United States top court strikes down law limiting abortions

Henrietta Strickland
June 30, 2020

"The record here establishes that [the law's] admitting-privileges requirement places a substantial obstacle in the path of a large fraction of those women seeking an abortion", he said. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a almost identical Texas law.

Since the decision in the Texas case, President Trump has nominated Gorsuch to replace the late Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016 before that ruling.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike".

Instead, Mr Roberts said that he was not prepared to reverse the precedent set by the court's 2016 decision - made before Trump's justices arrived - rejecting an identical Texas law.

The decision strikes down the Louisiana law that pro-choice advocates said attempted to curtail women's abortion rights. "Louisiana's admitting privileges law protected that right".

"One of the differences between June Medical and Hellerstedt is that the record out of Louisiana is full of instances where women suffered greatly because doctors did not have admitting privileges", Denise Harle, legal counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, told The Federalist in an interview at the March for Life. "So that was just one example of several on the record".

Unlike Texas, though, Louisiana officials said their law wouldn't have such a drastic effect.

Mr Roberts' view of the actual Louisiana law, along with the four other conservative justices who opposed the decision, suggested that the court has a potentially decisive five votes supporting other restrictions on abortion.

The law required abortion providers to obtain hospital admitting privileges, but critics, including national abortion rights groups, say it was created to shut down clinics. (Louisiana's are among the most restrictive.) And that was heartening at a time when abortion rights are still under attack.

The chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee for Pro-Life Activities, Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas, said in a statement that Catholics would "grieve this decision" but would "continue to pray and fight for justice for mothers and children". Roberts did not sign onto the court's decision by a four-person plurality, but he cast the deciding vote by filing an opinion that concurred in its judgment. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled.

According to Severino, who was Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' clerk, Roberts did not have to actually overturn settled law to find in favor of Louisiana.

As Julie Rikelman, lawyer for the Louisiana abortion clinic said during oral arguments, the vast majority of abortion lawsuits are brought by health-care providers on behalf of their patients.

"The idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the objective of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning". 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.

As Louisiana state Sen.

"Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment", said anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List, adding that it represented "the failure of the Court to allow the American people to protect the well-being of women from the tentacles of a brutal and profit-seeking abortion industry". "We need a solid pro-life majority on the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of women and the unborn". "We have two and we could get a few more".

"Women can speak for themselves", Harle said.

Other reports by Click Lancashire

Discuss This Article