This Blue State Made a Decision on Redistricting
And Here's Where Even Bill Maher's Audience Gasped When Talking About Graham Platner...
Retired Four-Star General Analyzed Trump's Deal With Iran. It's a Shaky Situation.
CNN's Fact-Checker Has Vanished
Wait, Did the NYT's 'Me Too' Reporter Really Say That About Graham Platner's...
US Iran Peace Deal Expected Within 24 Hours, Pakistan's Prime Minister Says
These Groups Used Taxpayer Funds to Push Leftist Causes – the Trump Administration...
Trump Says Iran Conflict Nears End As Deal Set for Sunday Signing
DOJ: Virginia Cannot Force Federal Agents to Reveal Their Identities
Will James Talarico Drop His Pedophile-Protecting Political Ally?
The Libs Are Already Being Insufferable Over the World Cup
Clinton-Appointed Activist Judge Blocks Ken Paxton's ActBlue Lawsuit to Protect James Tala...
Hillary Clinton Is Back and Lying Again
Treasury Is Right to Examine the National Security Risks of Foreign-Funded Lawsuits
The Algorithm Knows Where, Not Why
Tipsheet

June Medical Services Brings Women's Health to SCOTUS Again

June Medical Services Brings Women's Health to SCOTUS Again
AP Photo/Jeff Roberson

A controversial abortion case is in front of the Supreme Court Wednesday in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo. The case is related to a Louisiana law which requires abortion providers to have admitting privileges to local hospitals, in the event of an emergency. June Medical Services is a piggy-back off of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which challenged a similar law in Texas. 

Advertisement

Abortion proponents oppose these laws, claiming that they pose an undue burden on women seeking abortions. The purpose of the laws is not to implement barriers to entry for abortion access, but rather to protect the lives of women seeking abortions and to ensure that medical professionals are available. 

Opposition to these laws undermines the left’s argument that abortion is a routine healthcare procedure; if abortion is, indeed, healthcare, why would these abortion advocates not want those who perform abortions to have medical credentials and hospital privileges?

Advertisement

Related:

HEALTH CARE SCOTUS

The high court applied the “substantial burden” test to Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt in 2016. In the majority opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court said that the health precautions implemented by the law did not outweigh the burden on women seeking abortions. Opponents of Louisiana’s law in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo say that the law conflicts with the precedent of Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt

Chief Justice Roberts joined Justices Thomas and Alito in dissenting in Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but with precedent at stake here, his vote, along with Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, will be interesting to watch.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement