Trump Has a Question About Regime Change in Iran
Trump's Attack on Iran Will Not Destroy the America First Movement
Did a Rogue Staffer at the LA County Sheriff’s Dept. Post This Insane...
Here's What Impressed This MSNBC Host About Trump's Air Strikes on Iran
Are the Wheels Coming Off the DNC?
How to Thaw America’s Frozen Housing Market
Harris' Team Wanted Mark Cuban to Submit VP Vetting Papers. Here's How the...
The Looming Threat to Our Homeland
The 'Wind Scam' of Wind Turbines
Diplomatic Success: USSR Nuclear Ambitions vs. the Iranian Regime
NYT Cries 'Sexism' After Pete Hegseth Praises B-2 Pilots in Iran Strike Briefing
An Alarming Number of Iranian Nationals Were Released Into the U.S. Under Biden
Jasmine Crockett Fumes That Trump Didn’t 'Holla' for Her Permission Before Hitting Iran
Flawless Execution: Vance Applauds Trump’s National Security Team for Crippling Iran’s Nuc...
'He Truly Saved the World:' Iranian Refugee Calls for Trump to Receive Nobel...
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