[ad_1]
I # 5 to 4, the Supreme Court said Thursday that it would not allow Louisiana to uphold its law requiring abortion doctors to have the privilege of admitting into neighboring hospitals, as long as the case continues.
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh asks a good question: Why should Louisiana abstain from enforcing an abortion law, which the plaintiffs consider impossible, while the three doctors involved have not tried to comply?
In his dissent, Mr. Kavanaugh stated that the case "rests largely" on whether the three Louisiana doctors who practice abortions can obtain the privileges of being able to do so. admission required by law in the next 45 days. He argues that it is logical that they be allowed to try to do so, as long as the law is in force and if they can not, the plaintiffs could then challenge the law because of that failure. (To her credit, Louisiana has even said that she would not seek to "enforce the law aggressively.") If doctors get admission privileges, all clinics can continue to abort, and Louisiana will keep its law protecting women. Everyone wins.
Some greedy pro-life may want to interpret Kavanaugh's dissidence as a method of moving into the waters of abortion without causing too many waves. This is not it. Kavanaugh did not discuss in his dissent the merits of Roe v. Wade or abortion. But that should not disappoint pro-life lawyers. Kavanaugh objected to the dissent on the procedural issue at stake, whether an existing law should be adopted or not, while the people most affected by this law, the abortion doctors who must obtain privileges, determine whether they can or not. should comply with that. This has a logical, practical and procedural meaning.
If the court had ruled in the manner described by Kavanaugh in his dissent, he would have in fact allowed more decisive tests for abortion advocates. Had the law been allowed to come into force, the plaintiffs would have been forced to face the problem: are three doctors really unable to obtain admission privileges to hospitals in 45 days?
In contrast, the majority decision surprised the Conservatives: Chief Justice John Roberts joined the more liberal judges in granting the stay. While some liberals say that Roberts "just placed Roe v. Wade on vital support", this does not seem to be a historic decision for or against abortion. Rather, this decision demonstrates that judges review the facts of each case and make decisions based on those facts.
If Roe is to be overthrown, it must be done on the merits of the case that justifies it – so that legally the Supreme Court retains its judicial authority.
[ad_2]
Source link
