No, abortion providers aren’t craven opportunists. They care for their patients.
A Louisiana case before the Supreme Court could quietly stifle Roe v. Wade litigation.
By David S. Cohen and Carole Joffe
Feb. 26, 2020
In its first Trump-era abortion case, the Supreme Court will be considering a sneaky issue next week that could, without much fanfare, drastically curtail abortion rights litigation — and, ultimately, access to abortion. This issue has nothing to do with the constitutionality of abortion and everything to do with what the court thinks about abortion providers: Are they caring medical professionals, or are they craven opportunists?
In June Medical v. Russo, Louisiana is arguing that abortion providers don’t have the best interests of their patients in mind and therefore shouldn’t have standing to bring lawsuits on their behalf. That’s simply not true.
Getting an abortion in “the most pro-life state in America”
Welcome to the Louisiana clinic at the center of the court case that could gut Roe v. Wade.
By Anna North
Feb 19, 2020
Photographs by Annie Flanagan for Vox
SHREVEPORT, Louisiana — The first patients arrive around 10 am.
They wear boots and coats against the December cold, but there’s coffee inside to help them warm up. Christmas figurines — a Santa holding a tree, a quaint house covered in snow — give the place a homey feel. In the waiting room, Friends plays on the TV.
Even before they sit down, though, patients are confronted with reminders that this place is under threat.
Abortion storytellers and the harassment they face
By Steph Herold, opinion contributor
Next month, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee, the first major abortion-related case to come before the Court since Justice Kavanaugh’s appointment to the bench. The case largely focuses on a Louisiana law designed to close abortion clinics by imposing the exact requirements that the Court declared unconstitutional in the 2016 case Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
Yet this time around, abortion opponents are arguing that only patients, not abortion providers (such as Whole Woman’s Health or June Medical Services), should be able to bring these cases and that nothing prevents patients from doing so. This raises an unusual and pertinent question: is it reasonable to expect people seeking time-sensitive, stigmatized health care to drop everything and sue their state?
June v. Gee: When the Issue Involves Pregnancy and Abortion Inconsistency Should Come as No Surprise
February 16, 2020
Lynn M. Paltrow
Edited by: Tim Zubizarreta
This year, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider June Medical Services v. Gee, the first abortion case since Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh became members of that court. The Court will rule on the constitutionality of a Louisiana law that is identical to a Texas law struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court held that a Texas law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital was unconstitutional because it imposed a substantial and undue burden on women seeking abortions. Three years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ignored this precedent and reached the opposite conclusion, deciding that an identical admitting-privileges law in Louisiana did not impose a substantial or undue burden.
Contradictory? Yes. But these rulings are also in keeping with a Court that has never arrived upon a consistent view of the rights of the 51% of people who have the capacity for pregnancy – the precursor to abortion. Stories from two other Supreme Court cases illustrate this.
Louisiana has passed nearly 100 anti-abortion restrictions since Roe v. Wade
By Kate Smith
February 11, 2020 / CBS News
Since abortion was nationally legalized nearly 50 years ago, Louisiana has enacted almost 100 anti-abortion restrictions, more than any other state in the country, according to a new study shared exclusively with CBS News.
The study, released by the Guttmacher Institute on Tuesday morning, highlights what some reproductive rights supporters say is a strategy to "regulate abortion out of existence."
End of Roe v Wade? June Medical Services v Gee abortion case could irreversibly weaken landmark judgment
The landmark 1973 Roe v Wade judgment gives pregnant women liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction and June Medical Services v Gee poses a threat to abortion rights in the country
By Priyam Chhetri
Jan 28, 2020
Come March, the Supreme Court will hear two consolidated cases, June Medical Services v Gee and Gee v June Medical Services, which is being predicted as the greatest threat to abortion rights in the country in decades. It will also potentially hurt the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade judgment that gives pregnant women liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.
Here's everything you need to know about the case.
Will 2020 be the year abortion is banned in the US?
A conservative supreme court will take up its first abortion case as activists brace for a fight that could change everything
Tue 21 Jan 2020
In a centuries-long debate about gender and sexuality, 2020 could mark a turning point for abortion rights in the US.
In the coming year, the anti-abortion president, Donald Trump, faces re-election, and a conservative supreme court will take up its first abortion case, with potentially far-reaching consequences for a woman’s right to choose in America.
Conservative Congress relishes prospect of stripping away our 'right to abortion'
Our stigmatizing culture fails to protect its citizens' rights
By Tatum Lindquist, The Daily
Jan 20, 2020
With a conservative majority in the U.S. Supreme Court, June Medical Services, LLC. v Gee may well be the next landmark case in the decades-long fist-fight for reproductive rights. Two of Washington state’s U.S. representatives signed, along with 205 other members of Congress, an amicus curiae brief in support of the Louisiana Act in question with June Medical Services, LLC. v Gee.
In June 2014, Louisiana passed Act 620 that required any abortion provider to hold admitting privileges to a hospital that is within 30 miles of the abortion procedure. In 2016, a Texas bill with an almost identical provision on abortion was found unconstitutional in Whole Women's Health v Hellerstedt (2016). That restriction on abortion providers was cited as an "undue burden" since it hindered a women's constitutional right to seek an abortion without any credible justification.
The Next Abortion Warriors
Meet the two lawyers who are preparing to argue the first abortion case to come before the Supreme Court since Brett Kavanaugh came aboard.
January 27, 2020 Issue, The New Yorker
(posted online Jan 20)
By Laura Lane
An invitation for a cocktail party honoring lawyers, especially highly skilled ones who are about to argue one of the most momentous cases of the year—the next Supreme Court abortion case—tends to read like a legal document. “Guests are invited to come and go as they please,” noted a message from the Center for Reproductive Rights, a legal-advocacy nonprofit. The party was held in the kitchen at the center’s offices, in a high-rise in the South Street Seaport. The two lead attorneys on June Medical Services, LLC v. Gee (not quite as catchy as Roe v. Wade) whom attendees had come to meet—Julie Rikelman and T. J. Tu—talked with guests while such phrases as “Bogus sham laws!” and “Second-class citizens!” ricochetted around the kitchen island.
With Fate Of Roe V. Wade Unsure, Abortion Fight Shifts To New Territory
By Julie Rovner
January 17, 2020
Jan. 22 marks the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide. Those on both sides of the furious debate say this could be the year when everything changes.
In March, the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since Justice Brett Kavanaugh replaced Anthony Kennedy, who had been the swing vote on abortion cases. A decision is expected by summer.