Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Louisiana Abortion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case with a new conservative majority, agreeing to rule on a Louisiana law that requires doctors who perform the procedure to get admitting privileges at a local hospital.

The law is similar to a Texas measure the court struck down in 2016, before Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced the now retired-Justice Anthony Kennedy. The court’s new composition means it could overturn the 2016 ruling, or at least limit its impact to the particular circumstances of Texas.

The case promises to provide the clearest picture yet of whether Chief Justice John Roberts and the reconstituted court will move quickly to roll back abortion rights. The court is likely to rule next year, months before the presidential election.

Opponents say the law would leave Louisiana with only one clinic, in New Orleans, and just one abortion doctor to serve the roughly 10,000 women who seek to end a pregnancy every year in the state. A divided federal appeals court rejected those claims and upheld the law.

Roberts in February joined the four Democratic-appointed justices to put the law on hold while the court considered whether to hear an appeal. Although that stay order might suggest that Roberts has questions about the appeals court ruling, he provided no explanation.

The court agreed to hear the Louisiana case on Friday in advance of Monday’s formal start of its nine-month term. The justices took no action in a separate case involving Indiana’s requirement that women seeking an abortion wait 18 hours after getting an ultrasound.

The 2016 Supreme Court decision striking down the Texas law appeared at the time to be the biggest abortion-rights victory in a generation. With Roberts in dissent, Kennedy joined the liberals in a 5-3 decision that also voided requirements that clinics meet hospital-like surgical standards.

‘Sat on Their Hands’

The Supreme Court said the Texas law “provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and “constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”

Louisiana’s law, enacted in 2014, requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles (48 kilometers) of the abortion facility. The measure was in effect for a brief period in 2016.

In upholding the measure on a 2-1 vote, a New Orleans-based appeals court said the law itself wasn’t forcing any clinics to close. The panel blamed doctors for not making good-faith efforts to get the required privileges.

“The vast majority largely sat on their hands, assuming that they would not qualify,” Judge Jerry Smith wrote for the majority.

A Shreveport clinic and two unidentified doctors told the Supreme Court in their appeal that the lower court simply disagreed with the 2016 decision.

Particular Circumstances

“It is not the prerogative of lower courts to reform this court’s precedent by watering down or distinguishing its holdings to the point of irrelevancy,” the appeal argued.

Louisiana officials urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, saying the case had few implications beyond the state’s particular circumstances. But the state also said the justices should consider overruling the 2016 ruling if they conclude that’s necessary to uphold the Louisiana law.

The state said its law was “based on a lengthy history of abortion clinic safety violations reflecting the clinics’ indifference to doctor qualifications and the threat that indifference poses to women.”

Louisiana officials also contend that abortion clinics don’t have the legal right to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients.

Democrats said during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing they were concerned he could vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which legalized abortion nationwide. He didn’t rule on the abortion issue as an appellate judge, and he declined during his hearings to say whether Roe was correctly decided or whether he’d vote to uphold it as a justice.

The cases are June Medical Services v. Gee, 18-1323, and Gee v. June Medical Services, 18-1460.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

TICTOC ON SOCIAL:

Follow TicToc on Twitter

Like TicToc on Facebook

Follow TicToc on Instagram

Subscribe to our newsletter

TicToc by Bloomberg is global news for the life you lead. We are a 24/7 news network that covers breaking news, politics, technology, business and entertainment stories from around the globe, supported by a network of Bloomberg’s 2,700 journalists across 120 countries.