"Undue Burden": Abortion Issue In Supreme Court --Madeleine Norton, 4th period

Now, I know that abortion is a touchy subject, so I'll try to stay away from my own opinions so as not to start an argument, but with the upcoming court case on Whole Women's Health vs. Cole I felt the connection to the issue constitutionally relevant to our APUSH synthesis-generated blogs.

Plaintiffs are stating that constitutionally Texas is promoting a law that prohibits women from their right to end pregnancy. The large issue is whether the law is guiding women to be safe and healthy or is rather an over-protective law to limit the chance of getting an abortion. Because of previous resolves in the Supreme Court that have generally centered around pro-life with certain limitations, is this argument moral and/or fair to be justified? Or is this another possible limitation of our inalienable rights as American citizens? Have women been represented fairly during previous trials and will they be so in this up-and-coming abortion court case?

"U.S. News states that in the outcome of the ruling, "If the Supreme Court rules against Whole Woman’s Health, Texas would be left with as few as nine abortion clinics, down from 19 clinics currently and down from 42 before the 2013 state law was enacted, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. The state is the second-most populous in the nation, after California, and so large--nearly 800 miles long--that traveling from remote areas can make accessing care difficult."
 

Article link here: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/11/supreme-court-and-abortion-why-whole-womans-health-v-cole-matters?int=9b9e08