•   
  •   
  •   

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

15:16  22 june  2020
15:16  22 june  2020 Source:   abcnews.go.com

Supreme Court refuses to hear new challenge to gun restrictions

  Supreme Court refuses to hear new challenge to gun restrictions By refusing to take a new case so soon, the justices denied gun rights groups a chance to put state and local limits before the conservative court.After refusing to rule on a challenge to New York City gun restrictions because they were rescinded while the case was pending, the court turned away all potential replacements that would have given its conservative justices a chance to strengthen the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court appeared divided after over an hour of arguments Wednesday concerning a controversial Louisiana abortion access law that critics say will leave just one doctor in the state to perform the procedure.

The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to Today: A case now before the Supreme Court is the first major test of abortion rights since And this clinic is at the center of a major Supreme Court case . And it involves a significant question

The Supreme Court will be announcing a decision in a major abortion case soon, and while it's centered on one state law, another question has come up in the case that could have massive consequences for the future of abortion laws in America.

a woman standing in front of a building: Amy Hagstrom Miller and Nancy Northup speak to the media outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, March 2, 2016, following oral arguments in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which deals with access to abortion. © Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Amy Hagstrom Miller and Nancy Northup speak to the media outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, March 2, 2016, following oral arguments in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which deals with access to abortion.

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.

'Our Supreme Court did something': Iconic New York bar celebrates transgender ruling

  'Our Supreme Court did something': Iconic New York bar celebrates transgender ruling 'Our Supreme Court did something': Iconic New York bar celebrates transgender ruling"Our Supreme Court did something!" said Marti Cummings, a prominent nonbinary New York drag queen. "It was a 6-3 ruling that said we are allowed to have jobs. That we are allowed to go to work and be ourselves, that we can show up at work and say that I am a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, gender nonconforming, nonbinary, genderqueer, two spirit person.

The court had not heard a major abortion case since 2007. The court did not address the question of whether states may draw districts based on voter-eligible population, a method that could diminish the political power of districts that include disproportionate numbers of unauthorized immigrants

The Supreme Court 's decision legalizing abortion may be safe for now. But opponents still want restrictions from the court 's conservative majority . That appearance of partisanship has Roberts and colleagues hoping to avoid issues that could divide the court 5-4 along ideological lines.

However, last year, shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case, Louisiana brought another question to the table, on the issue of third-party standing.

What is third-party standing?

Norma McCorvey wearing glasses: Norma McCorvey, the woman at the center of the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee during hearings on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. © Chris Kleponis/AFP via Getty Images, FILE Norma McCorvey, the woman at the center of the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee during hearings on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.

Third-party standing is the legal concept that a third party -- like an abortion provider -- is allowed to argue on behalf of the person actually impacted: a patient. When the Supreme Court announced it would hear June Medical, it also agreed to hear the cross-petition from the state on third-party standing.

At Crèvecoeur-le-Grand, she launched her loose tea business

 At Crèvecoeur-le-Grand, she launched her loose tea business © DR At 24, Loredana Habsiger started her business selling bulk tea. Tea, she drinks liters. But Loredana Habsiger was “fed up” with going to the supermarket to get it. And then, to buy large quantities, you had to go to Beauvais, in the nearest Biocoop. “When you don't live in a big city, it's more complicated to get supplies. So each time, my friends asked me to bring them back, ”she says.

Supreme Court rulings often establish a nationwide precedent or interpretation of the law that can have "When the Supreme Court overturns a prior precedent, it is potentially changing a settled constitutional In the case of Roe v. Wade, overturning the decision wouldn't criminalize abortion

Decision in Texas or Mississippi could lead to ‘most drastic reduction of the availability of abortion at any point since Roe v Wade’, says expert.

While Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that declared abortion a protected right, included an individual patient challenging the law, every major abortion case since then has been presented by providers and clinics like Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood or June Medical Services.

Essentially, Louisiana was asking if June Medical Services had the right to challenge the law in the first place. Should the Supreme Court rule on that issue, it could change how abortion laws are handled in the foreseeable future, since third parties are the ones to typically challenge laws.

MORE: Family's abortion story sheds light on stakes of Supreme Court ruling

If the Supreme Court decides third parties cannot challenge abortion laws, patients themselves would have to challenge them. This could prove to be immensely difficult; abortion rights advocates point out that individuals may not want to challenge laws because it would make them a target to anti-abortion violence and harassment.

Why conservative Chief Justice Roberts just struck down an anti-abortion law

  Why conservative Chief Justice Roberts just struck down an anti-abortion law Roberts didn’t save abortion rights, he told future litigants how to bury them.The best reading of the Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo is that Roberts just gave the constitutional right to an abortion a very brief stint on life support. And he did so largely because Louisiana presented the weakest possible case in June Medical.

The case went to the supreme court , with maryland challenging the constitutionality of a national bank. In favor of McCulloh striking down the tax (Marshall). Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to an abortion during the first six months of pregnancy.

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh has only one major abortion ruling in his 12 years on the federal bench, but that forceful opinion will define A new Justice to the Supreme Court could change abortion rights in the U.S. The case landed in the D.C. Circuit in late October after a lower- court judge ordered the

Individuals would also have trouble challenging laws given the limited time one has to get an abortion. The Louisiana law at the Supreme Court, for instance, was signed in 2014. Louisiana law bans abortions performed after 20 weeks of a pregnancy with limited exceptions, so if a patient seeking an abortion were to have challenged the law in 2014, that patient would have long surpassed that 20-week threshold by the time the Supreme Court agreed to take on a case in 2019 -- let alone by the time the court announced a ruling on it.

How third-party questioning was discussed in the case

a man sitting in a car: Kathaleen Pittman, the administrator of the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, La., poses for a portrait in the clinic's recovery room, Feb. 20, 2020. © Rebecca Santana/AP Kathaleen Pittman, the administrator of the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, La., poses for a portrait in the clinic's recovery room, Feb. 20, 2020.

Louisiana wrote in its petition to question third-party standing: "There is little evidence that their patients' interests actually align with Plaintiffs' position that the burdens of such protections exceed their value. On the contrary, undisputed record evidence (including of Plaintiffs' poor safety record, inadequate credentialing practices, and questionable efforts to undermine the law at issue) shows Plaintiffs are directly adverse to their patients' interests. It is hard to imagine a worse case for third-party standing."

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.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a major blow on Wednesday to organized labor. The decision could encourage many workers perfectly happy with their unions’ work to make the economically rational They seemed poised to succeed in the Supreme Court in 2016, when a

The Supreme Court has said that “true threats” are not protected by the First Amendment, but what counts as such a threat has not been especially clear. The question for the justices in the case , Elonis v. United States, No. 13-983, was whether prosecutors had done enough to prove Mr. Elonis’s intent.

In oral arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo, held in March, the third-party question came up in limited discussion. Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Julie Rikelman, representing June Medical, argued that the state brought up the question too late in the proceedings and there was significant precedent allowing for third-party standing both within abortion cases and in non-abortion-related cases.

Justice Samuel Alito, in particular, pressed Rikelman on the question of if abortion clinics and patients had aligned interests.

MORE: Supreme Court set to hear critical Louisiana abortion case

"Are these doctors in any different position than potential plaintiffs, women, who feel burdened by this law?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked after a round of questions from Alito.

"No, Your Honor," Rikelman responded. "And, in fact, the state has not pointed to a single thing that would have been different if one woman had been joined in this lawsuit. To the contrary, the issues that the state says are the key issues in this case -- whether this law serves health and safety benefits and how difficult it is for physicians to obtain privileges -- are issues that the physicians are particularly well suited to litigate."

After Rikelman acknowledged that some patients "could have" brought the case, Alito asked, "Well, then why can't... why shouldn't [patients] be the ones to bring suit?"

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

  Science prevails in Supreme Court ruling on abortion law that provided no medical benefit The Supreme Court followed scientific research and evidence when it came to abortion in Louisiana. All courts and lawmakers should do the same.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.

"Your Honor, this is a law that restricts abortion by regulating the physicians, rather than their patients, and so it's appropriate for them to be the plaintiffs here," Rikelman responded.

In the course of this line of questioning, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that should the court overturn third-party standing, they would likely have to then "directly or indirectly" overrule at least eight previous abortion cases argued at the Supreme Court.

Possible outcomes

a man and a woman standing in front of a building: Amy Hagstrom Miller and Nancy Northup speak to the media outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, March 2, 2016, following oral arguments in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which deals with access to abortion. © Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images Amy Hagstrom Miller and Nancy Northup speak to the media outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, March 2, 2016, following oral arguments in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which deals with access to abortion.

"It's within the realm of possibility that [the Supreme Court] could address [third-party standing]," TJ Tu, a co-counsel on the case for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABC News in February, "and if they do, we're confident that they'll see there's over 40 years of precedent supporting our position and literally none supporting Louisiana's, so it'd be a pretty radical remaking of the law to say that abortion providers don't have third-party standing."

Indeed it would be. Other abortion cases currently in progress that are being brought by third parties could also be impacted if the Supreme Court makes a ruling against the standing, and already judges in other abortion cases are looking to the Supreme Court for guidance regarding third-party standing.

MORE: Louisiana abortion case may hinge on Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts

A district court judge in Georgia said last week he will not be making a decision on a case challenging a six-week abortion ban in the state until after the Supreme Court announces its June Medical decision, specifically citing that he's waiting for an answer on the third-party standing question.

It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will even touch the question -- and that, of course, could leave it open to more questions in cases down the road.

Roberts drifts away from conservative bloc, angering Republicans and exciting the left .
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ role as the court’s new swing vote has become abundantly apparent in recent weeks, as he has been the deciding justice in several high-profile 5-4 decisions in which he sided with the court’s liberal bloc -- providing hope for Democrats and angering Republicans. © Provided by FOX News The court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's liberal justices; Trump 2020 senior legal adviser Jenna Ellis joins the debate.

usr: 3
This is interesting!