Supreme Court Hands Abortion-Rights Advocates
Chief Justice John Roberts sided with Liberal Supreme Court justices to block the controversial Louisiana abortion law which critics say closed almost all state clinics.
Judgment 5-4 is a victory for abortion rights advocates who argued that the law was not medically necessary and served as a veiled attempt to restrict abortion. Doctors are prohibited by law from performing the procedure unless they have privileges at a nearby hospital.
The majority opinion was forged by Justice Stephen Brayer, who wrote that the majority “accordingly believe that the law of Louisiana is unconstitutional”.
Brayer added later: “The evidence also shows that opposition to abortion played an important role in some of the hospitals’ decisions to refuse to recognize privileges.”
Judgment continues against Roberts alongside the Liberals on major issues. He previously supported the program that allows undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children to stay and aligned themselves with the idea that protection against discrimination was extended to LGBT workers.
Four years ago, while Justice Anthony Kennedy was still on the bench, the court overturned a similar law outside of Texas.
However, a lot has changed since then, Kennedy Brett Cavanaugh, who is more conservative on this issue, has been replaced. Abortion rights advocates feared not only that the latest precedent was in danger, but that a strengthened and conservative majority could begin to abandon historical views such as Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood against Casey, who supported women’s right to abortion.
On Monday, the deeply divided U.S. Supreme Court stood before a precedent for abortion. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four Liberals in court, noting the Supreme Court’s commitment to the precedents, to repeal Louisiana law requiring doctors in abortion clinics to obtain concessions in a nearby hospital.
The Louisiana Act is almost identical to the one the court overturned in 2016 and concluded that the Texas Admission Benefits Act was medically unnecessary and that it significantly limited access to abortion.
But since then, the composition of the court has radically changed, and opponents of abortion had high hopes that the new Conservative majority would reverse its course. Apparently Roberts, who opposed the 2016 decision, decided that the value of the commitment to the precedents was more important.
In his favorable opinion, Roberts wrote that “the legal doctrine of the underlying crisis obliges us, in the absence of special circumstances, to deal with these two cases. Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to the abortion to the same extent as Texas law, because the same reasons. ”
For pluralism, judge Stephen Brayer said Louisiana law “will put significant obstacles in the way women request abortion” in the state, that it brings “no significant health benefit” and that the law “therefore imposes an” unjustified burden “on the rights of women Constitutional choice in matters of abortion” and thus violates the constitution.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that “our precedent for abortion is seriously untrue and should be abolished”, and that the Supreme Court “has neither the constitutional power nor the constitutional power to declare a law unconstitutional Louisiana duly promulgated “.
Judge Samuel Alito, also in opposition, wrote that court decisions in the Louisiana and Texas cases “are used as a bulldozer to dispel obstructing legal rules”.