SCOTUS to women everywhere: "Screw your health and welfare"
It seems the Supremes had no interest in preventing another Kermit Gosnell type slaughter house...because at the end of the day that's what the Texas law was trying to prevent.
Gosnell could have been prevented not by new laws, but the enforcement of existing ones. The shame is that the City was supposed to inspect the place but didn't.
Getting back to the SCOTUS decision, I say when you get lemons, make lemonade. Creative litigants now need to extend the SCOTUS's solicitude regarding regulatory "undue burdens" on the abortion right to other Constitutional rights. I love the new SCOTUS standard for confronting the regulatory state - if a law offers little measurable benefit but imposes measurable burdens, then its unconstitutional.
Think about how many gun laws could be overturned by evidence showing that their efficacy isn't matched by the burdens they impose on lawful gun owners. "Assault" weapons bans? No measurable efficacy whatsoever, but a clear burden on the law-abiding.
In its zeal to protect abortion, the SCOTUS has given liberty-loving folks everywhere a sword. There's nothing inherently special about the abortion right; sure it's under assault but so too is the gun right, or private property rights, or privacy rights. Let's embrace the Court's undue burden analysis, apply it more broadly to the regulatory leviathan, and slay that dragon once and for all!