Pro-life and pro-choice activists alike are waiting to see how the recent Supreme Court changes will affect abortion laws throughout the country. During this term, the Court will review its first case concerning abortion since conservative justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch joined the bench. The Court announced on October 4 that it will review June Medical Services, L.L.C. v. Gee in order to examine the constitutionality of an abortion law in Louisiana. The Louisiana law, called the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of where the providers perform abortions.
June Medical Services bears a striking resemblance to the 2016 decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, where the Court struck down a Texas law that required abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals and state abortion clinics to comply with standards of ambulatory surgery centers. In a 5-3 decision, they ruled that these requirements imposed “a substantial burden” on women’s health.
However, recently the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court created a distinction between the two cases when it upheld the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act as constitutional. In its decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled that the burdens the Louisiana law would impose on abortion access were vastly less than what the Texas law stipulated. While most clinics in Texas closed because of this law, “only one doctor at one clinic is currently unable to obtain privileges” in Louisiana, the court wrote. Furthermore, the Court wrote that few Louisiana hospitals required a doctor to see a minimum number of patients in order to have admitting privileges, while “almost all” Texas hospitals had such a requirement.
In Hellerstedt, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and other religious groups submitted joint friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the law. When the ruling was announced, the USCCB’s Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities said the ruling “contradicts the consensus among medical groups that such measures protects women’s lives.” The Texas Catholic bishops, furthermore, declared that the Hellerstedt decision “puts women at grave risk.” They argued that the law functioned to protect women, emphasizing that women’s “lives are just as precious as those of their children.”
Catherine Glenn Foster, president of Americans United for Life, urged the Court in their review of June Medical to take into account women’s safety in Louisiana. She noted the case’s similarities to Hellerstedt, but argued that the decision in the similar Texas case held the law’s requirements as unconstitutional “but did not rule on the overall validity of such provisions.” The organization also filed a friend-of-the-court brief “in support of Louisiana’s cross-petition, detailing numerous horrific violations of basic health and safety standards by abortion businesses in the state.”
Two days before the court agreed to review June Medical Services, a group of national pro-life leaders gathered outside of the Supreme Court with a petition of 250,000 signatures urging the Court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions. No matter the ruling, the decision in June Medical Services will serve to signal the future of abortion laws.
- The Ignatian Family Teach-In Goes Virtual - October 29, 2020
- Campus Celebrates Espresso Your Faith Week During Pandemic - October 1, 2020
- Supreme Court to Review Louisiana Abortion Law - October 30, 2019