One part requires that doctors performing abortions must be able to admit patients to a nearby hospital, while the other requires all abortion facilities in the state to meet the standards for “ambulatory surgical centers”.
Advertisement
The legal group representing the clinics says some facilities in Louisiana have already had to stop providing abortions in order to comply with the law.
A vote in favor of the clinics in Louisiana could signal how the justices will rule on the Texas law.
“For the third time in a little over a year, the Supreme Court has stepped in to preserve women’s ability to get the constitutionally protected health care they need”, Northup said. By taking Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt, though, the Court has re-entered the fray and stands to again reset the parameters for abortion politics.
The justices seemed to split Wednesday over two provisions of the 2013 Texas law at the center of the Supreme Court case.
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the state would continue defending the law.
In 2015, Arkansas adopted a new restriction that requires only medication abortion providers to have an agreement with a physician who has admitting privileges; the law does not include a similar requirement for surgical abortion providers.
Though supporters of the Texas law insist the state’s strict medical regulations were meant to promote health and safety, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued they would actually hurt women.
The law puts “heavy burdens on abortion access that are not medically justified”, argued Toti, a lawyer for the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York City referring to clinics that have closed throughout the state just prior to the law’s enactment or right afterward.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the Supreme Court’s most ardent protector of abortion rights, outspoken enough about their importance to become an icon to young feminists and a source of outrage among her detractors. The rules would cut the number of abortion clinics in the state by three-fourths, abortion providers say. “We disagree with the court’s unexplained decision“, he said, adding, “we remain confident that we will prevail on the merits. The law was scheduled to begin on September 1, 2014, which gave doctors 81 days from the day the bill was signed until it took effect to obtain privileges.
Coming shortly after the justices debated a similar Texas law, the order shows a majority of the high court is unwilling to permit conservative states to enforce stringent regulations.
Abortion rights activists will be heartened to hear Kennedy’s final suggestion. Louisiana immediately appealed, asking the court to stay its decision blocking the law while that appeal proceeded. Friday’s move effectively put Louisiana’s law on hold while the justices prepare a ruling, expected by the end of June, in the Texas case.
The state of Louisiana appealed to a three-judge panel drawn from the fifth circuit court of appeals, the nation’s most conservative circuit. On February 24, the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted an emergency stay of the federal district court decision from late January, immediately closing two of the remaining four clinics in the state and threatening to close another were it not for immediate Supreme Court relief.
The cases are at different stages in the legal process, but both involve similar laws and actions by the same federal appeals court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Jessica, could you explain what the potential outcomes are, given the eight-member Supreme Court at the moment?
Advertisement
Justice Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenter in deciding whether to temporarily block the Louisiana law.
