Bucks County Dem Apologizes for Trying to Steal the PA Senate Race
Jon Stewart Rips Into Dems for Their Obnoxious Sugar-Coating of the 2024 Election
Trump's Border Czar Issues a Warning to Dem Politicians Pledging to Shelter Illegal...
Celebrate Diversity (Or Else)!
Homan Says They'll 'Absolutely' Use Land Texas Offered for Deportation Operation
For the First Time in State History, California Voters Say No to Another...
Breaking: ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Netanyahu, Gallant
Begich Flips Alaska's Lone House Seat for Republicans
It's Hard to Believe the US Needs Legislation This GOP Senator Just Introduced,...
Newton's Third Law of Politics
By the Numbers: Trump's Extraordinary Gains Among Latinos, From Texas to...California?
John Oliver Defended Transgender Athletes Competing in Women’s Sports. JK Rowling Responde...
Restoring American Strength and Security with Trump’s Cabinet Picks
Linda McMahon to Education May Choke Foreign Influence Operations on Campus
Unburden Us From the Universities
Tipsheet

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

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