About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (July 13, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govdavf0001 and id is 1 raw text is: ~* or 101 ' Researh Service Court Invalidates Louisiana Admitting Privileges Law July 13,2020 In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that required physic ians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the location where the procedure is performed. In June MedicalServices, v. Russo, a majority of the Court concluded that the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain the procedure. Justice Breyer authored an opinion, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, that relied heavily on 'nhole Wifrman s Health v,. fellerstedt-the Court's 2016 dec is ion that invalidated Texas's admitting privileges law. Justice Breyer maintained that the laws being reviewed in June Medical Services and Whole Woman's Health were nearly identical and that the Louisiana law must consequently reach a similar conclusion. In a separate opinion, Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment, emphasizing that the legal doctrine of stare decisis required June Medical Services to be decided like Whole Woman's Health. At the same time, however, the Chief Justice reiterated his belief that Whole Woman's Health was wrongly decided and criticized how the undue burden standard used to evaluate abortion regulations was applied in both cases. This Sidebar provides background on the undue burden standard and Whole Woman's Health, and examines the opinions of Justice Breyer and Chief Justice Roberts in June Medical Services. The Sidebar also reviews some of the dissenting opinions filed in the case. The Undue Burden Standard and Whole Woman's Health The undue burden standard used to evaluate the constitutionality of an abortion regulation was adopted by a plurality of the Supreme Court in 1992. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Case, the plurality determined that an abortion regulation violates the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain the procedure. The plurality explained that an undue burden exists if the purpose or effect of an abortion regulation is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability. Applying the undue burden standard to five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act, the Casey plurality upheld the law's 24-hour waiting period requirement, its informed consent provision, its parental consent provision, and its recordkeeping and reporting requirements. The plurality invalidated the law's spousal notification provision, which required a married woman to tell her husband of her intention to have an abortion. The plurality explained that the requirement created a Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSBI0518 CRS Lega i&sebar Prepared .- Memn bersand C o m m;;fte.. o f C one sc o : C--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.............

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most