Photo courtesy of Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt-a controversial argument from Texas that focused on diminishing existing abortion access. After a lengthy deliberation, the Court voted 5-3 to maintain abortion access by striking down restrictive laws the Texas legislature attempted to enforce. Without SCOTUS’ intervention, several abortion clinics in the state would have shut down.
Yet, despite the fact that Hellerstedt was decided three years ago, last Friday the Supreme Court agreed to hear June Medical Services v. Gee: a Louisiana case that bears eerie similarities to its Texan predecessor. Gee essentially made the argument for stricter abortion laws based on the notion that abortion providers need to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
This is the exact argument that was used in Hellerstedt, which was subsequently struck down by holding that, as is explained in Oyez’s case summary, the admitting privilege requirements “do not confer medical benefits that are sufficient to justify the burdens they impose on women seeking to exercise their constitutional right to an abortion. Therefore, the provisions unconstitutionally impose an undue burden.” In other words, the claim that these laws were meant to benefit women’s health was not found to be a compelling enough reason to close down the majority of non-complying clinics. If the claims are substantiated, Texas would have only a few functioning clinics open. In Louisiana, it would mean there would only be one functioning clinic.
The additions of Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court have pro-choice activists concerned about how this new case will go over in contrast to Hellerstedt. However, possibly the single most frustrating aspect of the Gee case is the fact that once again, conservatives, including Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, are using “pro-woman admitting privileges” as the reasoning behind the push for these new restrictive laws. This a tactic we have seen time and time again, as “women’s health and safety” has been used as a justification for oppressive laws such as North Carolina’s Bathroom Bill, voting rights, and frequently, abortion access. The argument from conservatives who support the laws, such as those in Louisiana, is that the current available abortion clinics are not safe enough for women, and thus they want to provide better care for women in the state.
At the very best, this is an incredibly weak claim, since if women’s health was truly the goal, more money would be put into ensuring these facilities have the proper equipment and staffing. At the worst, which is what I believe it is, this argument is part of a deliberate and malicious scheme to remove access to abortion, while being disguised as a plot to ensure women’s health and safety.
Imagine the catastrophic effects on women that these laws will have if the Supreme Court passes them. If there is one single clinic that provides abortion in the state of Louisiana, that means every woman who needs care will be forced to find transportation, time, and resources that she may not have in order to get there. This further means that women of a lower socio-economic class will be disproportionately affected by the laws, which clearly has not been brought into consideration under the Conservative definition of “pro-woman.” Despite the fact that Justice O’Connor stated in her opinion of Casey v. Planned Parenthood, a 1992 abortion case, that financial burdens do not constitute an undue burden on women seeking an abortion, this does not take into account the physical barriers that would come into play if women were forced to travel long distances in order to obtain an abortion.
Though we only have one remaining year of Trump’s presidential term, (and potentially less, given the growing support for his impeachment), SCOTUS’s decision in this case could have lasting and dangerous effects on anyone seeking an abortion in the U.S. It should be clear to anyone at this point that state governments will never be able to ban abortion: they are only capable of banning safe abortion. The more resources we take away from women, the more danger we are putting them in, therefore leading to the conclusion that conservatives who back Louisiana’s laws are aiming to diminish reproductive resources, rather than provide better care for women.
Lila Olson
