https://www.npr.org/2020/06/29/874458692/supreme-court-hands-abortion-rights-a-victory-in-louisiana-case

From the article:

"A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stood by its most recent abortion precedent. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court's four liberals,
citing the Supreme Court's adherence to precedent, to invalidate a Louisiana law that required doctors at clinics that perform abortions to have admitting
privileges at a nearby hospital.

Louisiana's law is virtually identical to one struck down by the court in 2016, which found that the admitting-privileges law in Texas was medically unnecessary
and that it significantly limited access to abortion.

But since then the composition of the court has changed significantly, and abortion opponents had high hopes that the new conservative majority would reverse
course. Roberts, who dissented from the 2016 decision, apparently decided, however, that the value of abiding by precedent was more important.

In his concurring opinion, Roberts wrote that "The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.
The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons."

Writing for the plurality, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Louisiana law "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion" in
the state, that it offers "no significant health-related benefits" and that the law "consequently imposes an "undue burden" on a woman's constitutional
right to choose to have an abortion," and therefore violates the Constitution.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that, "Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled," and that the high
court has "neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana's duly enacted law unconstitutional."...

Louisiana contended that four of the state's six abortion clinic doctors did not act in good faith when seeking to obtain the hospital admitting privileges
required by the state. In short, that if the doctors had really tried, they could have complied with the requirement.

In reality, for most hospitals, admitting privileges are a business decision. Hospitals do not generally grant admitting privileges to doctors unless those
doctors routinely admit a significant stream of patients to the hospital for treatment.

In many areas, doctors who perform abortions at clinics are not welcome at hospitals. Not only are they politically unpopular, but if hospitals were to
grant them admitting privileges, they likely would have to beef up security."

I never realized how hospital admitting privileges worked until I read the last three paragraphs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2020 12:07PM by blindguy.

It's about men controlling women's bodies and the end of patriarchal society.

Religion is just the excuse — as with so many other things.

Good. The Louisiana law was a pile of bullshit from stem to stern. Women have the right to make health decisions on their own, thank you very much.