https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. ET AL. v. RUSSO,
INTERIM SECRETARY, LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 18–1323. Argued March 4, 2020—Decided June 29, 2020*
Louisiana’s Act 620, which is almost word-for-word identical to the Texas
“admitting privileges” law at issue in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U. S. ___, requires any doctor who performs abortions to hold
“active admitting privileges at a hospital . . . located not further than
thirty miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or
induced,” and defines “active admitting privileges” as being “a member
in good standing” of the hospital’s “medical staff . . . with the ability to
admit a patient and to provide diagnostic and surgical services to such
patient.”
In these
This seems like more a ruling on how a state can regulate its medical practitioners, and not specifically about abortion. It seems to sidestep the whole right to life issue, which should always be the main argument. But it still seems wrong in that a state should be able to regulate such things.