•   
  •   
  •   

US Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

18:10  29 june  2020
18:10  29 june  2020 Source:   nytimes.com

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.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.

a person standing in front of a building talking on a cell phone: Anti-abortion demonstrators protesting in front of the Supreme Court in Washington last week. © 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.

The case was the court’s first on abortion since President Trump’s appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.

Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Restrictions

  Supreme Court Rejects Louisiana Abortion Restrictions In the end, Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t go along with a quick reversal of a recent precedent.June Medical Services v. Russo was universally regarded as the best opportunity anti-abortion advocates had to give a green light to states that sought to shut down clinics via Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP) laws purported (disingenuously) to protect the health of women seeking abortions. What stood directly in the way, however, was the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which it struck down a virtually identical Texas law. But the Court was configured differently four years ago.

The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.

Sign Up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter

The law’s supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. Opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence.

Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport. But the Shreveport doctor testified that he could not handle the clinic’s work alone. If the law went into effect, a trial judge concluded, there would be a single doctor in a single clinic, in New Orleans, available to provide abortions in Louisiana.

Supreme Court blocks order that relaxed voting restrictions in Alabama

  Supreme Court blocks order that relaxed voting restrictions in Alabama The Supreme Court on Thursday shot down a ruling from a lower court that would have eased voting restrictions in Alabama during the coronavirus pandemic. To vote by absentee ballot in Alabama, the state requires residents to send a copy of a photo ID and mandates that the ballot must be either signed by two witnesses or notarized.In June, a U.S. district judge in Birmingham issued a ruling to waive the requirement that voters in three counties get their ballots notarized or witnessed by two adults and waived the photo ID requirement for residents who are 65 and older or have a disability.

The judge, John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, struck down the Louisiana law in 2017, saying it created an undue burden on women’s constitutional right to abortion. The experience of the clinic in Shreveport, Hope Medical Group for Women, showed, he wrote, that the law was a solution in search of a problem.

“In the last 23 years, Hope Clinic, which serves in excess of 3,000 patients per year, had only four patients who required transfer to a hospital for treatment,” Judge deGravelles wrote. “In each instance, regardless of whether the physician had admitting privileges, the patient received appropriate care.”

The law, Judge deGravelles ruled, was essentially identical to the one from Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in the 2016 decision, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority in that decision, said courts must consider whether the benefits claimed for laws that put restrictions on abortion outweigh the burdens they put on the constitutional right to the procedure.

Justice Roberts plays the long game

  Justice Roberts plays the long game To state that Chief Justice John Roberts has disappointed conservatives may be an understatement. He provided key votes in decisions rejecting the White House efforts to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and uphold a Louisiana abortion regulation. These votes, Curt Levey lamented in the Washington Post, "mark the death knell for conservative hopes" that the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court "would finally produce aFirst, aside from these immigration and abortion decisions, the Supreme Court has produced decisions which reliably accord with those goals of conservatives. Consider the decision in the Seila Law case, released the same day as the Louisiana abortion ruling.

There was no evidence that the Texas law’s admitting-privileges requirement “would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment,” Justice Breyer wrote. But there was good evidence, he added, that the requirement caused the number of abortion clinics in Texas to drop to 20 from 40.

The vote in that decision was 5 to 3, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s four-member liberal wing to form a majority. It was decided by an eight-member court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that February, and since then, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was appointed to succeed Justice Scalia and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Kennedy.

In 2018, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New Orleans reversed Judge deGravelles’s ruling and upheld the Louisiana law notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in the Texas case, saying that the law’s benefits outweighed the burdens it imposed.

“Unlike Texas, Louisiana presents some evidence of a minimal benefit,” Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the majority. In particular, he wrote, “the admitting privileges requirement performs a real, and previously unaddressed, credentialing function that promotes the well-being of women seeking abortion.”

Easing of abortion restrictions by Virginia's new Democratic majority takes effect

  Easing of abortion restrictions by Virginia's new Democratic majority takes effect "We've been fighting for this for years," one pro-abortion rights activist said."No more will legislators in Richmond — most of whom are men — be telling women what they should and should not be doing with their bodies," Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, said in a statement.

Judge Smith faulted doctors seeking to provide abortions in the state for not trying hard enough to obtain admitting privileges and said abortions would remain available after the law went into effect.

In dissent, Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote that the majority’s ruling was impossible to reconcile with the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in the Texas case and with its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which banned states from placing an “undue burden” on the constitutional right to abortion.

“I fail to see,” Judge Higginbotham wrote, “how a statute with no medical benefit that is likely to restrict access to abortion can be considered anything but ‘undue.’”

The full Fifth Circuit refused to rehear the case by a 9-to-6 vote. In dissent, Judge Stephen A. Higginson wrote that the Louisiana law was “equivalent in structure, purpose and effect to the Texas law” invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2016.

“I am unconvinced that any justice of the Supreme Court who decided Whole Woman’s Health would endorse our opinion,” Judge Higginson wrote. “The majority would not, and I respectfully suggest that the dissenters might not either.”

The courts will not save abortion access .
Yes, abortion is legal in the United States, but for too many, it is far from accessible. The courts alone will not and cannot resolve the systemic inequities that undergird this inconvenient truth. require(["medianetNativeAdOnArticle"], function (medianetNativeAdOnArticle) { medianetNativeAdOnArticle.getMedianetNativeAds(true); }); Roe v. Wade never guaranteed abortion access for all. Although abortion has been legal for almost half a century, many states have added hurdles to accessing abortion care. Today, 57 percent of U.S.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 0
This is interesting!