[guest post by Dana]
The law would have provided protection to women having surgical abortions at a clinic by ensuring that the abortion doctors have admitting privileges at local hospitals within 30 miles of their clinics:
A divided Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.
Chief Justice John Roberts and his four more liberal colleagues ruled that the law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals violates abortion rights the court first announced in the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
In a detailed analysis, Yuval Levin takes on Justice Roberts and his reference to Edmund Burke:
“The question today,” Roberts wrote, “is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.” The answer should be ‘yes,’ he insisted, on the basis of the principle of Stare Decisis, by which prior decisions of the Court are adhered to by default absent strong reasons to regard the underlying matters differently. To defend this particular application of Stare Decisis, Roberts pointed to several venerated voices, including Alexander Hamilton (in Federalist 78) and a number of prior decisions of the Court. But he began these references to sources with Edmund Burke…
It was Justice Thomas who correctly said:
From Justice Thomas’s dissent, eloquently taking apart our farcical abortion jurisprudence: “It would no doubt shock the public at that time to learn that one of the new constitutional Amendments contained hidden within the interstices of its text a right to abortion.” pic.twitter.com/g6V3l3cMSD
— Alexandra DeSanctis (@xan_desanctis) June 29, 2020
Despite the fact that we granted Louisiana’s petition specifically to address whether “abortion providers [can] be presumed to have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients,” Conditional Cross-Pet. in No. 18–1460, p. i, a majority of the Court all but ignores the question. The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents. But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.
✍🏼Dear unborn babies,
I am sorry that many are denying your humanity.
I am sorry that there are many powerful people who are against your Right to Life.
I am sorry that many countries have made it legal to kill you.
But you are human & you are precious so we will fight for you. pic.twitter.com/oU5HjfYQN1
— Obianuju Ekeocha (@obianuju) December 8, 2019