The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision to repeal a restrictive Louisiana law is far from the final struggle of the anti-abortionists in their struggle to overthrow Roe v. Calf.
The Louisiana Act 620, sponsored by an anti-abortion democrat, was passed in 2014. State senator Katrina Jackson claimed that the requirement that abortion providers in hospitals must have regulatory rights within 30 miles of their clinic would protect women. Opponents of the law said, however, that the restriction would only leave one abortion provider in a clinic in a state with more than 4.5 million residents.
"In this case, it wasn't about decriminalizing abortion or overthrowing Roe vs. Wade. I have a way of looking at that," said Jackson. "But I also know that as a woman and as a legislator, it is my responsibility to ensure that if a woman chooses to have an abortion while Roe vs. Wade is still the law, she makes certain decisions."
The Supreme Court case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, was almost identical to a Texas case that the court repressed in 2016. In Whole Woman & # 39; s Health v. Hellerstedt, it found that a state's compulsory approval does not promote women's health and imposes an undue burden on women who seek abortion. The Louisiana legislature, with the help of the anti-abortion organization Americans United for Life, followed the law and claimed the facts were drastically different than in Texas.
"If something had happened to me, you'd better believe that I would have been able to go straight to an operation for an operation so that I could get anyone if my uterus had been perforated, if my intestines had been perforated." to save my life, "said Catherine Glenn Foster, President and CEO of Americans United for Life. "Women deserve it."
In an Amicus letter against Act 620, leading medical associations wrote that abortions are extremely safe and rarely require hospitalization. They argued that continuity of care between clinics and hospitals is achieved through emergency protocols and communication, not through outpatients who have hospital admission rights, the plaintiff found in the Texas and Louisiana cases.
"Louisiana says many of its abortion restrictions affect the protection of women and children, but we know that this is not the case because Louisiana has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the country," said Julie Rikelman, senior lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights. "It has one of the worst indicators of child health in the country, so instead of actually legislating and introducing policies to protect women and children, they're just trying to take away people's decisions."
The Supreme Court decision of Monday is an asset to abortion rights groups. However, the 5-4 verdict, in which Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the court's liberals and rejected the newly appointed conservative judges Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, could be a sign of deeper polarization and an impending lawsuit.
"Anyone who reads this and believes that abortion rights are now safe simply wasn't paying attention," said Mary Ziegler, an abortion law expert at Florida State University College of Law.