DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court Strikes Down LA Abortion Law

Supreme Court hands down major decision reaffirming abortion rights
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, has major implications.
By
Alexandra Svokos
June 29, 2020, 10:40 AM


The Supreme Court announced a major ruling on abortion, deciding that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional and should not stand.

The opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts also filed an opinion concurring for the majority.

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was a challenge to a Louisiana law that required abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital -- an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go that hospital if they need urgent care.

Abortion providers argued this was an unnecessary requirement unrelated to health outcomes that only served to prevent them from being able to provide abortion care. Admitting privileges can be difficult for abortion providers to obtain as hospitals do not want to be associated with them due to the stigma and as abortion is a statistically safe procedure, requiring extremely limited numbers of patients to have to go to hospitals for care.

In fact, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, that a nearly identical hospital admitting privileges law out of Texas caused an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortions after it caused roughly half of clinics in the state to shut down. In the 2020 opinion, Breyer called the Louisiana law "almost word-for-word identical to Texas’ admitting-privileges law."

"This case is similar to, nearly identical with, Whole Woman’s Health. And the law must consequently reach a similar conclusion. Act 620 is unconstitutional," Breyer wrote in conclusion on the June Medical opinion.

That 2016 case set what was supposed to be a precedent that laws like Texas' that "'do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion' cannot survive judicial inspection," Ginsburg wrote in a concurring opinion, referencing a lower court case.

Roberts had been on the dissenting side of the Texas Whole Woman's case. In his concurring opinion with the majority on June Medical, Roberts explained that he still believed his 2016 opinion that "the case was wrongly decided," but he joined the majority this time around because "the question today" is on "whether to adhere to [the Whole Woman's case] in deciding the present case." Essentially, Roberts based his decision not on his opinion on the law itself, but on the basic concept of precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike," he wrote. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents."

However, in 2018, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals surprised court watchers by reversing a decision on the Louisiana law that struck it down based on the 2016 Supreme Court case. Instead, the Fifth Circuit ruled Louisiana's admitting privileges law could stand. It was that action that led the case, ultimately, to the Supreme Court.

Since 2016, the Supreme Court's makeup has changed. Justice Anthony Kennedy represented the swing vote on abortion in the 2016 case, then siding with the liberal-leaning justices. Following Kennedy's retirement in 2018 and the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016, their replacements -- Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- are seen as more conservative.

In bringing the case to the Supreme Court, Louisiana added another challenge on, questioning what's called "third-party standing," which means that a third party -- like an abortion provider -- is allowed to argue on behalf of the person actually impacted -- a patient.

While Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that declared abortion a protected right, included an individual patient challenging the law, every major abortion case since then has been presented by providers and clinics like Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood or June Medical Services.

In the majority opinion, the court also said that third-party standing applied to this case, as precedent had set in many other cases both on abortion and otherwise.

"In short, the State’s strategic waiver and a long line of well-established precedents foreclose its belated challenge to the plaintiffs’ standing," Breyer wrote.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-...al_twitter_abcn

I am not now, nor have I ever been a fan of abortion.

But I'm not going to tell a woman what to do with her own body.

I can't justify that invasion of privacy.

Yet you tell a woman she can't kill her 3 day old. You tell her she can't use crack, heroin, or LSD. you tell her she can't drink and drive. You tell her she can't steal, commit murder, lie under oath, etc, etc, etc. You see you have no problem telling a woman what she can't do. You only have a problem telling her she can't kill her own child in her womb.

You mean unformed cell mass in her womb.
Carry on.

Call it what you want bro. It's still a baby boy or girl.

I'm pro choice and this continues to be one of the dumbest arguments out there.

GM calls it ‘killing a baby’. Which I find absurd. So my retort is a counter to that.

It's still stupid.

No it's not stupid at all.

How about I call it an “unwanted cell mass in another person’s body that’s none of my business or anyone else’s so they should pipe down”? Seems like a long name though. Thoughts?

I won’t go further in this thread. I’m only in PP due to lack of action in the threads I enjoy.

Totally agree on your abortion take.

It's not absurd.. in the migratory bird act it is illegal to destroy a nest (the home), the young (baby birds), or the eggs (future birds)... because they recognize an egg for what it is, a future bird. Just as the "clump of cells" is a future person... I get that you don't like to think in terms of killing a baby because that's vulgar and harsh and nobody would condone that so you call it something less defined to make yourself feel better about it.. but that's all it is, semantics so you feel better about it.

With that said, since RvW in 1973, abortion peaked in about 1980 and has been declining on a per capita basis ever since.. it's now LOWER than it was when RvW was put into place. The focus here should be on preventing unwanted pregnancies..

Fine. Focus on that. I’m all for it. I don’t think abortion is a ‘good’ thing. I do think it needs to remain an option. Hopefully one not used but for only the most trying times. But an option none the less.

Did you ever see the irony in the self proclaimed "party of law and order" be so adamant against law? They only seem upset when the other side wants to change laws. What the SCOTUS has to say only makes them happy when it follows their agenda.

Most abortions are because the woman doesn't want the baby. If women can opt out of being a parent, so should a man. He has the same reasons as a woman to not being ready to be a parent.

One sex shouldn't be granted "rights" while not granting the same rights to the other sex.

So go have an abortion if you want one.

Then maybe they shouldn't be able to just walk out when they feel like it either.

Deadbeat dads should be imprisoned for 18 years and all their belongings sold. All profits given to the mother and child. Maybe if this started happening there’d be a change of attitude towards abortion?

Maybe. The only problem is if they're in jail they can't work and there are no wages to take child support from. It's why the court system hesitates to lock them up.

I never ever told anyone what they can't and can do.. Where do you get this crap GM,, Don't put frickin words in my mouth

Well you know how it works. If you don't tell a woman what is or isn't okay it means you are telling her what is okay. Either that or you should be telling her what to do. Murica!

It's like being stuck in an episode of The Honeymooners.

If a woman can walk away from having a child, so should a man. He needs to declare that from the beginning, that he is aborting his role in raising the child.

Put up smiley faces all you want.

It is a matter of equal rights.

If a woman can decide she doesn't want to be a mother because she doesn't have the means, or the mental maturity to take on the responsibility, she can have a abortion and not have to deal with it.

A man should have the same rights. He might not be ready to have a child for one reason or the other.

You are for equal rights for all aren't you?

Once you can get Republicans to pass the equal rights for women amendment get back to me on that. So far they are the only people who seem to stand in the way of rights for people.

I mean are you really the one to be pointing fingers about equal rights at this time in history?

Thats rich,, Men usually do walk away,,,,,

Holy "I don't get figuratively speaking" batman!

First, that isn't up to Republicans. That is an amendment issue that requires state passage. After this long, I couldn't tell you which state are for and which are against.

To both you and Daman, you didn't answer my question so I assume you aren't for equal rights. That's cool if that is how you think.

First, understand I am not in favor of abortion except in very limited situations, so we can wipe away obvious rape, incest, the mothers health.

Again, what I am saying is if a woman decides she doesn't want the baby, she can more or less flush it down the sink and be scott free of the child. A male is stuck with it for 18 years if she doesn't want a abortion, and that isn't equal protection under the law. Men can decide they don't want to be a parent for the same reasons women decide they don't.


Trust me, I am not arguing for abortion. It's murder IMO except in very narrow circumstances. Health of Mother, the baby is obviously deformed.


Sadly, in the old days, if a deformed baby came out the mid-wife might hand it to Mama for a moment, then she gave it to Daddy and it was his sorry job to take it down to the river.

I don't want abortion, but if a woman can have one for convenience, so should a man.


So, you can talk out one side of your mouth and fart out the other, but I know I am right.

Woman have the right to get an abortion.

Get over it. The issue is done and over with. All you’re doing is wasting air lol. There’s literally no point in arguing with conservatives on this issue anymore.

I strongly support the right of a woman to choose so I support this. No individual should tell another person what to do with themselves, especially the government.

I understand that.

You fail to see the point. If women have the right to absolve their responsibility of being a parent by aborting a child, men should have the same rights as well. Obviously he can't make her have a abortion, but he should be able to abort his responsibility for the child. You want it, I don't, it's on you.

Are you for equal rights or not?

If not, cool, just say so.


I do realize this is a inconvenient argument that paints you and a few others in to a corner.

I raised my children. All went to private high schools because we could. One went to Louisville and graduated Law School, one went to Duke, and one went to the University of Alabama. All graduated. Thankfully all of them got some type of scholarship to help the Two of us out.

We had this thing, we'd pay for most, but they had to take loans for books. We felt it important to make them feel invested in to their education. The youngest got book scholarships playing baseball, so we made him cover the back end of his tuition with loans.

All graduated, and it wasn't cheap, but worth it, every minute of the day.

If you are going to conceive a child, it is your duty to raise them to the best of your ability and not flush them down some sewer.


JMO and that won't change.

peen, I never talk about abortion on this board, but men walk away from their children all the time. I have no idea what you are rambling about because men "abort" their responsibility to their children every freaking day of the year.

You have no idea? You aren't a simpleton.


If women can decide they don't want to be a parent, men should as well.

Again, my argument isn't in favor of abortion or leaving your girl high and dry.



Both of us raised our children.

Yet they do it 24/7 365 and you don't say a word. You don't utter a peep, you don't say a word. So why is it you don't complain about a womans right to choose when it comes to

Driving while drunk,or high, or on coke or heroin?
Walking around naked in public?
Buying or using crack, heroin, or LSD?
Speeding, running red lights or stop signs?
Telling her she can't steal?
Telling her she can't lie under oath?
Telling her she can not commit murder outside of her womb?
Be intoxicated in Public.
Commit suicide?
etc, etc, etc.

You always do. When a man has to carry a baby for nine months, give birth and take the risk of raising that baby alone, get back to me. As of now none of those things exist.



Now you can't claim you don't know.

Bla, bla, bla.


Yawn.

When you have something important to say, let me know.


You are a friend, so I am not going to say don't waste my time, but it kind of feels like it.


All I am saying is if women can abort their responsibilities, men should as well.

Yet it's men who abandon their responsibilities and leave women raising children alone the vast majority of the time.

I don't think it is the vast majority of the time in my world.



Maybe yours? I already explained how I raised my kids. I don't think you abandoned yours, did you?


You aren't answering the question. Are you for equal rights or not? Just answer the question. I don't need your mumbo jumbo.




Geeee….geeeee….feeeeee.



It's a simple question my friend. Basically a yes or no....LOL. Are you for gender rights or not?


I know, I got you. Spin as you wish. Your best reply is nothing....act like you left the board for a few days.

What kind of half ass questions are these? I'm not sure what your mindset is exactly, but you seem overly emotional and irrational. Incapable of making sound decisions. If I didn't know you were a guy I'd ask if it was that time of the month.

You have got nothing. Let me slow it down for you. Maybe that will help.

The vast majority of the time when children are abandoned, be that in the physical sense or from a financial standpoint, it's the father who does it.

Did I explain it in a way you can comprehend it this time?

Your view is that the fathers, who are usually the ones ho abandon children when that occurs, should once again be able to dictate their actions to the women.

As if a man has ever had to carry a child, give birth or make such a hard decision. You love the idea of taking a complicated issue and boil it down to some basic question and say there's only a yes or no answer.

It won't work peen.