In the Supreme Court Case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Whole Woman's Health argues that abortion laws like the ones in place in Texas are a violation of "a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy." Like we discussed in class, the law would require all doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital that is within 30 miles of the clinic. It also sets a standard for the clinic that is similar to the surgical wings of hospitals with specific regulations on room/door sizes, anesthesia, staff, etc. The supporters of this law argue that it is only meant to protect women's health. They say that they are doing what is in the best interest of the women. Yet the CEO of Whole Woman's Health, Amy Hagstrom Miller, argues that the enforcers of these laws are "bullies who are trying to control our bodies and our lives." She goes a step further to say that the steps they are taking to "protect" women are not actually medical advancements whatsoever, so they laws only succeed in making it more difficult to get an abortion, not more safe. Organizations fighting for reproductive rights are not only having to stand up against political agendas, but they are being trampled on by the very laws that were created to protect the individual rights of American citizens in the first place. The right to your own body should seem like a basic human right, yet the American government is systematically undermining our ability to take measures to control our own bodies and lives in the manor we see fit. All in all I agree with Whole Woman's Health and their stance that these laws would remove the power over a woman's body from the woman and place it in the hands of the government who decides when, where, and how women will be able (if they are able at all) to receive an abortion, all under the guise that it is in their best interest.