In a 5-4 decision, the US Supreme Court has ruled that Louisiana’s restrictions on access to abortion are unconstitutional.
The case, June Medical Services v Russo, concerned “trap” abortion restrictions passed by Louisiana’s state legislature in 2014. These restrictions are often passed under the guise of safety but generally have no medical benefit to women and are used to restrict access to abortion services. In this case, the legislation required doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. Such privileges are very difficult to obtain and have no medical benefit. This law threatened to close all three of Louisiana’s clinics and more than tripled the average distance women in the region would have to travel to access abortion services.
The Supreme Court ruled that an identical law in Texas was unconstitutional in 2016 but, in a rare move, decided to hear the Louisiana case anyway. Writing for the four liberal judges in the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer stated that such a law imposed burdens on access to abortion, but would not protect women’s health as claimed. In his view, the evidence in this case was “even stronger and more detailed” than the Texas case. Hospitalisations after abortions were rare, women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and abortion providers were often refused admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined Justice Breyer’s opinion.
Chief Justice Roberts unexpectedly sided with the four liberal judges in the decision but did not agree with Breyer’s reasoning. In his concurring opinion, he explained that respect for precedent compelled him to do so, even though he had voted to uphold an almost identical Texas law in 2016. He went on to say that, “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore, the Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.” He still believes that the Texas case was wrongly decided but, he added that “the question today, however, is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito said that “there is ample evidence in the record showing that admitting privileges help to protect the health of women by ensuring that physicians who perform abortions meet a higher standard of competence.” Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Kavanaugh agreed with the dissent.
Click here for the decision.