Supreme Court abortion case tests Trump’s campaign promise to overturn Roe v. Wade

In the abortion case, the justices will consider a Louisiana law that was passed in 2014. The law, which is not currently in effect, would require abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic.

Admitting privileges are “nearly impossible” for abortion providers to obtain, according to a group of health-care managers and consultants who filed a friend-of-the-court brief. A federal district court that struck down the law found that it would limit Louisiana, where 10,000 abortions are performed yearly, to just one provider at a single clinic.

The law was challenged by two anonymous physicians and a Louisiana abortion clinic known as Hope Medical Group, who are being represented in court by the Center for Reproductive Rights. The state of Louisiana is defending the measure. 

After the law was blocked by a district court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, which would have allowed it to be enforced. A year ago, the Supreme Court stepped in to temporarily halt the law from going into effect until it could issue a final decision. 

The justices ruled as recently as 2016 that a nearly identical admitting privileges law in Texas was unconstitutional in the case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. Since then though, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have joined the bench. The court’s decision to take up such a similar case so soon suggests that the justices may be willing to overturn their recent precedent. 

Travis Tu, lead attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, has argued in legal briefs filed with the top court that the admitting-privileges law fails to provide any medical benefits while presenting a serious burden on women seeking abortions.

Hope Medical has had only four patients who required transfer to a hospital in 23 years, and all of them received appropriate care regardless of whether the abortion provider had admitting privileges, Tu wrote in one brief. 

But Louisiana has argued that the law serves an important role in credentialing abortion providers and ensuring the safety of women who undergo the procedure.

“Every American, regardless of your stance on abortion, has an interest in protecting women at abortion facilities,” said Angie Thomas, associate director of Louisiana Right for Life. 

A substantial portion of Louisiana’s argument has targeted what’s known as third-party standing, or the right of abortion clinics to sue on behalf of the women they serve. Louisiana argues that the clinics should not be able to represent women in lawsuits targeting regulations that the state believes are necessary for their safety.

Some of the most important victories for abortion rights groups have come in lawsuits brought by abortion providers, including the landmark 1992 case known as Planned Parenthood v. Casey that reaffirmed Roe v. Wade’s central holding. 

The justices could deliver a win to Louisiana if they find that the law does not present a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions or if they rule that the clinics should not have been able to pursue their lawsuit in the first place. Either ruling would be a substantial victory for anti-abortion activists. 

Article source: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/02/supreme-court-abortion-case-tests-trump-pledge-to-overturn-roe-v-wade.html