On Monday, in a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned an important Louisiana law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Court’s four liberal Justices in the decision despite the fact that he ruled opposite in a near-identical case just four years ago.
The Court’s decision in June Medical Services v. Russo represents a significant blow to states’ rights and women’s safety. The Louisiana law in question was enacted to protect women from the abortion industry and its barbaric history of botched abortions by requiring abortion providers – like doctors at all free-standing clinics – to be able to admit and treat patients at nearby hospitals if emergencies arise. This common-sense bill was sponsored by Democratic State Representative Katrina Jackson; it received overwhelming bipartisan support for the Louisiana House and Senate; and it was signed into law by Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.
Though Chief Justice Roberts recently warned the Court against “second-guessing” the actions of “politically accountable officials of the States” (see South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom), he took the unfortunate step of not only “second-guessing” but overturning the actions of Louisiana’s duly elected Legislature and Executive. And just as troubling, he joined the Court’s liberal wing in prioritizing the abortion industry’s business interests over women’s health and safety.
Why should an abortion provider be held to lesser medical standards than other physicians?
Why should an abortion clinic be held to lesser facility standards than other clinics?
Why should abortion be the exception to quality standards of medical care?
Why should women be subjected to dangerous, medically substandard care?
All states have a compelling interest to regulate abortion providers and clinics in order to protect woman. We all know that the abortion industry consistently places profits over patients, and this week, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an opportunity to terminate this conflict of interest – one which lines abortion providers’ pockets while forcing women to shoulder all risks of an abortion, even if abortion providers violate basic standards of care.
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito opined: “Today’s decision claims new victims. The divided majority cannot agree on what the abortion right requires, but it nevertheless strikes down a Louisiana law, Act 620, that the legislature enacted for the asserted purpose of protecting women’s health.”
We agree with Justice Alito. This week, the Court did not simply create winners and losers – it claimed new victims. Women deserve better, not lesser standards of care. Women deserve fewer risks, not more. And lest we forget the other victims of abortion – children deserve life, not death.
Thus, we continue the fight. Are you with us?
If so, I want to personally invite you to support our efforts in New Mexico today by becoming a monthly Ministry Partner. Your recurring monthly gift of $25, $50, $100, or more will directly fund our grassroots work to impact public policy and mobilize Christians for civic engagement. Or, if you prefer, you can also make a one-time gift of $100, $250, or $500 by clicking here.
With every setback comes an opportunity, and with your support and participation, we are well on our way to fostering a state and nation where life is cherished!
President & Executive Director
Women deserve better than the treatment they received today. In its June Medical Services v. Russo decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the radical abortion agenda by striking down a bipartisan law that protected women.
The law in question should not have been controversial. It was a bipartisan response to the horrors committed by abortionists like the infamous Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell was found guilty of manslaughter of a woman who died as a result of an abortion at his hands. He committed many other atrocities toward the women and unborn children in his clinic, treating them not as people but as mere commodities to be exploited.
In light of these horrors, Louisiana’s legislature passed a law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital. This law, a bipartisan effort and the result of tireless work from the Louisiana Family Forum and other pro-life groups in the state, ensured that women would have the chance to receive continuous care if they suffered physical complications after an abortion.
Soon, abortion clinics filed a lawsuit on behalf of “women” – without actually representing a single woman in the lawsuit. This has never been about women. It has always been about the abortion industry’s bottom line. It’s the same reason the industry defied orders during COVID-19 lockdowns, and it’s the reason the industry will keep fighting against any restriction on abortion.
But today, the majority of the Court failed to recognize any of that. Instead, the Court fell back on an old, unworkable rule that virtually anything hindering access to abortion is an “undue burden” on women.
It’s a far cry from reality –Louisiana’s law was designed to protect women’s lives, not burden them. Today, the Court has allowed the abortion industry to continue putting profits over the health of women, providing sub-standard “care,” and appropriating the voice of its victims by illegitimately speaking for them in Court.
Abortion already creates victims among the unborn, but Justice Alito’s dissent in this case was right: “Today’s decision claims new victims.” Women lose when the abortion industry repeatedly gets a pass on following basic healthcare standards. Women deserve better than that.
Today, some may be left asking: Where do we go from here?
While we are saddened by this decision, it is a clear call to action in three ways.
First, we are called to prayer. As the family of believers, our hope does not rest on any law or decision of the Supreme Court. Our hope rests in the Lord, and we trust Him with the injustices abortion has done to women and millions of their unborn children.
Second, we are called to action in the November 2020 election. Today, five Supreme Court justices agreed to strike down a good law crafted by pro-life lawmakers in Louisiana. But four justices – including both Trump nominees – dissented from the majority’s decision. With one more courageous and conservative justice, today’s outcome likely would have been different. It takes good U.S. Senators to confirm these courageous justices.
Third, good policy work must continue at the state level. It takes prolife lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to pass a good law like Louisiana’s. While the Supreme Court continues to chew on old bones, our mission is to work with good state lawmakers to pass good laws that protect mothers and their babies, and to change the abortion conversation in a way the Court can’t ignore. No matter what, we will continue to fight for the dignity of every human life—including the women the abortion industry continues to exploit.
Will you join us?
Brittany Jones, Esq
Policy and Communications Manager
Have you ever thought about the job description for a Supreme Court Justice?
What is it, exactly, that they are supposed to do? In his Stoplight® commentary, Stuart Shepard highlights two distinctly different views.
Ask your senators to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch.
Thank you for sharing Stoplight with your friends.