Abortion foes vent disappointment after Supreme Court ruling

Henrietta Brewer
June 30, 2020

In a third legal blow to Donald Trump in as many weeks, the US Supreme Court, despite being dominated by conservatives, has upheld abortion rights, by overturning a Louisiana law criticised as limiting access to the procedure. Chief Justice John Roberts - who, incidentally, voted with the right in the Texas case four years ago - sided with the court's more progressive justices in this case. The law, however, simply held abortionists to the same standard as other medical practitioners, protecting women by requiring abortionists to have an agreement with a nearby hospital where they could admit patients in case of emergency.

In the court's opinion, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer described the measure under consideration as "almost word-for-word identical" to the Texas law and said it "would place substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in Louisiana".

"We will not rest until the day when the Supreme Court corrects the grave injustice of Roe. and recognizes the Constitutional right to life for unborn human beings", Naumann said.

In an ironic turn, Roberts concurred with the Louisiana decision due to the precedent established by the Texas decision - which he dissented from.

The Supreme Court has, yet again, made clear that it rejects the pretext that these laws are meant to protect women's health.


Pro-life advocates have maintained that the question of "third-party standing" is a crucial issue of women's rights, as the abortion lobby, a behemoth profiting off murder of the innocent and the exploitation of women, is purporting to represent women's interests before the law.

Stare decisis instructs us to treat like cases alike. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law". The Louisiana law burdens women seeking pre-viability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law, according to factual findings that are not clearly erroneous.

Missouri GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, a former Roberts clerk, tweeted that the decision was a "disaster" and "a big-time wake up call to religious conservatives", whom he urged to "make our voices heard". For that reason, I concur in the judgment of the Court that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 ruling, the justices did the opposite.

"Moreover, the fact that no five Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy", he adds.


He also argued that overruling precedent should be considered when a case is an "outlier".

In another important victory for those supporting abortion rights, the Court confirmed that health care providers can sue to challenge state laws in court on behalf of their patients.

Breyer said that the state had made the "unmistakable concession" of waiving the argument in exchange for a "quick decision" from the District Court.

Justice Alito also focused on standing in his stinging dissent, saying that "The idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the objective of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning". "Abortion clinics are bringing a lawsuit to avoid complying with a standard of care that applies to all doctors at ambulatory surgical centers throughout Louisiana, so the abortion industry is coming in and asking for a special exemption so they don't have to abide by health and safety standards".

The White House sharply criticised the decision, saying "unelected justices" intruded on the powers individual states have to set policies.


Other reports by iNewsToday

FOLLOW OUR NEWSPAPER