AUSTIN — Abortion rights supporters hailed a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday that overturned a restrictive Texas law, but the author of the statue called it a victory of politics over health. 

“This decision is bad news for women and a sad day for our nation,” said Rep. Jodie Laubenberg, R-Murphy, in a statement. “Women deserve the same standard of care at abortion clinics as they would receive at a medical facility.  Obviously the politics of abortion supersedes the health and safety for women.”

Laubenberg’s reaction was shared widely by Texas leaders.

Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick called the court’s 5-3 decision “devastating.” Gov. Greg Abbott said it “erodes states’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women, and subjects more innocent life to being lost.”

Rep. Cindy Burkett, R. Garland, another of the authors of the law,  said that she, too, is “deeply disappointed.”

The 2013 law required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. It also required abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards imposed on facilities that perform outpatient surgery.

Opponents of the law said it was orchestrated by political conservatives who wanted to shut down abortion facilities and limit access to a safe, legal medical procedure. 

In what has been called the most significant ruling on the abortion debate in nearly 25 years, the court rejected both requirements as placing an unconstitutional, “undue burden” on abortion access.

The state had argued that more than 90 percent of women of reproductive age would live within 150 miles of an abortion clinic under the new law.

But, under the new restrictions, the number of clinics in Texas had already fallen from about 40 in 2014 to fewer than 20. The Supreme Court suspended enforcement of the law after a number of clinics had closed.

If the law were left in place, half of the remaining clinics were expected to close, as well.

Most remaining centers are in or near large cities, leaving women in large areas of the state without ready access to abortion providers.

Speaking at a press conference in Austin, Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin, said Monday there’s no way to know if, or how many, abortion clinics might reopen.

“It’s very difficult to ramp back up,” she said. “Maybe they lost their lease. It’s not going to be overnight.”

Peter Linzer, a constitutional law expert at the University of Houston Law Center, who was cited in a dissenting opinion in the case written by Justice Clarence Thomas, called the court’s decision a “two-fisted opinion” with national implications.

“This is a very important case,” he said. “Everything was in the air.”

The ruling, he said, is expected to trigger scrutiny of similar abortion laws in other states.

“Now, every one of those is going to get sued,” he said.

Sanford Levinson, a constitutional law expert at the University of Texas School of Law, agreed on the case’s significance.

The outcome, however, was not necessarily surprising for those familiar with the court and abortion law, he said.

While Texas lawmakers singled out abortion for scrutiny, Levinson noted they failed to mandate similar rules for other medical procedures.

“Why is it that Texas is so concerned about abortion, but not about other procedures such as colonoscopies?” he asked.

He predicted that the legal costs of defending similar laws will sway leaders of other states from pursuing the matter.

“This is one battle in a continuing war,” he said. “A number of states will give it up.” 

The court’s opinion in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was its first significant ruling on the abortion issue since 2007, when the justices upheld a federal ban on certain late-term abortions.

However, some court observers described Monday’s opinion as the most sweeping since the court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 that state laws could not place an “undue burden” on women seeking the procedure. At the same time, the court upheld Pennsylvania’s 24-hour waiting period for an abortion and a law requiring the consent of parents of minors seeking an abortion.

In Monday’s opinion, the court effectively told states that trying to limit abortion access, under the guise of regulations meant to protect health, “is not going to fly,” said Rebecca Robertson, legislative and policy director of the ACLU of Texas.

John Austin covers the Texas Statehouse for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him a jaustin@cnhi.com.