|
 The 5-4 ruling, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joining
the four liberal justices, represented a victory for
Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for Women in
its challenge to the 2014 law. The measure had required doctors who
perform abortions to have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain formal
affiliation called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30
miles (48 km) of the clinic.
But Roberts indicated his vote was a reluctant one and signaled he
may back other abortion restrictions in future cases, with some
legal challenges already in the pipeline.
Two of the three clinics that perform abortions in Louisiana, a
state of about 4.6 million people, would have been forced to close
if the law had taken effect, according to lawyers for Hope Medical
Group.
President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the
case. Anti-abortion advocates had hoped the Supreme Court, with its
5-4 conservative majority, would be willing to permit abortion
restrictions like those being pursued by Louisiana and other
conservative states.
"Today's ruling is a bitter disappointment," said Marjorie
Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony
List.
Jeff Landry, Louisiana's Republican attorney general, said the
ruling continued a "heartbreaking line of decisions that places
'access' to abortion above the health and safety of women and
girls."
White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany also blasted the
ruling, saying that "unelected justices have intruded on the
sovereign prerogatives of state governments by imposing their own
policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate
abortion safety regulations."
Abortion rights advocates have said restrictions such as admitting
privileges are meant to limit access to abortion not protect women's
health as proponents say.
The decision, authored by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, marked the
second time in four years the court ruled against an "admitting
privileges" requirement.
In 2016, the court struck down a Republican-backed Texas law that
mandated admitting privileges and required clinics to have costly
hospital-grade facilities, finding the restrictions represented an
impermissible "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an
abortion. The two laws, Breyer wrote, are "almost word-for word
identical," meaning the court must reach the same result.
There is sufficient evidence that Louisiana's measure "would place
substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in
Louisiana," Breyer added.
[to top of second column] |
Roberts dissented in the 2016 case, called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt,
but said he voted with the liberals on Monday based on the court's tradition of
respecting its precedents. Roberts on Monday rejected some of the court's
analysis in the Texas ruling, which also set a precedent making it easier to
challenge abortion restrictions that lacked evidence of health benefits.
"I joined the dissent in Whole Woman's Health and continue to believe that the
case was wrongly decided. 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," Roberts wrote.
'MUDDIES THE WATERS'
The reaction from abortion rights groups was muted.
"I'm celebrating today but I'm still worried about our future," said Kathaleen
Pittman, who runs the Hope clinic.
Julie Rikelman, a lawyer with the Center for Reproductive Rights, representing
the clinic, said Roberts' opinion "muddies the water and will lead to more
litigation not less."
In dissent, conservative Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "the abortion right
recognized in this court's decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal
rules that stand in the way."
Roberts sided with the liberal justices in two other important rulings this
month. One found that gay and transgender people are protected from workplace
discrimination. The other blocked Trump's bid to rescind protections for
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who entered the United States as
children.
Trump, seeking re-election on Nov. 3, promised during the 2016 presidential race
to appoint justices who would overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling
legalizing abortion nationwide. Monday's ruling marked the court's first major
abortion decision since Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and Neil Gorsuch
in 2017 as justices. Both voted in favor of Louisiana's restrictions.
Abortion remains a divisive issue in the United States, as in many countries.
Christian conservatives, an important political constituency for Trump, are
among those most opposed to it.
When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed the Roe v. Wade ruling, it prohibited
laws that placed an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.
Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden
precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. The New Orleans-based 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the law.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |
