But on February 24, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had earlier upheld the Texas abortion law, lifted the judge’s order blocking enforcement of the Louisiana law.
Attorneys for the state say Texas is trying to protect women’s health and force clinics to meet hospital-like standards for outpatient surgery.
Benjamin Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life, said in a statement Friday that he was disappointed the Supreme Court blocked Louisiana admitting privileges law until the court rules on the Texas law in June.
That’s very similar to the Texas law that justices just heard arguments over, which is arguably the most significant abortion case the Supreme Court’s heard in a generation.
Five states now require providers of either medication or surgical abortion services to have admitting privileges at a local hospital and another 10 require the provider to have either admitting privileges or another type of relationship with a hospital.
Abortionists then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reinstated the injunction on Friday-with the exception of Justice Clarence Thomas, who said he would not have blocked the law. The clinics asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay. The court has pending appeals from both states on whether those laws can go into effect.
The court’s eight justices are now divided on the issue, while Justice Anthony Kennedy holds a swing vote. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its ruling in June of this year. Until it becomes clear whether the justices want their ruling to be precedent setting and apply to other states, doctors in Louisiana will be moving ahead with an appeal.
However, pro-abortion activists are challenging the law because it makes it harder for women to obtain the procedure.
Though supporters of the Texas law insist the state’s strict medical regulations were meant to promote health and safety, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued they would actually hurt women.
Personally, I would have been going into all abortion clinics, those like the one run by Kermit Gosnell, and shutting them down when they violate infection control guidelines.
The court is taking the measure of two major components: One requires abortions be performed at ambulatory surgical centers, which are subject to extensive regulations that specify everything from the width of halls and doorways to air circulation and staffing.
The move will allow two of the state’s four clinics to reopen.
Justice Elena Kagan said the law could affect hundreds of thousands of women who would have to travel much farther to reach a clinic and said the increased distances to a clinic is far greater now than before.
While some of the more conservative justices seem adamant that these new laws caused the closures, our three female heroines aren’t about to let that excuse fly during this landmark abortion case, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt.
“For the third time in a little over a year, the Supreme Court has stepped in to preserve women’s ability to get the constitutionally-protected health care they need”.
On the other hand, the most that abortion opponents likely can hope for is a 4-4 split that would leave the Texas law standing but would not affect most of the country. Anti-abortion advocates have been increasing costs for clinics in these ways and moving up the date at which abortion can be banned because these are the avenues to which the U.S. Supreme Court effectively directed them to in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
“Because my reading indicated that medical abortions are up nationwide, but down significantly in Texas”, he said, adding that “this may not be medically wise”.