Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions, with Roberts joining libs

[MMC]

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of protecting abortion rights in the case June v. Russo Monday.

The court's opinion, led by Justice Stephen Breyer, "found that conditions on admitting privileges common to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety."



Similarly, Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that "because complications requiring hospitalization are relatively rare, abortion providers were 'unlikely to have any patients to admit' and thus were 'unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future.'"


Roberts had been on the dissenting side of the 2016 case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. While the law in contention in the case June v. Gee was nearly identical to the Texas law, Roberts based his decision on court precedent rather than his own opinion of the law.


While he maintained that he still disagrees with the Texas law and the court's 2016 ruling, he wrote Monday that"the question today" is on "whether to adhere to [the 2016 case] in deciding the present case." …..snip~


https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...ining-liberals


Thomas tears it up in his dissent.

[Bo-4]

Are you tired of winning yet?

[Adelaide]

This seems to be the right outcome, in my opinion, but I fall into the pro-choice category and I realize this won't be viewed the same by everyone.

[MMC]

To be honest I am not surprised Robert flipped from his earlier position in 2016.

[Chris]

While I accept the outcome based on belief abortion is acceptable when the mother's health and/or life is at stake, I do question the reasoning of the court. That reasoning is found in Robert's concurrence. From the OP link: "Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that 'because complications requiring hospitalization are relatively rare, abortion providers were "unlikely to have any patients to admit' and thus were 'unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future."'" Well if rarity is reason to strike LA Act 620 why then so is rarety reason to string Roe and other court decisions legalizing abortion. Roberts clears states the risk of the mother's health and/or life is rare. Also from the link: "Complications in abortion procedures are rare...." Conversely, if even one mother is so vital as to necessitate legal abortions then demanding a hospital be able to handle those complications however rare necessitates that as well. The court is just not so logical. The right to abortion is not a natural right but a human rights which doesn't admit to logic.

[MMC]

While I accept the outcome based on belief abortion is acceptable when the mother's health and/or life is at stake, I do question the reasoning of the court. That reasoning is found in Robert's concurrence. From the OP link: "Roberts wrote in his concurring opinion that 'because complications requiring hospitalization are relatively rare, abortion providers were "unlikely to have any patients to admit' and thus were 'unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future."'" Well if rarity is reason to strike LA Act 620 why then so is rarety reason to string Roe and other court decisions legalizing abortion. Roberts clears states the risk of the mother's health and/or life is rare. Also from the link: "Complications in abortion procedures are rare...." Conversely, if even one mother is so vital as to necessitate legal abortions then demanding a hospital be able to handle those complications however rare necessitates that as well. The court is just not so logical. The right to abortion is not a natural right but a human rights which doesn't admit to logic.

I am expecting Roberts to side with the Lib-tards when Roe vs Wade comes up. Only way he wont is if Trump gets the chance to replace Ginsberg, and puts another Textualist on the Court.

[Standing Wolf]

In the unlikely event that Roe was ever overturned, all abortions would become illegal in a number of states - four, I think - with "trigger laws" already in place, with criminal penalties for those performing them. Abortions in at least nineteen states would probably remain legal, with about half the states going one way or the other over time.

[Standing Wolf]

I am expecting Roberts to side with the Lib-tards when Roe vs Wade comes up. Only way he wont is if Trump gets the chance to replace Ginsberg, and puts another Textualist on the Court.

Yes, because the plain text of the Constitution has so much to say about abortion.

[Chris]

In the unlikely event that Roe was ever overturned, all abortions would become illegal in a number of states - four, I think - with "trigger laws" already in place, with criminal penalties for those performing them. Abortions in at least nineteen states would probably remain legal, with about half the states going one way or the other over time.

And we would take at least one step back toward federalism.

[JakeStarkey]

RvW is safe from the right wing.