Supreme Court won't reveal info about $1 million Planned Parenthood grant

The case is a challenge to a Texas law that would leave the state with about 10 abortion clinics, down from more than 40. The result is that USA abortion policy has become extreme among developed nations in allowing elective, late-term abortions and a lucrative, yet largely unaccountable, abortion industry daily endangers the lives and health of women. Most of these women either used home remedies, like herbs or vitamins, or went across the border to Mexico to buy misoprostol, the drug used in US clinics to terminate a pregnancy. The research comes from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project (TxPEP), an initiative that studies the impact of Texas's reproductive health laws. The group receives about $500 million in federal funds every year, mostly in reimbursements through the Medicaid health insurance program. As The NY Times' Adam Liptak reported, "The future of abortion rights in the United States probably rests nearly entirely in his hands, given the deadlock on the court between conservatives and liberals".

Under the law - Texas House Bill 2 - abortion doctors are required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of a clinic, and abortion clinics across the state are required to meet the same medical standards as "ambulatory" or outpatient surgery centers (ASCs).

The Supreme Court has declined to take up a case in which New Hampshire dropped funding for the abortion giant but the White House provided federal grants to replace the money.

"We really see this as a women's health protection and something that is reasonable", Ciamarra said.

Erich Schlegel Getty Images

"People in the media refer to this bill as the defund Planned Parenthood bill, but there is no mention of any particular abortion provider in this legislation", Conduit said. State law already prohibits taxpayer money from paying for abortions.

"It's clear that a few Texas politicians are attempting to make an end-run around women's legal right to an abortion by shutting down abortion facilities through the passage of laws that falsely claim to protect women", said Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center. The case will likely be heard deep into 2016's session of the court. Now Texas lawmakers argue they're simply looking out for the well-being of women, saying better equipment and more staffing helps alleviate the dangers that are associated with abortion.

These findings come from a survey of almost 800 women, ages 18 to 49, conducted by TxPEP over two months in 2014 and 2015.

Further, the panel found that the district court erred by "substituting its own judgment for that of the legislature", on whether H.B. Hospitals provide care to women who experience complications during an abortion - complications, it should be noted, that are extraordinarily rare - regardless of whether the physician who performed the abortion has admitting privileges or not.

Yet, while these may seem like health regulations at first glance, they do little, if anything, to actually advance women's health.

Two other provisions of the 2013 law - a ban on abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and regulations involving abortion-inducing pills - are not part of the challenge.