July 01, 2020
Abortion rights advocates have reason to be relieved with the Supreme Court’s opinion Monday.
In a move that surprised many -- including me -- Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberal justices and struck down a Louisiana law that would have greatly limited the number of abortions in the state, forcing many of the state's most vulnerable women to travel long distances, face delays or forgo care altogether. The court’s ruling in June Medical Services v. Russo will allow the state's remaining clinics to continue serving the 10,000 women who seek abortions annually.
Some Gen Z and millennial women said they viewed abortion rights as important but less urgent than other social justice causes. Others said racial disparities in reproductive health must be a focus.
By Emma Goldberg
June 30, 2020
Like many young Americans, Brea Baker experienced her first moment of political outrage after the killing of a Black man. She was 18 when Trayvon Martin was shot. When she saw his photo on the news, she thought of her younger brother, and the boundary between her politics and her sense of survival collapsed.
In college she volunteered for the N.A.A.C.P. and as a national organizer for the Women’s March. But when conversations among campus activists turned to abortion access, she didn’t feel the same sense of personal rage.
States have passed hundreds of anti-abortion laws in the last few years. At the Supreme Court, we were successful in striking down just one.
Kathaleen Pittman, Opinion contributor
June 30, 2020
For six years, my lawyers have been fighting a law that would have shut down the abortion clinic I run in Shreveport, Louisiana — Hope Medical Group for Women. On Monday, we won in the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the law, meaning we can stay open for our patients. I am relieved that the court saw through Louisiana’s deceitful attempts to shut us down, but I'm still deeply worried.
I wish the relentless attempts by politicians to shut down our clinic would finally stop. I know they won’t.
US top court strikes down law limiting abortions
29 June 2020
The US Supreme Court has ruled that a law restricting abortions in Louisiana is
In a landmark decision, the justices said a law requiring that doctors who
provide abortions have the right to admit patients at a local hospital placed
an undue burden on women.
The Supreme Court’s
abortion decision seems pulled from the ‘Casey’ playbook
Opinion by Melissa Murray
June 29, 2020
Depicted as a serpent or a dragon eating its own tail, the ouroboros in Greek
mythology was interpreted as a symbol of eternal renewal — the infinite cycle
of life, death and rebirth. Now, the ouroboros lives on in the Supreme Court’s
abortion jurisprudence and in the court’s invocation of the doctrine of stare
Latin for “let the decision stand,” stare decisis has shaped the court’s
abortion jurisprudence — and the public debate over abortion rights. Consider
the calls to overrule Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that
recognized a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Although abortion opponents
insist that Roe is both morally abhorrent and constitutionally unprincipled,
the court, citing deference to precedent, has declined multiple invitations to
overrule the decision.
Another abortion rights disaster has been averted, but don’t get complacent: More are on their way
Jun 29, 2020
Remember what good news feels like? The Supreme Court ruled Monday against a Louisiana law mandating abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals — a policy that could have closed down all of the state’s few abortion clinics.
Since there are so few bright spots these days, I plan on spending some time basking in the unfamiliar glow of a win — but, as NARAL Pro-Choice America president Ilyse Hogue put it, “Let’s make sure we’re ready for the next attack.”
Supreme Court hands down major decision reaffirming
The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, has major
By Alexandra Svokos, ABC News Daily
29 June 2020
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.
Explaining the third-party question in the Supreme Court abortion case
Third-party standing could impact abortion cases down the road.
By Alexandra Svokos
21 June 2020
The Supreme Court will be announcing a decision in a major abortion case soon, and while it's centered on one state law, another question has come up in the case that could have massive consequences for the future of abortion laws in America.
June Medical Services v. Russo is a challenge to a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.
What if the Supreme Court Rules on Abortion and the Country Shrugs?
There’s a potentially catastrophic decision coming. If you’ve struggled to focus on it, I don’t blame you.
By Lauren Kelley
June 21, 2020
Remember early March — that week or so before we fully grasped how much our lives were about to change? I was in Washington, D.C., to attend what turned out to be one of the last in-person oral arguments at the Supreme Court for the foreseeable future — the big abortion case out of Louisiana.
Though I didn’t know it at the time, on that trip I also ate my last meal inside a restaurant for a good while (huevos rancheros and a margarita), went to my last cultural institution (the Smithsonian’s African-American history museum, where I at least avoided the interactive exhibits and winced at a toddler licking the wall) and shared my last hug with someone outside my home.
All eyes on Roberts ahead of Supreme Court's abortion ruling
By John Kruzel, The Hill
Chief Justice John Roberts is under the microscope as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its first major ruling on abortion rights in the Trump era, which will give the clearest indication yet of the court’s willingness to revisit protections that were first granted in Roe v. Wade.
The tie-breaking vote may rest with Roberts, and the case stands to test his role as the court’s new ideological center as well as his allegiance to past rulings.