READ: Supreme Court’s full decision on Louisiana’s abortion restriction

Elias Hubbard
June 30, 2020

Pro-life leaders expressed deep disappointment with the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday (June 29) to uphold a Louisiana law created to protect the lives and health of women by requiring hospital admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions. The Supreme Court, with Roberts at the helm, just affirmed that falsehood by refusing to acknowledge the fallacy inherent within third-party standing, choosing to side with abortion profiteers rather than the Constitution and vulnerable women.

Instead, Roberts said that because the Supreme Court struck down a similar law in Texas four years ago, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, the court should stand by that precedent. In that case, the Lone Star State argued in favor of a series of regulations applied to abortion clinics, which had no basis in medical science and were obvious pretenses to force clinics to shut down. This case was about whether the state has the right to ensure that abortionists who take women's money also provide for their safety.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred, writing: "When a state severely limits access to safe and legal procedures, women in desperate circumstances may resort to unlicensed rogue practitioners". This was a common sense regulation mean to protect women and avoid Kermit Gosnell nightmares.

The ERLC, joined by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, contended in a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Louisiana law the "undue burden" test is the incorrect standard for laws that regulate abortion doctors.

"With its decision today, the Court has destroyed the right of states to provide oversight and regulation of abortion clinics, treating them like every other outpatient surgery center".

"For too long, abortionists have flouted the law and derided health standards for women seeking abortion". However, he retired and was replaced by Kavanaugh, who anti-choice activists were betting was not burdened by concerns about good faith or fair legal procedure. Kavanaugh's vote came in spite of the repeated insistence of Sen.

The Court agreed to hear the case in October. Roberts similarly joined the liberals to reject President Donald Trump's attempt to dismantle DACA. The chief justice and Gorsuch both sided with the liberal justices to rule that gay and transgender workers are protected from employment discrimination by the Civil Rights Act.

Monday's ruling may bolster Trump's conservative critics, who argue that he is not worth supporting despite the face that he has appointed conservatives to the federal bench at a historic rate.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices did the opposite.

For many involved in the fight over reproductive freedoms, it seemed quite likely that the Supreme Court would chip away at abortion rights by upholding a restrictive Louisiana abortion law. "The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a almost identical Texas law".

Breyer noted that the District Court found that the law "offers no significant health benefit" and that "conditions on admitting privileges common to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State's asserted interests in promoting women's health and safety".

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in February.

The Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for sexual and reproductive health rights, described the verdict as "a critical win in reaffirming the right to abortion access".

"There was a woman, for example, whose uterus was perforated, and she ended up sitting in the ER for three days hemorrhaging, and they ultimately had to do a hysterectomy and she lost her ability to have children just because the abortion doctor didn't have admitting privileges", Harle said. While the Texas law resulted in a 350 percent increase in women having to drive more than 150 miles to get abortions, the Louisiana law did not cause driving distances to increase.

"Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment", said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony list, an anti-abortion group.

"Under principles of stare decisis, I agree with the plurality that the determination in Whole Woman's Health that Texas's law imposed a substantial obstacle requires the same determination about Louisiana's law", he wrote.

Other reports by Click Lancashire

Discuss This Article