Monday morning the Supreme Court announced its ruling on the tightest restrictions in the nation on abortions.

The Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 against the restrictions Texas put on abortion clinics, stating in the majority opinion the law was passed with a motive to close many clinics.

“This doesn’t mean that no regulations can take place, but up until now the courts have been silent,” said Linda Veazey, an Assistant Political Science Professor at MSU. “We have this undue burden language, but it was hard to figure out what was an undue burden because most of the time restrictions stood.”

The Texas restrictions, such as requiring abortion clinic doctors to have hospital admitting privileges, closed many of the abortion clinics in the state.

Opponents argued this would make abortions more dangerous for women because many would seek procedures in unmonitored and secret locations, rather than drive 300 miles or more round trip to an approved clinic.

Veazey said she was surprised the Supreme Court wasn’t split down the middle.

“5-3 means we actually got a decision from the court, they were able to decide this. It also means that if we had nine Justices and if Justice Scalia were alive right now and had had voted with the minority, we would will still have a decision.”

State Representative James Frank said he’s disappointed in the ruling.

“The court is an unelected body that is supposed to be ruling on law and clearly they’re not ruling on law, if you read their opinion,” said Frank. “They’re really ruling on policy, which we’re suppose to have elected officials for policy and the courts were supposed to be for law. Regardless of where you are on this particular bill, that to me is the most disconcerning thing about where the Supreme Court is right now.”

“It’s the same thing you would do if you were getting a colonoscopy,” said Frank. “It’s just a surgical center, it’s not hospital standards. But that’s what the Supreme Court has ruled and that’s what people want is no standards in terms of the safety of abortions. Obviously it’s not very safe for the child, but really it’s not really safe the way we do it for the woman either.”

Students at MSU had mixed feelings, mostly on the right and morality of abortions, as opposed to the Texas law.

“I feel quite comfortable with it,” said Griffin Alford. “I feel a woman’s body is their own body, and they should be able to do what they want with it and what they need to do with it.”

“Say you do get raped or if you have a kid and you can possibly die from a health issue you should have a choice,” said MSU student, Ian Thompson. “If you make it illegal, you don’t have a choice for your own life. It’s a human right. It’s your body. It’s your choice.”

But while some like Thompson say they believe it’s the woman’s choice depending on the stage of pregnancy, they also believe states should be allowed to set restrictions.

“I think that up to a certain point in conception you should be able to have an abortion if it’s your choice, based on maybe the circumstance that you got pregnant, so whether you were molested or something like that,” said Terin Ramsey, another MSU student. “But I don’t think that abortion should be legal, and I don’t think the Supreme Court ruling was right. I think that they should get rid of the clinics.”

“I disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. I think that there shouldn’t be abortions,” said MSU student Adam Edington. “Mostly because of my religious belief.”

“Stricter laws, yeah, but they should never make it illegal,” said Thompson.

Veazey said Texas was not alone in wanting restrictions on clinics and procedures, but the Supreme Court says now, in all states, those restrictions won’t pass muster.