The Future Of Abortion Is In The Hands Of John Roberts
Medically unnecessary laws regulating abortion have been exposed as dishonest attempts to close clinics. Will the Supreme Court still give them legal cover?
By Melissa Jeltsen, HuffPost US
In 2016, Louisiana had six abortion clinics. By 2017, the number had dwindled to three. Soon, there may be only one clinic left to serve nearly 1 million women of reproductive age in the state. Whether or not this happens will likely depend on the outcome of a critical abortion case now with the Supreme Court.
The case centers on a Louisiana law that requires doctors who provide abortions to have “admitting privileges” at a hospital within 30 miles of their clinic, a difficult-to-obtain arrangement that critics say is a sly attempt to wipe out abortion access in the state.
The supreme court has put the future of abortion rights in doubt. We must organize
This is happening against the will of the American people. The vast majority – 77% – support Roe v Wade
Alexis McGill Johnson
Fri 6 Mar 2020
Abortion access in America is hanging by a thread. On Wednesday, I sat in the US supreme court and listened to the case – June Medical Services v Russo – that could be the beginning of the end of Roe v Wade.
As the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, it was my privilege to be one of the few listening in the court – but the reality is that this case will affect the rights and lives of millions.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dominates in abortion case
By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Thu March 5, 2020
Washington (CNN)If there is any question whether 86-year-old Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who has spent her life steeped in issues concerning women's rights, is slowing down after four bouts of cancer, it was not evident Wednesday morning in Washington.
For over an hour, Ginsburg, the leading liberal on the bench, engaged in a high stakes constitutional version of whack-a-mole, taking down arguments put forward by supporters of a Louisiana abortion access law that requires doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Justices Give Few Hints on How They Will Rule on Louisiana Abortion Law
The Supreme Court is considering whether Louisiana can require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, in a case likely to yield an unusually telling decision.
By Adam Liptak
March 4, 2020
WASHINGTON — The argument at times sounded like a sterile analysis undertaken by management consultants: What were the benefits of requiring doctors who perform abortions to have relationships with nearby hospitals? Would requiring such relationships force abortion clinics to close?
The questions — about medical regulations, hospital bylaws, travel times and safety records — could seem pedestrian in their granular details. But the cost-benefit analysis undertaken on Wednesday at the Supreme Court illustrated its current approach to the right to abortion, one that seems to turn on contested factual disputes rather than broad constitutional principles.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg says US abortion law hits poor women
Dec 17, 2019
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has told the BBC that restrictive abortion laws affect poor women in society.
Several states have passed highly restrictive abortion laws this year - and dozens more have proposed similar bills in their legislatures - though none have gone into effect thus far.
The Supreme Court Just Outlined How It Might Get Rid of Abortion Rights
To overrule Roe v. Wade, the Court’s five conservatives will first have to explain why they’re setting aside a 46-year-old precedent. A separate case decided this week provides hints about how they’ll do it.
By Jay Willis
May 13, 2019
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, in which the Court's five-justice conservative bloc determined that state governments enjoy sovereign immunity — that is, they cannot be sued as a matter of law — in both their own state's courts and in the courts of other states, too.
This case is notable not only because of its implications for the future of litigating certain interstate civil claims. To reach its conclusion in Hyatt, the majority first had to overturn a 40-year-old Supreme Court case that reached the opposite conclusion, over the vociferous protestations of the four-justice liberal minority. At a moment when anti-choice activists are working diligently to get a case before the Court that will allow its five conservative justices to overturn the 46-year-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, thereby gutting abortion rights in this country, Hyatt functions as a tidy preview of that coming showdown. And the result should make pro-choice advocates very nervous.