Supreme Court Follows Precedent and Strikes Down Louisiana Law Requiring Doctors Performing Abortions to Have Admitting Privileges at a Nearby Hospital
In a recent Supreme Court decision, Chief Justice Roberts cast the deciding vote in a 5-4 decision striking down a law requiring Louisiana abortion clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at local hospitals. In 2016, the Chief Justice had cast a dissenting vote when the Court struck down a nearly identical Texas law. Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning for siding as he did in 2020 was that there is a legal doctrine known as stare decisis, in which similar cases are treated the same way. Roberts explained that if similar cases are given different rulings, then this practice could cause instability within the court system. And while a judge is not required to follow precedent when coming to a decision, Roberts does not believe that merely disagreeing with the previous ruling last time is enough of a reason to depart from precedent.
However, abortion-rights advocates should not jump for joy too soon. Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, both appointed by Trump, voted in favor of the Louisiana law, showing that Trump is fulfilling his campaign promise to appoint pro-life justices. With two justices on the Supreme Court currently over the age of 80, Trump could have the opportunity to appoint more pro-life justices if reelected in 2020. According to The Washington Post, 26 percent of Trump voters polled said that the Supreme Court was the main reason for their voting decision. President Trump could use this recent court decision as a rallying cry for voters. More Trump appointments would make the Supreme Court mostly pro-life, which would make Chief Justice Roberts’ vote no longer a swing vote on pro-life issues.
People in favor of admitting privileges for doctors who perform abortions say that it is important to have them in case complications occur during the abortion. They also want to make sure that the doctors performing the procedure are qualified. However, people against the requirement say that admitting privileges are unnecessary because complications rarely occur and that if a woman does suffer post-abortion complications, they usually occur after the woman has left the clinic.
For the majority of hospitals, providing admitting privileges to doctors is a business decision. Hospitals want to provide admitting privileges to doctors who will bring in a steady stream of patients. A doctor who performs abortions will usually not have a large practice that can send in a large number of patients. Doctors who perform abortions are also politically unpopular, so hospitals would have to add more security. Therefore, providing admitting privileges to a doctor who performs abortions would usually not be the best decision for a hospital.
For James Bopp, general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, even though he is upset with Roberts’ decision, he still has hope. He thinks that this decision will still allow states to apply more restrictions to abortion access, like requiring a woman to have an ultrasound before she has an abortion or ban abortion based on the sex of the fetus or disability. Since these restrictions are not similar to admitting privileges, Supreme Court precedents in the Texas and Louisiana cases might not apply. Laws banning abortion based on sex or disability might have a better chance of passing since there is precedent in other areas of law against discrimination on the basis of sex or disability.
