Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions, with Roberts joining liberals

washington examiner ^ | 6/29/2020 | cassidy morrison

[bitt]

00:00 01:16

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting abortion rights in the case June v. Russo Monday.

The court's opinion, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, "found that conditions on admitting privileges common to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety."

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, called into question the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that mandated abortion clinics have admitting privileges in hospitals within a 30-mile radius, which would have winnowed down the number of abortion providers in Louisiana to one.

The Louisiana Legislature passed the law in 2014 on the basis that requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges would protect women’s health, and competent abortion providers would be able to obtain privileges. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, however, wrote in its Supreme Court brief that this was not the case, as hospitals have the authority to refuse to grant privileges to abortion providers. Complications in abortion procedures are rare, and the odds that hospitals would reap financial benefits from granting admitting privileges to abortion providers are very low.

[little jeremiah]

I think it’s blackmail. Illegal adoptions plus the guy’s a homo.

[ducttape45]

See my tagline

"Righteousness exalteth a nation; but sin is a reproach to any people." Proverbs 14:34

[Coronal]

Only through impeachment. And given the Democratic majority in the House, that’s rather unlikely.

[Blackyce]

Because four justices decided they wanted to take it. I’d imagine that the more conservative justices deluded themselves into believing Roberts was one of them.

[lodi90]

Occam’s razor is in play here. Roberts is a progressive corportist. No need for blackmail. Here he is giving cover to Gorsuch and/or Kavanaugh, too. They trade votes all the time like in Congress. It’s all part of the beltway theater.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

I wonder if this makes Michael Flynn worry about his freedom. I realize this is a differebt kind of case, but I honestly don’t know what to expect from Roberts now.

[SunkenCiv]

• Text of Louisiana abortion decision

[little jeremiah]

Well, it’s pretty clear he’s gotta be blackmailed. I have no clue about what they said in private to each other regarding trading votes.

[edwinland]

I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health (Note: This is the Texas abortion case which was identical to the Louisiana case and in which Roberts dissented from the majority and joined the conservatives) and con- tinue to believe that the case was wrongly decided. The question today (i.e. Louisiana case of June 29th) however is not whether Whole Woman’s Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case.

Sounds like a loyal (or captive) party member who is "allowed" to vote against the whip when his vote won't matter, but not when they need him.

[Salvation]

What has happened to Roberts?

[Maudeen]

Good one!

[nwrep]

I think he is an institutionalist who goes out of his way to avoid being seen as an activist. He sees his role as safeguarding the institutional integrity of SCOTUS above all. That means not blithely overturning precedent, crafting the narrowest possible outcomes, ruling only on technical matters at issue instead of on merits, deferring to Congress, etc.