significant burden standard | abortion-news.info

Alice Clapman, Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Aug. 10, 2020

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June Medical Services struck down a Louisiana law requiring doctors to have privileges at a local hospital in order to perform abortions. Alice Clapman, litigator for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says it’s time to recognize that many state abortion restrictions billed as “common sense health and safety regulations” are nothing more than tactics to hinder care, especially for rural communities and people of color who face systemic barriers to health care.

On June 29, in June Medical Services v. Russo (JMS), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that would have left the state with only one abortion provider. From the moment the court’s fractured decision came down, commentators began speculating and debating whether it signals a shift. Had the court moved from the balancing test applied in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt to a more deferential test, one that would focus solely on the degree of burden imposed by a challenged restriction, without inquiring into whether that restriction serves any valid state interest?

Continued: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/insight-its-time-to-drop-the-pretense-about-abortion-restrictions

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
decisis.

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.

Continued: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/29/problem-with-relying-precedent-protect-abortion-rights/