|
 The court, with a 5-4 conservative majority, heard arguments in an
appeal by Shreveport-based abortion provider Hope Medical Group for
Women seeking to invalidate the 2014 law. The measure requires that
doctors who perform abortions have a sometimes difficult-to-obtain
arrangement called "admitting privileges" at a hospital within 30
miles (48 km) of the clinic.
The liberal justices, including the court's three women, appeared
skeptical toward that requirement. The conservative justices seemed
more receptive.
Roberts and fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked
questions that suggested they - and perhaps other conservative
justices - do not believe the Louisiana law is automatically doomed
by a 2016 Supreme Court precedent that struck down similar admitting
privileges restrictions in Texas.
Roberts, considered the court's ideological center, cast the
deciding vote last year when the justices on a 5-4 vote blocked
Louisiana's law from taking effect while the litigation over its
legality continued.
That vote brought him into conflict with his position in the Texas
case when Roberts was among the three dissenting justices who
concluded that an admitting privileges requirement did not represent
an impermissible "undue burden" on abortion access.
Roberts appeared to acknowledge in his questions that he might feel
bound by the court's 2016 finding that admitting privileges laws
provide no health benefit to women. But his questions also indicated
he may stray from the 2016 finding about the specific impact of the
Texas law, which led to multiple clinic closures, because
Louisiana's situation could be viewed differently.
Two of Louisiana's three clinics that perform abortions would be
forced to close if the law is allowed to take effect, according to
lawyers for the clinic. Louisiana officials have said no clinics
would be forced to close.
"I understand the idea that the impact might be different in
different places, but as far as the benefits of the law, that's
going to be the same in each state, isn't it?" Roberts asked.
Roberts indicated that the 2016 ruling requires the analysis to be
"a factual one that has to proceed state-by-state."
The questions asked by Roberts and Kavanaugh could open the
possibility of the two voting to uphold the Louisiana law without
specifically overturning the Texas precedent. Kavanaugh asked
whether "in some states, admitting privileges laws could be
constitutional, if they impose no burdens."
RESTRICTIVE STATE LAWS
The case, with a ruling due by the end of June, will test the
court's willingness to uphold Republican-backed abortion
restrictions being pursued in numerous conservative states.
President Donald Trump's administration supported Louisiana in the
case.
Abortion remains one of the most divisive issues in American
society, with Christian conservatives - an important constituency
for Trump - among those most opposed to it.
The divisions were laid bare outside the courtroom as well, at an
abortion rights rally where Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer
named Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, Trump's appointees to the bench,
saying they "won't know what hit" them if they rule in favor of
abortion restrictions.
[to top of second column] |
The comments drew a rare rebuke from Roberts, who called Schumer's statements
threatening and dangerous.
Abortion rights advocates have argued that restrictions such as admitting
privileges are meant to limit access to abortion, not protect women's health as
proponents say.
When the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmed its landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling
that legalized abortion nationwide, it prohibited laws that placed an "undue
burden" on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor said it was a "mystery to me" why a 30-mile
limit was imposed if the law's intent was to show that doctors were properly
credentialed. She asked why doctors could not get credentials from hospitals
farther away.
Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also questioned the 30-mile limit,
noting that in most cases women who have complications from abortions would be
at home after the procedure and not at the clinic. As a result, it would not be
relevant that the doctor has a relationship with a local hospital, she said.
Trump, seeking re-election on Nov. 3, promised during the 2016 presidential race
to appoint justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade. The Louisiana case marked
the first major abortion dispute heard by the court since Trump appointed
Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as justices.
Gorsuch said nothing during the argument. Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas,
who rarely speaks during arguments, was also silent.
The most outspoken conservative was Justice Samuel Alito, who questioned whether
the clinic and doctors even had legal standing to bring the challenge because
their interests are different from their patients. He suggested that women
seeking abortions should be plaintiffs in such cases.
Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired in 2018, joined the four
liberal justices to defend abortion rights when the court struck down the Texas
law.
Baton Rouge-based U.S. District Judge John deGravelles cited the undue burden
precedent when he struck down Louisiana's law in 2016. After Louisiana appealed,
the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.
For a graphic on U.S. state abortion laws, see
https://graphics.reuters.com/USA-ABORTION-RESTRICTIONS/
010092FK33J/index.html
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Jan
Wolfe; Editing by Will Dunham and Peter Cooney)
[© 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. |
