Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Concurring

It can be found here:

The Texas law called H. B. 2 inevitably will reduce the number of clinics and doctors allowed to provide abortion services. Texas argues that H. B. 2’s restrictions are constitutional because they protect the health of women who experience complications from abortions. In truth, “complications from an abortion are both rare and rarely dangerous.” Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel. See Brief for American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. as Amici Curiae 6–10 (collecting studies and concluding “[a]bortion is one of the safest medical procedures performed in the United States”); Brief for Social Science Researchers as Amici Curiae 5–9 (compiling studies that show “[c]omplication rates from abortion are very low”). Many medical procedures, including childbirth, are far more dangerous to patients, yet are not subject to ambulatory- surgical-center or hospital admitting-privileges requirements. See ante, at 31; Planned Parenthood of Wis. See also Brief for Social Science Re- searchers 9–11 (comparing statistics on risks for abortion with tonsillectomy, colonoscopy, and in-office dental surgery); Brief for American Civil Liberties Union et al. as Amici Curiae 7 (all District Courts to consider admitting privileges requirements found abortion “is at least as safe as other medical procedures routinely performed in outpatient settings”). Given those realities, it is beyond rational belief that H. B. 2 could genuinely protect the health of women, and certain that the law “would simply make it more difficult for them to obtain abortions.” Planned Parenthood of Wis. When a State severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners, faute de mieux , at great risk to their health and safety. See Brief for Ten Pennsylvania Abortion Care Providers as Amici Curiae 17–22. So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H. B. 2 that “do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,” Planned Parenthood of Wis. cannot survive judicial inspection. [Citations removed for easier reading.]

 But what does this mean for Pennsylvania, where I live?

From Philly.com:

Monday's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt may have implications for numerous other states. Pennsylvania is among five states that require abortion facilities to be on a par medically with outpatient surgical centers, and four states require hospital admitting privileges, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center that supports abortion rights.

And from the AP (via KDKA):

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday striking down restrictive abortion regulations in Texas prompted a Pennsylvania state senator to announce he will seek repeal of a 2011 law that imposed expensive facility and staff expansions on clinics that perform abortions in the state.

Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, said in a memo to fellow lawmakers that repealing the four-year-old law would bring Pennsylvania into compliance with the requirements and limitations of the U.S. Constitution.

Pennsylvania’s abortion laws, Leach said, “are forcing women and their families into desperate, life-threatening situations in which they must choose between the law, their health and their Constitutional rights.”

The high court struck down Texas’ 2013 law and follow-up regulations that, in part, required clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery. It is similar to Pennsylvania’s 2011 law, Leach said.

The Republicans, of course, disagree.

My guess is that if it has "little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion, [it] cannot survive judicial inspection" and it's t-o-a-s-t TOAST.

The Notorious R.B.G