The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Supreme Court overturns Louisiana pro-life law

by Rachel Lynn Aldrich
Posted 6/29/20, 11:27 am

Chief Justice John Roberts voted with the liberal wing of the court to rule against Louisiana’s health protections for women and unborn babies. The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 5-4 decision that the state put too much of a burden on women who wanted an abortion by requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas dissented.

What was the reasoning? June Medical Services, an abortion business in Shreveport, La., said the requirement would force two of the state’s three abortion providers to close. In the opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer cited Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, in which the Supreme Court ruled the Constitution prohibits health regulations that impose an “undue burden” on abortion access. Roberts, in a concurring opinion, agreed the businesses had the right to sue on behalf of women in the state.

Dig deeper: Read Leah Hickman’s report on the oral arguments in the case.

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Rachel Lynn Aldrich

Rachel is an assistant editor for WORLD Digital. She is a Patrick Henry College and World Journalism Institute graduate. Rachel resides with her husband in Wheaton, Ill.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • My Two Cents
    Posted: Mon, 06/29/2020 12:00 pm

    John Roberts has been a huge disappointment. More than 300,000 abortions are performed each year in the US. I doubt very much women are burdened unduly with accessing a clinic. The burden is in their heart. 

    Stay home and save lives is a mantra that should be posted on the doors of abortion clinics everywhere.

    Posted: Tue, 06/30/2020 06:37 pm

    I am pro-life all the way. But even if I were for abortion this doesn't make sense to me. Woman have died under-going legal abortions...and in the aftermath of such, and it only makes sense that a provider should have admitting priveledges to a hospital. If a person in a rural area needs any surgical procedure they go to where the hospitals are.  Is that considered "an undue burden"?