What's the future of abortion rights after Monday's ruling?

  • What's the future of abortion rights after Monday's ruling?

What's the future of abortion rights after Monday's ruling?

He said his decision to join with the progressives in the case, June Medical Services v Russo, was strictly on institutional grounds, and not because he believed the Louisiana law was unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law regulating abortion clinics, reasserting a commitment to abortion rights over fierce opposition from dissenting conservative justices in the first big abortion case of the Trump era.

The law required doctors to have admitting privileges to a hospital "not further than 30 miles from the location at which the abortion is performed or induced" in order to perform abortions.

If the circumstances sound at all familiar, it's not your imagination.

Justice Stephen Breyer, in his opinion for the Supreme Court, also noted that the Louisiana law was "almost word-for-word identical" to a Texas law that the justices struck down in a 2016 case called Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

"Yeah, this is a frustrating decision especially because the chief justice just four years ago ruled that this type of a law was, in fact, constitutional".

In a key victory for abortion rights activists, the justices voted 5-4 to overrule a state law that requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.

The Supreme Court has, yet again, made clear that it rejects the pretext that these laws are meant to protect women's health.

In other words, Roberts showed respect for a four-year-old precedent - even though he disagreed with it at the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts has an opportunity to wield new power on the Supreme Court, as the "swing" justice in the wake of Anthony Kennedy's retirement.

I'll look forward to seeing Maine's senior senator say today that she's "concerned" about Kavanaugh doing the opposite of what he promised to do.

However, the 5th Circuit appeals court determined no clinics would "likely be forced to close" because of the law, and allowed it to stand.

In that 2016 case, Breyer wrote that the admitting-privilege requirement "provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an "undue burden" on their constitutional right to do so". In place of the "undue burden" rule regarding health and safety requirements, the Supreme Court should use a standard from a 1997 opinion that calls for "ordinary rational basis review", they said in the brief.

In the equal rights case, both Mr Roberts and Mr Gorsuch sided with their progressive colleagues, stunning conservatives who did not anticipate that a President Trump appointee would support gay and transgender rights.

Since Kavanaugh joined the court last October, it has sent mixed signals on abortion.