Penna Dexter

The United States Supreme Court recently blocked enforcement of a Louisiana law requiring that abortion doctors have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the facilities where they perform abortions. The stay applies while the justices decide whether to hear an abortion clinic's challenge to this law. If the justices decide to hear the case and ultimately uphold the legislation, one more commonsense protection for women undergoing abortion will be secured. The law passed overwhelmingly in Louisiana's House and Senate in 2014. Challengers maintained that if the law were to go into effect, only one of Louisiana's four abortion clinics has a doctor who will be able to obtain hospital privileges. A federal district court held that this places "substantial burdens" on women seeking abortion, while advancing "minimal" health benefits. A three-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed the district court ruling. The abortion clinic is appealing to the Supreme Court and has asked that the justices enjoin the law while they decide whether to hear the case. That the Supreme Court halted implementation of the law sends a strong signal it will agree to review it. This worries abortion supporters. A headline on VOX reads: "SCOTUS Could Use Louisiana Case to End Roe V. Wade." That's doubtful. But the Supreme Court will hopefully uphold the 5th Circuit even though it struck down a similar Texas law. When there's an infection, perforation, or hemorrhage — and these things do happen even during early-stage abortions — abortionists should be required and equipped to take the appropriate steps to assure continuity of care. And if an abortionist is not willing or able to get approved to treat patients in a hospital, does a young woman really want that doctor performing an abortion on her? The Supreme Court Justices have before them petitions to review other abortion-related decisions. But this case is one to watch.