History: The Texas Abortion Case At The Supreme Court Essay Template For Faster Writing

There were two participants in this debate, Mary Ziegler, who is a professor at Florida State University College of Law and has been published by the Harvard University Press and Clarke Forsythe, a representative from the Americans United for Life, who also is a published author on the issues of law. Forsythe seems conversant with the history of the abortion laws in the country, Mary, on the other hand, interprets the law in a way a layman can understand without all the law jargon. They both are aware of the topic at hand which was to outline the Texas case that was presented in the Supreme Court concerning the rights of women in the abortion as related to their ability to access abortion services. These services could be ambulatory clinical services or actual hospitals. These two participants while they seemed quite astounded by the polarity the case brought to the court were nonetheless very insightful into the details of the case and took the listeners on a journey into this landmark case that could shape the future of abortion rights for women.
While it is not explicitly placed out in the podcast particularly because it was more of a discussion rather than a debate, these two individuals seem to be on opposing sides of the arguments on whether the case should be remanded or affirmed by the courts. Forsythe opens by stating that the state of Texas placed a substantial obstacle to women who seek abortion by introducing the new laws that forced the clinics to close down. While there may have been other factors that led to closing downs about 20 clinics all over the state, the main reasons he states is the imposition this law made by outlining the stringent requirements these clinics must meet to remain operational. On the same, Mary starts by stating that constitutionally, women have a right to abortion, and they should have access to abortion. However, due to such massive shutdowns has restricted this and grossly violated their rights and she seems to be of the opinion that the Texas lawmakers have made it impossible for women to access abortion to maintain their political interests.
The current policy that is in Texas is that only registered doctors have the authority to provide admitting privileges to abortion patients and the newly rolled out requirements demand a much higher standard for abortion clinics which many of the current ones were not able to meet and thus closed down. Abortion patients are those who have experienced complications from the ambulatory procedures, for example, chemical or surgical abortion. The massive closure of abortion clinics leads to a longer wait as the current clinics try to cope with this burden and thus spells out longer waiting times. Such times could spill into the subsequent trimesters where chemical abortion is not possible and the only solution is a surgical procedure which is more costly. The longer wait is particularly unacceptable to women which Mary even equated to no abortion at all.
I do agree with Mary that the closure of the clinics has led to other burdens placed on the remaining clinics and severely limits access of women to abortion and whatever the decision the court makes, this is not an issue that should go unsolved. The topic has two prospective outcomes, but it is clear that it is the first time that a case of this nature has proved so divisive in the courts. However, there appears to be the gross neglect of the issue of the maternal health which is almost always ignored in judging cases of abortion. Because this issue has been raised in this landmark case, it will be used in cases brought forth to the state to decide on medical matters which is relatively rare or whether each case will be judged on as applied challenge. The state does have a stake in the maternal health and might use it to restrict further abortion or make it more accessible.