U.S. Supreme Court strikes down La. abortion law

By Carol Zimmermann
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) – In a 5-4 decision June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that doctors who perform abortions have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals could not stand.

The opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, said the case was “similar to, nearly identical with” a law in Texas that the court four years ago found to be a burden to women seeking abortion. Breyer was joined in the opinion by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

Breyer said the Louisiana law was unconstitutional because it posed a “substantial obstacle” for women seeking abortions while providing “no significant health-related benefits.”

Archdiocese takes issue

In a statement, the Archdiocese of New Orleans expressed its disappointment in the ruling.

“This is very disappointing to us as people of faith who believe in the dignity of human life,” the Archdiocese of New Orleans said in a statement. “We believed this law would have protected women from the possibility of harmful medical care preventing long-term health issues for them and saving lives.

“As Catholics, we see abortion as an action that denies the fundamental human right to life and harms women physically, mentally, and emotionally. We will continue to pray and fight for justice for mothers and children and offer them the support needed to choose life. We invite all people of faith to pray for women seeking abortion, often under enormous pressure, that they will find alternatives that truly value them and the lives of their children.” 

State Sen. Katrina Jackson, the pro-life Democrat from Monroe who authored the 2014 legislation, said the decision almost took her “breath away.”

“(The Supreme Court)  ruled against women’s health care,” Jackson said. “They ruled against qualified physicians being required.”

The Texas case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, struck down the law with a different bench without Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The court said the requirements imposed on abortion providers – to have hospital admitting privileges – put “a substantial burden” on women seeking abortions, and the law wasn’t necessary to protect women’s health.

In the Louisiana case, Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment of the four justices voting to strike down this law even though four years ago, he joined the dissenting opinion in the Texas decision. Last year, he sided with the justices who agreed to stop the Louisiana law from going into effect while its challengers pursued their appeal.

“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” Roberts said, adding: “Therefore, Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

He said the legal doctrine known as “stare decisis” – which obligates courts to follow the precedent of similar cases – “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.”

In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said the court’s decision “perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction.”

He also said the court should revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. “Roe is grievously wrong for many reasons,” he wrote, emphasizing that its “core holding – that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her unborn child – finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

Jackson, the pro-life Democrat, said the court’s action was a “tragic decision that continues its practice of putting the interests of for-profit abortion businesses ahead of the health and safety of women.”

Supporters of the Louisiana law said it was a necessary regulation to guarantee women’s health and safety.

“In Louisiana, radiologists and ophthalmologists have performed abortions,” Jackson said. “Every woman who walks into an abortion clinic believes that she’s walking into the hands of an ob-gyn ... that the physician will be able to provide a continuity of care and contact the hospital on her behalf if she begins to hemorrhage.”