That's because as it stands now, state laws are not allowed to place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose, putting so many obstacles in her path that it becomes hard or impossible for her to exercise her rights. Louisiana said it was necessary in case of complications and to make sure that the providers are competent. These votes are the ultimate proof that the non-Roberts conservatives view the Supreme Court as a political body, and adhering to legal precedent comes secondary to enforcing the conservative view of the law. A divided panel of the conservative Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court, finding that the law would not have as much of a negative impact on abortion access as with Texas. But it was the clearest sign yet of the role Roberts intends to play as he guides a more conservative court with two new members appointed by President Donald Trump. Seated from left: Stephen Breyer, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel Alito.
A liberal group named Demand Justice said Friday it planned to launch digital advertisements against Collins soon because of Kavanaugh's ruling on the abortion case. But even if this win holds, the case shows the plan of attack that the justices, and right-wing legal activists, could use to neuter Roe v. Wade, cautions law professor Leah Litman in a new Washington Post editorial. If they fail, they could return to court, Kavanaugh said. Does Thursday's vote signal that Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt is more enduring as a precedent than its mere two and a half years might suggest? And yet, somehow, Justice Kavanaugh found three pages of reasons why Louisiana doesn't really have to follow the law of the land.
Some of those measures, which provide for late-term abortion in the cases where the health of the mother is in jeopardy, have generated fierce opposition from anti-abortion groups. The federal appeals court in Atlanta had ordered the execution halted, but the Supreme Court lifted the hold and allowed it to proceed.
Thursday night's Louisiana ruling may have only delayed the coming upheaval.
"We urge the court to grant cert in this case so that the justices can take a closer look at the facts themselves and let the law stand. Louisiana legislators on both sides of the aisle enacted this law to protect women from the abortion lobby which repeatedly puts profit over health and safety standards, and has proven incapable of policing itself".
Michaelson proposes an analogy in which a law is passed that requires doctors who perform abortions to "wear polka dotted shirts with striped ties and clown shoes", and argues that by Kavanaugh's logic, if the doctors could obtain the clothes, this would not constitute an "undue burden". Should the Court agree to hear the case, arguments would likely happen in the fall.
The Fifth Circuit's decision to allow the Louisiana law to take effect, is, as my colleague Imani Gandy explains here, bonkers. Louisiana's regulation together with its express representations to this Court establish that even without admitting privileges, these three doctors (Doe 2, Doe 5, and Doe 6) could lawfully continue to perform abortions at the clinics during the 45-day transition period. The ruling would instead be a green light to Republican-run states that the court will judge virtually no burden to be "undue". Current cases are asking courts to recognize the unborn as persons.