Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana law on abortion clinic restrictions

Chief Justice John Roberts is a nightmare. He is a disgrace! President Trump’s team better start preparing for the possibility that Roberts will rule in favor of releasing President Trump’s financial records in the coming weeks.

Related – 7 Times John Roberts Was A Leftist Hack

Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana law on abortion clinic restrictions

By Fox News, June 29, 2020

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that individuals who perform abortions at clinics have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital is unconstitutional, as it places an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, with Chief Justice John Roberts once again casting a deciding vote by siding with the court’s liberal justices.

The opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted that the Louisiana law is “almost word-for-word identical” to a Texas law the court ruled was unconstitutional in 2016’s Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. A District Court had rejected the Louisiana law because of that precedent, but a court of appeals ruled otherwise.

“We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court’s findings of fact,” Breyer wrote. “Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional.”

Breyer noted that the District Court found that the law “offers no significant health benefit” and 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.”

Ultimately, the majority felt that this case was virtually the same as the 2016 case, and ruled accordingly.

“This case is similar to, nearly identical with, Whole Woman’s Health,” Breyer wrote. “And the law must consequently reach a similar conclusion.”

Roberts had dissented in the 2016 case and said in a concurring opinion that while he still believes that the past case was wrongly decided, he was ruling with the majority in the present case due to court precedent.

“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts 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.”