Whole Woman's Health v. Young ( 2022 )

Case: 18-50730 Document: 00516374118 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 28, 2022
No. 18-50730 Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Whole Woman’s Health; Brookside Women’s Medical
Center, P.A., doing business as Brookside Women’s
Health Center and Austin Women’s Health Center;
Lendol L. Davis, M.D.; Alamo City Surgery Center,
P.L.L.C., doing business as Alamo Women’s Reproductive
Services; Whole Woman’s Health Alliance; Dr. Bhavik
Kumar,
Plaintiffs—Appellees,
versus
Cecile Erwin Young, Executive Commissioner of the
Texas Health and Human Services Commission, in her
official capacity,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 1:16-CV-1300
Before Barksdale, Stewart, and Costa, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
Case: 18-50730 Document: 00516374118 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/28/2022
No. 18-50730
The district court enjoined Texas laws regulating the disposal of
embryonic and fetal tissue remains. The state requires facilities performing
abortions to dispose of these remains in one of four ways: “(1) interment”;
(2) cremation; (3) incineration followed by interment; or (4) steam
disinfection followed by interment. Tex. Health & Safety Code
§ 697.004(a). Ashes resulting from cremation or incineration “may be
interred or scattered in any manner as authorized by law for human remains,”
but “may not be placed in a landfill.” Id. § 697.004(b).
The district court assumed that the Texas laws further a legitimate
state interest. See Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct.
1780, 1782 (2019) (holding that similar Indiana law was rationally related to a
“legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains” (quoting Akron v.
Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 452 n.45 (1983))). The
court then applied the “undue burden” standard of Planned Parenthood of Se.
Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 843 (1992) (plurality opinion), overruled by Dobbs
v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., -- S. Ct. --, 2022 WL 2276808 (June 24,
2022). Under the Casey balancing approach, the district court concluded
that “the challenged laws impose significant burdens on abortion access that
far outweigh the benefits the challenged laws confer.” It thus held that the
laws restricting the methods for disposal of fetal remains violate the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It went on to hold that the
laws also violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Last week, the Supreme Court overruled Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410
U.S. 113 (1973). See Dobbs, 2022 WL 2276808, at *43. Dobbs holds that
“[t]he Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from
regulating or prohibiting abortion.” Id. Accordingly, we VACATE the
injunction issued in this case and REMAND for further proceedings
consistent with Dobbs.
2