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

1 1 (February 11, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govykh0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional ______ a Research Service Court Stays Enforcement of Louisiana Abortion Law February 11, 2019 The U.S. Supreme Court has stayed the enforcement of a Louisiana law that requires physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the procedure is performed. The stay will continue until the Court acts on a petition to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that previously upheld the state's Unsafe Abortion Protection Act (UAPA). The plaintiffs in June Medical Services v. Gee, two physicians who perform abortions and a clinic where the procedure is provided, challenged the law arguing that it would impose an undue burden on women seeking abortions by prompting the closure of most of Louisiana's abortion clinics. The plaintiffs maintained that the law is identical to a Texas admitting privileges requirement that was found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2016. In June Medical Services, however, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that admitting privileges are easier to obtain in Louisiana and that only one of the six physicians who performs abortions in the state's abortion clinics might be unable to obtain such privileges. The Fifth Circuit concluded that if the remaining doctors obtained admitting privileges, abortion clinics would not close and women in Louisiana would not suffer the same kinds of burdens that were identified in Texas, such as fewer abortion facilities and increased driving distances to obtain the procedure. The plaintiffs in June Medical Services are expected to file their petition for writ of certiorari in the near future. Abortion and the Undue Burden Standard Courts reviewing the constitutionality of abortion regulations apply a standard that was formally adopted by the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood ofSoutheastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, a 1992 decision involving various abortion restrictions in Pennsylvania. In Casey, a plurality of the Court maintained that an abortion regulation should be invalidated 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. In 2016, the Court provided additional guidance on how the undue burden standard should be applied. In Whole Woman 's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court emphasized that the standard requires a reviewing court Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10257 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

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