Many pro-life supporters found hope in the potential enactment of the new Louisiana Abortion Law. This law would have essentially mandated that in order to perform an abortion, every doctor would need admitting privileges from a hospital. The court ruled 5-4 against this law, with John Roberts siding with his liberal counterparts. Turned down by the U.S. Supreme Court, the majority agreed that this law was unconstitutional.
Katrina Jackson, author of the Louisiana Abortion Law, states that the supreme court ruled against women’s health.
Jackson said that she authored this law based on the detrimental effect of clinics on women’s health. She was appalled by the carelessness within abortion clinics. Jackson found that primary abortion clinics have a history of insanitation and poor medical care. These clinics are also known to have a lack of continuity of care. There have been cases of clinics withholding necessary health services before the ambulance arrived when complications occurred.
In one case, unsafe methods led to a woman needing a hysterectomy after an incomplete abortion. These hazardous methods have resulted in many health complications for many women in Louisiana. Jackson states that “for Louisiana women, that was simply unacceptable” and she will continue to “protect women from shoddy medical care”.
Katrina Jackson stated that she is pro-women and pro-life, declaring that health standards for abortion clinics should be the same as any medical procedure. White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany commented on this ruling. She stated that their main concern was policy preference over “legitimate abortion safety regulations”. As a Supreme Court ruling which denies protection against adverse health effects towards Louisiana women, abortion clinics will now continue unbothered.
However, within this ruling, the session presented an opportunity for other states to increase restrictions on abortion. John Roberts stated in a footnote that “the validity of admitting privilege laws depends on numerous factors that may differ from state to state”(1). Although abortion advocates are thrilled with the ruling, they are also deterred by the language he brings forward and its implication on future abortion laws.
Julie Rikelman, an attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights stated she was “concerned about his opinion”(2). Many pro-abortion advocates are concerned that the language of this footnote and the new conservative majority could play a part in future abortion restrictions. As pro-life advocates, it is important to note that Roberts is offering states a loophole to create laws for tighter abortion restrictions.
The deterioration of the worlds ideals on new life is heartbreaking for pro-life supporters. Those who fight for choice are fighting harder than ever. In light of a heartbreaking ruling, it is important to make our voices even louder to support laws prohibiting abortion throughout the U.S. and the world. We must use our knowledge and wisdom to advocate for the life and souls of those who cannot fight for themselves.
(1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
About The Contributor
