•   
  •   
  •   

Opinion Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit

17:42  30 june  2020
17:42  30 june  2020 Source:   usatoday.com

The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact

  The quiet question in the Supreme Court abortion case that could have a major impact Louisiana is also questioning third-party standing in June Medical Services v. Russo, an abortion case with the Supreme Court. June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.

The Supreme Court followed scientific research and evidence when it came to abortion in Louisiana. All courts and lawmakers should do the same. In its decision Monday on June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court dealt a win for science . The court ruled that Louisiana’s law requiring

With this decision, the Supreme Court has prevented Louisiana from enforcing the law to stop abortionists who regularly deride and violate health standards for women seeking Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit . USA TODAY Opinion.

In its decision Monday on June Medical Services v. Russo, the Supreme Court dealt a win for science. The court ruled that Louisiana’s law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at hospitals is unconstitutional, based on the weight of the evidence. Admitting privileges requirements, in effect, have no medical benefit. Instead, they force abortion clinics to shut down and put essential health care out of reach for far too many. By striking down the Louisiana law, the Supreme Court affirmed that medically unnecessary laws are an undue burden on women.

a group of people holding a sign posing for the camera: Abortion rights demonstrators including Jaylene Solache, of Dallas, Texas, right, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on March 4, 2020. © Jacquelyn Martin, AP Abortion rights demonstrators including Jaylene Solache, of Dallas, Texas, right, rally outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on March 4, 2020.

With this victory, though, we must remember that there still exist abortion restrictions rooted not in evidence but rather in ideology. These laws create deep inequities in our health care system that we must address to achieve real justice for people across the United States.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

  Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic. © Michael A. Mccoy/Getty Images Anti-abortion demonstrators protesting in front of the Supreme Court in Washington last week. The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court’s four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.

But lawyers for the inmates have argued that under this law the government must follow the detailed execution protocols in the states where the inmates were convicted. Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit . USA TODAY Opinion.

Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit . USA TODAY Opinion. Roberts a pivotal vote in the Supreme Court 's big opinions. Associated Press. Abortion Change Won’t Come until the Supreme Court Abandons Roe v. Wade.

As a public health scientist, and an expert in abortion safety, I know from over a decade of research that admitting privileges laws simply are unwarranted.

Start the day smarter. Get all the news you need in your inbox each morning.

The evidence shows abortion is safe

Our study, published in the journal Health Services Research, looked at medical charts of patients who received abortion-related hospital-based care at three abortion-providing clinics. First, we found that emergency transfers following abortions were exceedingly rare. Among over 22,000 abortions over 200 combined months of observation, we found only four patients who had emergency transfers to a hospital: two occurred before and two  occurred after clinicians had admitting privileges. In all cases, the admitting privileges of the abortion care provider had no bearing on patient outcomes.

USA: Supreme Court invalidates restrictive abortion law

 USA: Supreme Court invalidates restrictive abortion law © NICHOLAS KAMM Activists against abortion before the Supreme Court in Washington, June 29, 2020 The United States Supreme Court on Monday invalidated a law on Louisiana very restrictive on abortion which had the value of a test for the high court deeply reworked by Donald Trump. The text, adopted in 2014, aimed to oblige doctors performing abortions to obtain a license to practice in a hospital located less than 50 kilometers from the place of the intervention.

Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Law , With Roberts the Deciding Vote. The case, over a state law requiring doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, is the first abortion ruling since two Trump appointees joined the court .

Chief Justice John Roberts sided with liberal judges to rule that state’s efforts to restrict access to abortion was unconstitutional.

When physicians apply for admitting privileges from hospitals, they are often denied or ignored for several reasons: because they are required to admit a steady stream of patients into the hospital per year (which they cannot meet), or the hospital is religiously-affiliated and anti-abortion, or because it is politically risky. Thus, when these physicians cannot obtain privileges, their clinic is forced to shut down, creating another barrier to care.

Our admitting privileges study confirmed decades of research showing that abortion care is extremely safe. After an exhaustive analysis of health claims data of over 55,000 patients over two years, we found that less than a quarter of 1% of all abortions result in a major complication.

In fact the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, one of the top research institutions of the country, has underscored this fact with a report on the safety and quality of abortion care in the United States.

Abortion Change Won’t Come until the Supreme Court Abandons Roe v. Wade

  Abortion Change Won’t Come until the Supreme Court Abandons Roe v. Wade The Court’s justification for blocking anti-abortion state legislation rests on shaky grounds and ignores common-sense constitutional interpretation. And if the precedent of any case merits being scorned — something which should be done rarely and with the utmost caution — it is the precedent of Roe v. Wade. So rather than being viewed as successful efforts to uphold well-formed precedent, the rulings of Planned Parenthood v. Casey and of today should be seen for what they are: in line with a precedent that rests on an unacceptably shaky foundation.

Abortion Rights Reinforced as Supreme Court Voids Louisiana Law . A divided U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that opponents said would have left the state with The law was challenged by two unidentified doctors and the Hope Medical Group for Women, a Shreveport clinic

The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to But the cost- benefit analysis undertaken on Wednesday at the Supreme Court illustrated its current At issue was a Louisiana law that requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges

Anniversary action plan: Sure, let's protect Roe v. Wade. But as abortion rights erode, we must do much more.

Abortion has been shown to be safer than the simple procedures of a tonsillectomy or a wisdom tooth extraction.

Yet even with the overwhelming evidence on abortion safety, there are still multiple laws that ignore the science and restrict access to this essential care. In total, 24 states have extremely restrictive laws on abortion, including 11 states with admitting privileges requirements or similar laws still in place.

Restrictions hurt low-income women

States with more abortion restrictions tend to have fewer abortion providers, requiring residents in these states to travel greater distances for care. This creates large areas where no abortion provider exists, known as abortion deserts. Currently the nation has 27 abortion deserts, major cities where individuals have to travel 100 miles or more to obtain abortion care.  Most are throughout the South and Midwest.

Poor access like this exacerbates inequities. Increased travel distance means increased costs for transportation and overnight accommodations, lost wages from taking time off work, and paying for child care. For those who are struggling financially, having to travel a long distance could put an abortion out of reach, leading them to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Supreme Court rumor: Hugh Hewitt claims Alito retirement being floated

  Supreme Court rumor: Hugh Hewitt claims Alito retirement being floated Conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt told listeners Wednesday morning that according to his sources, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is considering retirement. This came on the heels of a Washington Post report that said Justice Clarence Thomas "is privately seen by Trump’s aides as the most likely to retire this year," though he's given no indication of doing so. Hewitt mentioned the Alito rumor on his show while talking to the author of that article, Robert Costa, who also had written about conservatives’ disappointment with decisions where Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court’s liberal justices.

A 5-4 decision struck down a restrictive Louisiana law that required any doctor providing abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital less than 30 miles away. NOW PLAYING: Medical .

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday that "momentum and effort has waned among some of the people and authorities" to combat the virus, warning the country's economic Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit .

Damaging and unscientific: Abortion restrictions can harm women. Let's follow evidence, not ideology, in 2019.

Denying someone a wanted abortion can have significant negative impacts on their lives, such as lowered financial security, poorer physical health, reduced life aspirations and harm to the development and economic well-being of existing children. The research shows that individuals should be able to have the children they want, in the time that is best for them.

On Monday, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, followed scientific research and evidence when it comes to abortion in Louisiana. We need state and local lawmakers, federal and state courts to follow suit, so that people everywhere can have real access to abortion care, regardless of their economic status or zip code.

Ushma Upadhyay is an associate professor and researcher with Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California, San Francisco and Director of Research at the UC Global Health Institute's Center of Expertise on Women's Health, Gender, and Empowerment. Follow her on Twitter: @UshmaU

You can read diverse opinions from our Board of Contributors and other writers on the Opinion front page, on Twitter @usatodayopinion and in our daily Opinion newsletter. To respond to a column, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit

Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after a fall, Supreme Court says .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was hospitalized last month after falling at a Maryland country club, the court confirmed Tuesday. The court told The Washington Post in a statement that the 65-year-old justice fell on June 21 and suffered injuries that required stitches. He was observed at an area hospital overnight and was released the next day.Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg told the Post that doctors had ruled out any connections between Roberts's history of having two seizures in 1993 and 2007 and the June incident. Doctors said the fall was caused by dehydration.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 1
This is interesting!