Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Law Requiring Abortionists Have Hospital Admitting Privileges
Roberts: “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.”
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts as the deciding vote, to strike down a Louisiana law that requires abortionists have hospital admitting privileges.
Roberts said he voted because he had to follow precedent.
What precedent is that?
The Louisiana law is similar to a Texas law SCOTUS struck down in a 2016 case (Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt):
The majority 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”
Roberts originally dissented in that case but ruled with the majority.
Roberts wrote today:
“The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike,” Roberts wrote in a concurring opinion. “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.”
Justice Clarence Thomas slammed the excuse of using precedents to rule today:
The plurality and THE CHIEF JUSTICE ultimately cast aside this jurisdictional barrier to conclude that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional under our precedents. But those decisions created the right to abortion out of whole cloth, without a shred of support from the Constitution’s text. Our abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled. Because we have neither jurisdiction nor constitutional authority to declare Louisiana’s duly enacted law unconstitutional, I respectfully dissent.
Thomas pointed out that “[T]he Constitution does not constrain the States’ ability to regulate or even prohibit abortion.” He continued:
This Court created the right to abortion based on an amorphous, unwritten right to privacy, which it grounded in the “legal fiction” of substantive due process, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010) (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). As the origins of this jurisprudence readily demonstrate, the putative right to abortion is a creation that should be undone.
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe v Wade based on the 14th Amendment. But Thomas explained that SCOTUS “began its legal analysis by openly acknowledging that the Constitution’s text does not ‘mention any right to privacy.'”
Thomas stressed that “we exceed our constitutional authority whenever we ‘[Appl[y] demonstrably erroneous precedent instead of the relevant law’s text.'”
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Of course he did
The Bush family strikes again.
I have been a doc for 50 years in Louisiana and all doctors must have affiliation with a hospital. They are the ones that monitor doctor activity. So now abortion doctors have special rights.
They’ll perform in the ally to keep the profit margin up.
now do the 2nd Amendment, asshoe!
or is that different, Johnny Boi?
Well, black letter Constitution is not as much precedent as the vapors, penumbras, and gaseous output that have created abominations like 1 man 1 vote and abortion.
The first choice, the second choice, the fourth choice, then Pro-Choice – religion and wicked solution. Elective abortion (reproductive rites, human sacrifice) is an ancient and progressive practice that discriminates by age to deny a voice, arms, a head etc. to its victims (e.g. Fetal-Americans), for the sake of social progress and medical progress (e.g. Planned Parenthood). And whatever took place in New York (Planned Parent). #BabyLivesMatter
We’re screwed. Good by any personal rights like speech, 2nd Amend, etc…..
Welcome to the new world order. Wonder what Obama has on Roberts.
Seems like the Supreme Court upheld personal rights over some peoples religious superstitions and busybody tendencies. Or are you one that believes there are only 8 “rights” and if it’s not in the Bill of Rights, then the right doesn’t exist? So electricity, telephones and internet can be tapped and monitored at the whim of any government? How do you explain this: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The illegal adoption of his children
re: “illegal adoption of his children” …
I’ve heard that many times in the comment section here and elsewhere … what I don’t understand is, it’s NOT a secret if it’s being discussed on the boards – and if it’s NOT a secret, how can it be leverage?
People wish to find an excuse for Roberts, when it’s clear – Bush appointed a lefty because Bush is a lefty.
There is but one God, Moloch, and Roberts is his prophet.
The only god is money.
Here is my headline for the day …
Chief Baby Killer Roberts said today that really Black Lives Don’t Matter in his latest opinion!”
Did he decided this because he wants less blacks to get angry in our streets? Did he do it because he is afraid of Blacks, you know, like Clarence Thomas?
Doesn’t this prove Baby Killer Roberts is racist?
Maybe Harriet Miers would’ve been better.
No, she would not. She was always pro-abortion.
Nah. Extant evidence augers otherwise.
“She was always…”
Any proof? Or just giving an uninformed opinion?
She couldn’t be any worse than the POS Chief Justice Roberts.
Remember when they said that if abortion was outlawed it would be performed in back alleys and that abortion was the last opgion? Well, now they can be legally performed in back alleys. Oh and now actors and public figures proudly laud their abortions. And Roberts was going be conservative …actions do speak louder than words..but only after the fact.
Roberts said at his confirmation that he regarded precedent as binding.
I’m pleasantly surprised Kavanaugh didn’t support this decision. He’s openly said he regards Casey as the precedent on how to treat precedents.
So when is Roberts going to honor the precedent in Heller. The lower courts have basically made Heller a nullity.
I have no doubt that if a case is ever granted cert he will vote consistently with Heller. The problem is that he seems to have been voting against cert.
Roberts fucked the pooch yet again. Somebody has pictures of him on Epstein’s fantasy island I’m betting. Can the court just go into recess already and stay that way? I don’t trust them with anything.
This is a good reminder that President Trump’s two picks were replacing Kennedy and Scalia. The balance of the Court hasn’t actually shifted much on most issues.
Makes me wonder how the field will look if Trump gets a second term and Pence gets the one after that. I can see several of the justices who would remain on life-support in the hospital for years rather than allow a (R) to appoint their successor.
He was one of W’s peccadilloes, was he not? Regrettable.
So what the Supreme Court has said in effect is that states have the right to regulate hospitals, clinics, doctor’s offices and other medical facilities to assure a safe environment for patients. But when it comes to regulating abortion facilities the states cannot act in any significant manner that “burdens women’s right to an abortion”.
I wonder, will John Roberts take responsibility for the next woman that dies of a botched abortion in a Planned Parenthood facility that doesn’t get proper follow up care? And the next? And the next? Because it’s gonna happen. Guaranteed.
A vote for precedent and a “procedure” with nearly 100% mortality rate (some Planned children survive the attempt) and excess deaths. The Pro-Choice religion and rites are a progressive Wicked Solution.
And how many women “die” from legal abortions? I sure you can find the number. And if there is an emergency, will the ambulance refuse to take them to a hospital because a doctor didn’t have “admitting privileges”?
Nope. Not playing your game. You can find the numbers if you want. Have a nice day.
Roberts will say that it’s unfortunate the Supreme Court got it wrong in the Texas case, but that is now the law and we all have to live with it. That the court can’t overrule its precedents without a better reason than simply that it thinks they were wrong. That’s pretty much what every justice except Thomas thinks.
Robert’s cannot dress himself up as a conservative now that Justice Kennedy has retired. What is most troubling is his reliance procedural technicalities in momentous decisions. For example, the recent DACA case.
He looks for excuses like those to avoid advertising his ideological duplicity too openly.
Roberts inability to muster up the courage to decide cases on the merits is creating a shambolic legacy. He dissents in Whole Womens Heath v Hellerstedt when his vote did not matter. That case overturned a Texas law requiring admitting privileges. Now when his vote would count he goes the other way and temporizers stare decisis.
His judicial legacy is one of political expediency, not scholarship.
Stare decisis is not “temporizing”. It’s a serious judicial doctrine that almost all judges believe in. Thomas is the only exception I know of.
So Roberts, had he been on the Court, would have found for the Texas in Lawrence v Texas if his vote had been decisive?? The decision found that a prior decision Bowers v. Hardwick was wrongly decided?
Roberts change in vote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius when he found out Kennedy would not give him cover; his unconventional reasoning tell most people much about this jurist.
It is not important that you cannot grasp it. Others do.
“…almost all judges believe in.”
Almost all judges are screwed up assholes that shouldn’t be judges.
Upholding unconstitutional law is flat out wrong and anti American.
It’s what separated Thomas (good) from Scalia (bad). There is simply no excuse for keeping unconstitutional rulings intact because corrupted judges before you did so.
Roberts is definitely a leftest activist judge. Maybe he vomited orgy island?
They might as well be in back alleys, for all the regulatory oversight they get (read: almost none).
The mask is off Roberts’s hollow, posturing self-description as a neutral, modest “umpire,” merely calling “balls and strikes.” Roberts has been revealed to be a politically expedient, politically calculating and self-serving Justice who decides cases largely — if not exclusively — on an intent to remove the Court from any scintilla of public opprobrium, negative perception or controversy. These days, that means ruling in a manner that pleases Dhimmi-crats, regardless of the fact that the decision being handed down lack all pretense of firm legal grounding.
Our State has such a requirement or a equivalent for abortion practitioners. However there are no clinics more than 30 miles from a hospital as they are both in urban areas. I find it surprising that LA has only one clinic within the 30 mile radius that has admissions. Something is not quite right about that. It doesn’t sound very ‘healthy’.
See, here’s the difference: Scalia and Ginsberg enjoyed going to the opera together, despite having very different judicial views. Their friendship was in spite of their completely opposite politics. They were both comfortable in their own views, and considered each other close friends, despite their differences. They didn’t force each other to change as a condition of their friendship.
On the other hand, John Roberts wants to be liked, to be invited to the fancy glitterati leftist parties with all the DC and East Coast elites, maybe even the opera. But those lefties won’t accept him In those settings, unless he jettisons his formerly conservative views and mirrors their own. Thus, the dramatic, diametric changes in Roberts’ judicial opinions since about 2009.
This is an interesting article- even if from Slate. Intuitively, I agree but don’t have enough knowledge to judge it. It was Roberts “betrayal” of conservatives that put the stake through the heart of ObamaCare. Like Trump, it seems Roberts is willing to sacrifice a pawn or rook in exchange for luring his opponent into checkmate.
“ As was the case in the census litigation, and the DACA litigation, the outcome here is correct, but one can easily reverse-engineer the chief justice’s opinion to say, “Come back to me with the right road map and I’m all yours,” and in fact, he actually grabs your pencil, flips over the napkin, and sketches the map out at no extra cost.”
Corrupt beyond redemption.
Louisiana should tell roberts to call the cops and ignore the decision.