’t have any statistics that say the women in Texas got healthier as a result of the law — just that the only measurable effect was a lower number of abortions.
Surprise, surprise.
The voices in support of the new regulations came mostly from anti-abortion interests, according to the list of witnesses who testified at the time. Trade groups for hospitals and for obstetricians were against it. In its ruling striking down two key points of the statute, the U.S. Supreme Court said the law did nothing to protect women and that it might have actually increased their health risks.
The keepers of vital statistics in Texas were under orders, apparently, to stuff some of those statistics where the sunlight doesn’t shine, where the courts and the public can’t look.
Never mind. That’s old news now.
It’s even older news to state officials, which is worth thinking about.
The keepers of vital statistics in Texas were under orders, apparently, to stuff some of those statistics where the sunlight doesn’t shine, where the courts and the public can’t look.
They finished their work, according to sources, back in February — after the oral arguments in the Texas case and before the ruling that finally landed last week. The ACLU asked for the numbers before the ruling, but was rebuffed by lawyers at the Department of State Health Services who, in spite of what some of their number-crunchers were saying, decided the numbers were not ready for public consumption.
Miraculously, the numbers popped up like spring lilies 72 hours after the Supreme Court ruled that the state had gone too far.
The agency dropped the information late on Thursday, as people inside and outside government were counting down to a three-day weekend. The kind of red-letter event that merits an extra day off also presents a perfect opportunity to drop a dumpster full of information without alarming or even awakening much of the voting public.
Maybe you didn’t like the court’s opinion. Maybe you did. Either way, you didn’t have the numbers to argue your point until the argument was over.
They really didn’t want us to see those scratches, did they?
This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune, a nonpartisan, nonprofit media organization that informs Texans — and engages with them – about public policy, politics, government and statewide issues.
Top image: Demonstrators celebrated at the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27, 2016, after the court struck down a Texas law imposing strict abortion regulations. Photo by Kevin Lamarque for REUTERS.
Related Stories:
Abortion Legal Fight Cost Texas More Than $1 Million
Abortion Rights Advocates Celebrate SCOTUS Ruling
A Wave of Reaction Follows High Court’s Ruling on Texas Abortion Law
Dolores Huerta and Cecile Richards: The Fight for Women’s Rights Must Continue
With every article on how TX Republicans abused their power to promote the right-wing religious bias against safe, legal abortion, it needs to be mentioned again and again the the TX lege with all it’s medical “expertise,” felt that abortion — which is an extremely safe and essentially complication-free procedure — requires the equivalent of a hospital ER in the same facility and hospital-admitting privileges; yet for other procedures that are far riskier (e.g., colonoscopy), the TX lege feels such ER-type facilities nor admitting privileges are required of those providers .
Every voter in TX needs to be hit over the head that the TX legislature is legislating religion, not healthcare!
Same for the private school vouchers! It’s all about giving religious organizations state-sanctions.
Do any of the Republicans in the TX lege have a copy of the US Constitution handy? You know, that piece of paper that clearly dictates the separation of church and state.
If Dan Patrick, Ken Paxton and Gregg Abbott want to inject their religious beliefs into their day jobs, then they should CHANGE jobs. Resign from public service and go to ministerial school. If they can’t afford tuition, I will happily loan them what they need for their career change at 0% interest and they can take forever to pay me back — just leave your elected positions and do God’s work in an APPROPRIATE setting.
I congratulate the members and supporters of the Pro Choice movement for taking their case to the Supreme Court, which upheld the unconstitutionality of the Texas restrictions on abortion providers.
It is good that the providers who were almost ready to close can now stay open. But I am disturbed when I read that providers who have already closed due to the Texas law will now have obstacles to face before they can re-open, including the possibility of paying a $5000 fee for license renewal.
It seems to me that, if the State of Texas law that led to the closings was unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, as the Supreme Court ruled, then the facilities which were forced to close should be able to re-open immediately without any costs, penalties, or other hardships assessed against them. If their licenses had not expired when they closed, those licenses should be restored at no cost to them and their expiration dates extended for the amount of time during which they were illegally forced to close. Any expenses borne by their re-opening should be borne by the State of Texas.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the state forces them to sue before such reparations are made, and if that is the case, I for one would be happy to contribute to their legal fees, which would most certainly be refunded and accompanied by compensatory and punitive damages. There is no excuse for what Texas legislators did to these organizations. Surely they know that the law was unconstitutional – if they don’t, then they should be removed from office and sent back to elementary school where they can learn to read.