How will Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Texas case of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstadt affect Louisiana’s similar law requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges?
“We do expect that the 5th Circuit Court will come to the same conclusion as the Supreme Court – that it is unconstitutional,” Angela Adkins, legislative director for the Louisiana chapter of the National Organization for Women said in an interview with WRKF. Currently, this state’s 2014 HB 388, also known as the “Unsafe Abortion Protection Act” is pending appeal before the full panel of the 5th Circuit.
Adkins notes Louisiana’s Attorney General is not backing down.
“Jeff Landry made a statement that he will continue to litigate and appeal. So it’s going to be another case of wasting taxpayer money on a law that is unconstitutional.”
Supporters of the law, which requires doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital, say it’s about protecting women.
“It’s an important law to protect the health and safety of patients, and also the integrity of the medical profession,” explained Ken Duncan, a D.C.-based attorney with the Bioethics Defense Fund who has been part of the team defending the constitutional challenge to Louisiana’s law.
Adkins says that’s not the real motive.
“These laws are called “TRAP” laws --Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers – and are basically designed to take away the access to abortion, without making it illegal.”
And regarding the safety claims, she states, “Abortion has a 0.6 complication rate. That’s less than dental procedures, colonoscopies. And the guise that this is being done in the name of women’s health is bogus.”
In their 5-3 decision, that’s pretty much how the U.S. Supreme Court viewed the Texas law, with the majority opinion stating, “The admitting-privileges requirement provides few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an ‘undue burden’ on their constitutional right to do so.”