SCOTUS overturns restrictive Louisiana abortion law


WASHINGTON — On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that could have forced almost all abortion providers in the state to close.

Politico reported that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the four liberal justices in finding that the Louisiana law requiring providers to have admitting privileges at local hospitals was an undue burden for patients seeking an abortion.

“Enforcing the admitting-privileges requirement would drastically reduce the number and geographic distribution of abortion providers, making it impossible for many women to obtain a safe, legal abortion in the State and imposing substantial obstacles on those who could,” wrote Justice Stephen Breyer.

Roberts also wrote a concurrent opinion on the decision, according to the political news site.

“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 wrote. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”

The ACLU of Illinois welcomed the decision.

“In today’s decision, the Supreme Court justly rejected abortion opponents’ political maneuverings meant to test the Court’s willingness to reverse its own recent holding preserving abortion access,” Ameri Klafeta, director of ACLUI’ Women’s and Reproductive Rights Project. “There should be no confusion – the hospital admitting privileges at issue in the Louisiana, just like those in the Texas law that the Court considered just a few years ago, do nothing to advance safety or quality for those seeking reproductive health care, including abortion care.”

U.S. Rep. Bill Foster (D-Naperville) applauded the decision.

“As a scientist, I find it deeply disturbing when lawmakers try to make it more difficult for women to access reproductive health care or interfere with the patient-physician relationship,” Foster said in a statement. “A woman’s right to choose is the law of the land, and efforts to roll back reproductive freedoms are fundamentally unconstitutional and dangerous.”



Comments are closed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy