Much remained unclear after the ruling, including whether and when abortion clinics that had already closed because of the admitting-privileges rule would reopen. Ms. Miller of Whole Woman’s Health told reporters earlier this month that a decision in their favor would give abortion providers the ability to consider reopening clinics, but that they would not open again overnight. In May 2013, two months before Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law, Texas had 41 facilities providing abortions. In November 2013, after the admitting-privileges requirement was put in place, there were 22.  “The rebuilding of that infrastructure is going to take some time,” Ms. Miller had said. “We’ve had to let our leases go in the facilities. We’ve had to sell our buildings. We’ve had to sell the equipment. Our staff has been laid off. Our physicians have gotten new jobs.”  Nan Little Kirkpatrick, executive director of the Texas Equal Access Fund, which provides financial assistance to women seeking abortions in the northern half of the state, predicted that some clinics would reopen, especially in the Panhandle region, which currently has none.  “I think the odds are actually pretty good for us to get some clinics back,” she said. “One reason we saw providers close was because they couldn’t get staff to stay on, with their jobs completely up in the air. Now that we have some assurance from the Supreme Court, I think it will be easier for providers to attract and keep staff.”  Supporters of the law said that it was too early to say what their next steps would be. State Representative Jodie Laubenberg, the Republican who sponsored the bill in the State House and who called the ruling “bad news for women and a sad day for our nation,” declined Monday to say whether she would try to pass another abortion restriction bill when the Legislature meets early next year.  “Right now, I’m just dealing with the ruling,” Ms. Laubenberg said. “I can’t even tell you what I’m going to do next session.”  Wendy Davis, the former state senator whose filibuster of the bill in 2013 turned her into a national political figure, said Monday that the court’s 5-to-3 ruling made her less concerned about the next moves from anti-abortion activists and lawmakers in Texas.  “They pushed back very hard on the idea that focusing on the clinics, and closing clinics down, was going to pass constitutional muster,” Ms. Davis said of the Supreme Court’s majority. “If I were someone in the anti-abortion camp right now, thinking about how to regroup and push back, their options have been severely curtailed, if not completely closed off, by virtue of the court’s decision.”  Long before the Supreme Court’s ruling, Texas had been experiencing what critics of the law called an “abortion access crisis,” with 19 clinics in a state with 5.4 million women of reproductive age. If that number had been reduced further to nine clinics, abortion-rights advocates said the remaining clinics would not have been able to meet statewide demand, and they predicted an increase in the waiting times to get an appointment and a rise in the number of women who attempt to self-induce abortions using black-market drugs. The reduction in clinics had increased the travel distances for many women, including those in rural and more impoverished parts of Texas.  Vicki Saporta, president and chief executive of the National Abortion Federation, said that since the law was passed, the group’s hotline had been flooded with calls from Texas women. “Too many of those women, after hearing how far they would have to travel to access care, simply said, ‘I can’t get there,’” she said in a statement. “Other women have made appointments, hopeful they could find someone to drive them, only to have to cancel at the last minute. We’ve even heard from women forced to spend the night in their car because they couldn’t afford a hotel or another round trip to the clinic.”  Lawyers for Texas, as well as state Republican leaders who supported the tightened restrictions, said the law was needed to improve patient safety, reduce errors and misdiagnosis, and prevent less-qualified doctors from treating patients. And they said that abortion providers had exaggerated the travel burdens facing some women and the impact of clinic closures, and that it was not clear that the predicted permanent closures would occur.  Abortion providers and other critics of the law said it was a thinly disguised attempt to shut down clinics that had been providing safe, legal abortions. They said the new requirements were costly and medically unnecessary. Major medical organizations like the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the admitting-privileges and surgical-center requirements did not benefit patient safety.  In 2013, after the State Senate passed a version of the bill, the Republican lieutenant governor at the time, David Dewhurst, wrote a Twitter post celebrating the bill, known at the time as Senate Bill 5. He wrote: “We fought to pass SB5 thru the Senate last night, & this is why!” Attached was a graphic produced by opponents of the bill that said the legislation would force many clinics to shut their doors.  But Texas Republicans denied the claims that the intent of the law was a backdoor ban on abortions. On Monday, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who is an outspoken opponent of abortion, called the ruling “a devastating blow” to the protection of women’s health and safety in Texas.  “By its ruling, the court held that the ability of abortion clinics to remain open, even under substandard conditions, outweighs the state’s ability to put women’s health and safety first,” Mr. Patrick said in a statement.  Manny Fernandez reported from Houston and Abby Goodnough from Washington. David Montgomery contributed reporting from Austin.
The Supreme Court ruling on a restrictive Texas law allows 10 clinics to remain open, while giving abortion providers and advocates their biggest win in a three-year legal fight.