About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (March 2, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govcapx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: r~~w Con arers Reflsearch Service_ - Court Revisits Abortion and Hospital Admitting-Privileges Requirement March 2, 2020 On March 4, 2020, the Supreme Court is to hear oral arguments in June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, a case involving a Louisiana law requiring physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital within thirty miles of the location where the procedure is performed. Under the law, abortion facilities that employ or contract with physicians who do not have such privileges are subject to having their licenses revoked by the state Department of Health and Hospitals. In September 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, distinguishing a 2016 Supreme Court decision- Whole Toman s Health : HIellerstedt-that had invalidated a nearly identical Texas law on the grounds that it unconstitutionally imposed an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an abortion. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that admitting privileges are easier to obtain in Louisiana and that only one of the state's six physicians who perform abortions might be unable to obtain admitting privileges. The appellate court reasoned that if the remaining physicians obtained admitting privileges, existing facilities would remain open and Louisiana residents would not suffer the same kinds of burdens the Court identified in Whole Woman's Health, such as fewer abortion clinics and longer wait times at remaining facilities. This Sidebar provides an overview of June Medical Services, beginning with a discussion of the undue burden standard used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of abortion regulations. The Sidebar then reviews the arguments made by both parties concerning not only the merits of the dispute, but whether abortion providers can have third-party standing to challenge abortion regulations on behalf of their patients. The Sidebar concludes with some considerations of the potential implications of the Court's latest abortion case. Abortion and the Undue Burden Standard Courts reviewing the constitutionality of abortion regulations apply a standard that was adopted by a plurality of the Supreme Court in Planned Parenthood ofSoutheastern PennsWvania v Casev, a 1992 decision involving several Pennsylvania abortion restrictions. In Casey, a plurality of the Court concluded that an abortion regulation violates the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain the procedure. The plurality Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10414 CRS L.eg Sidebar Prepamd for Membe-q and Cornm ittees o4 Co nq g ess ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------