‘A chilling sign’: Roberts’ footnote in pro-abortion SCOTUS victory left abortion advocates anxious

[mystery-ak]

‘A chilling sign’: Roberts’ footnote in pro-abortion SCOTUS victory left abortion advocates anxious
July 1, 2020 | BPR Wire

Mary Margaret Olohan, DCNF

Chief Justice John Roberts may have sided with liberal justices in an abortion case announced Monday, but a footnote in his opinion has sparked anxiety among some abortion advocates.

The case involved an abortion provider challenging a 2014 Louisiana state law called the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which required abortion providers to have admitting privileges in a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility. Admitting privileges allow a woman to go directly to the hospital if she were to need urgent care following an abortion. Louisiana’s law is similar to a Texas law the court struck down in 2016.

Opponents said the Unsafe Abortion Protection Act would hinder and potentially eliminate abortion access in Louisiana. Pro-life advocates said the law would protect women from unsafe or unhygienic abortion clinic practices.

Roberts sided with liberal members of the Court in June Medical Services v. Russo in the close 5-4 ruling, writing that “the Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons.”

But Roberts also included a footnote noting that the “validity of admitting privileges law depend on numerous factors that may differ from state to state.”

While conservatives and pro-lifers heavily criticized Roberts’ ruling, some abortion advocates also took issue with it. The footnote could spur other states to pass similar legislation to the contested Louisiana law, keeping abortion and Roe v. Wade in the national spotlight, these advocates suggest.

more
https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/07/01/a-chilling-sign-roberts-footnote-in-pro-abortion-scotus-victory-left-abortion-advocates-anxious-941540

[catfish1957]

States Rights rider on R v. W?

Unless I am reading this wrong sounds like SCOTUS may be paving way with precedent that may impact (1) Strengthening states judicial and legislative bodies to chart its own direction without federal intervention  (2) Partitioning the country in ability to dictate overall left or right direction.  (3) Same states rights rider might lessen the federal government ability from weakening 2A.

Any lawyers here want to temper my understanding or enthusiasm?

[Jazzhead]

Interesting.   The record here was developed at the lower court,  which found that the requirement for admitting privileges would likely force two thirds of Louisiana's abortion clinics to close.  That's a textbook "undue burden" on the right,  but those facts may not be present in a different state where hospitals aren't uniformly hostile to abortionists.