WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 decision June 29, the Supreme Court ruled that a
Louisiana law requiring that doctors who perform abortions have
admitting privileges at nearby hospitals could not stand.
The
opinion in June Medical Services v. Russo, written by Justice Stephen
Breyer, said the case was “similar to, nearly identical with” a law in
Texas that the court four years ago found to be a burden to women
seeking abortion. Breyer was joined in the opinion by Justices Ruth
Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Breyer said the
Louisiana law was unconstitutional because it posed a “substantial
obstacle” for women seeking abortions while providing “no significant
health-related benefits.”
The Texas case, Whole Woman’s Health v.
Hellerstedt, struck down the law with a different bench without Justices
Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. The court said the requirements
imposed on abortion providers — to have hospital admitting privileges —
put “a substantial burden” on women who were seeking abortions and the
law wasn’t necessary to protect women’s health.
“The court’s
failure to recognize the legitimacy of laws prioritizing women’s health
and safety over abortion business interests continues a cruel
precedent,” said Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City, Kansas,
chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee for
Pro-Life Activities.
“Even as we seek to end the brutality of
legalized abortion, we still believe that the women who seek it should
not be further harmed and abused by a callous, profit-driven industry,”
he added.
In the Louisiana case, Chief Justice John Roberts filed
an opinion concurring in the judgment of the four justices voting to
strike down this law even though four years ago, he joined the
dissenting opinion in the Texas decision. Last year, he sided with the
justices who agreed to stop the Louisiana law from going into effect
while its challengers pursued their appeal.
“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 said, adding: “Therefore,
Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”
He said the
legal doctrine known as “stare decisis” — which obligates courts to
follow the precedent of similar cases — “requires us, absent special
circumstances, to treat like cases alike.”
In his dissent, Justice
Clarence Thomas said the court’s decision “perpetuates its ill-founded
abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and
doing so without jurisdiction.”
He also said the court should
revisit its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. “Roe is
grievously wrong for many reasons,” he wrote, emphasizing that its “core
holding — that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to abort her
unborn child — finds no support in the text of the Fourteenth
Amendment.”
More than 70 friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on both sides of
this case with health care professionals, researchers, lawmakers,
states, and religious and advocacy groups alike weighing in. Catholics
groups that filed briefs in support of the state law included: the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Thomas More Society and the National
Association of Catholic Nurses along with the National Catholic
Bioethics Center.
In his June 29 statement, Archbishop Naumann said: “As we grieve this
decision and the pregnant women who will be harmed by it, we continue
to pray and fight for justice for mothers and children.” He also
stressed that the court should correct the “grave injustice” of its
major abortion decisions and recognize the “right to life for unborn
human beings.”
The archbishop also urged “people of faith to pray
for women seeking abortion, often under enormous pressure, that they
will find alternatives that truly value them and the lives of their
children.”