Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

579 U.S. 582 (2016)

Federal & State Law Editorial TeamLast reviewed: August 2026

Opinion Summary

Struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations requiring doctors to have hospital admitting privileges and clinics to meet ambulatory surgical center standards. Applied Casey's undue burden standard and held that courts must weigh a law's burdens against its benefits. Found the Texas law provided no medical benefit while substantially reducing access to abortion.

About this case

Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt

Look for Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt on one of Wikipedia's sister projects :

[Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wiktionary:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (dictionary)

[Wikibooks](https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikibooks:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (textbooks)

[Wikiquote](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikiquote:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (quotations)

[Wikisource](https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikisource:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (library)

[Wikiversity](https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikiversity:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (learning resources)

[Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "commons:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (media)

[Wikivoyage](https://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikivoyage:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (travel guide)

[Wikidata](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikidata:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (linked database)

[Wikispecies](https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "wikispecies:Special:Search/Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt")
 (species directory)

Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.

You need to log in or create an account and be autoconfirmed to create new articles. Alternatively, you can use the article wizard to submit a draft for review, or request a new article .
Search for "Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt" in existing articles.
Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title .

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not be visible yet because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes or try the purge function .
Titles on Wikipedia are **case sensitive ** except for the first character; please check alternative capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title.
If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log , and see Why was the page I created deleted?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Womans_Health_v._Hellerstedt "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding \mother cannot rely on the father's potential claims and defenses to avoid termination of her parental rights\
recognizing harm may arise where a parent is unwilling or incapable of obtaining appropriate treatment for a condition causing instability and impermanence
finding that a parent's failure to provide a stable home for a child and their criminal arrests and incarcerations created a serious risk of emotional long-term harm
rejecting defendant's attempt to rely on other parent's defenses to avoid termination of defendant's parental rights
deeming termination proper where the father enrolled A-2478-20 31 in drug treatment programs but \routinely failed to complete them with positive results\
affirming a finding of prong 8 The first two prongs of the best interest standard, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(1) and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Related Cases

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

Established the principle of judicial review, empowering federal courts to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional. Chief Justice John Marshall held that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and when a statute conflicts with it, the courts must give effect to the Constitution. This foundational decision made the judiciary a coequal branch of government.

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States under the Necessary and Proper Clause and held that states cannot tax federal institutions. Chief Justice Marshall established a broad interpretation of congressional power, declaring that the federal government possesses implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.

Dred Scott v. Sandford

60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)

Held that African Americans, whether free or enslaved, were not citizens of the United States and had no standing to sue in federal court. Chief Justice Taney also declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional. Widely condemned as the worst Supreme Court decision in history, it inflamed sectional tensions and contributed to the onset of the Civil War. Effectively overruled by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Plessy v. Ferguson

163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the 'separate but equal' doctrine. The Court ruled that Louisiana's law requiring separate railway cars for Black and white passengers did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Harlan's lone dissent declared the Constitution 'color-blind.' Overruled by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour work week, holding it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty of contract. Inaugurated the 'Lochner era' of aggressive judicial review of economic regulations, which lasted until the late 1930s. Now widely criticized as judicial overreach.

Case Information

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Court Level: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Decided: Monday, June 27, 2016
Citation: 579 U.S. 582 (2016)
Jurisdiction: United States Federal

Legal Topics

healthcarecivil rights

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.