The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about a Louisiana law requiring abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
This is significant for two reasons: It shows the court is finally willing to wade back into the abortion debate, and it appears the court is doing so to review a precedent it set in a similar 2016 case. If this is, in fact, the court’s motivation, this case could be a huge win for the pro-life movement.
The Louisiana law in question is similar to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. The Texas law also required abortion clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital in case a medical emergency occurred during the procedure, and clinics were required to meet the health and safety standards of a typical hospital.
The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled the law was unnecessary and imposed “a substantial burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, with now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote.
By taking up the Louisiana law, it seems the court is willing to review and perhaps even revoke its 2016 decision. The court is different than it was in 2016. Kennedy no longer sits on the bench — Brett Kavanaugh does. And he appears to be less moderate than his predecessor.
Up until now, the court has shied away from taking up abortion-related cases. But perhaps that’s about to change. The fact that it’s willing to reenter the abortion debate is a significant win for the pro-life movement — especially now that the bench leans right — regardless of its ultimate ruling. The Supreme Court made this mess and it’s time they cleaned it up.
