F^5
O^0
LE
FT
:^ -
AB
IN
BO
TS
FO
5 D
ʔT
HE
W
AS
HI
N*
TO
N^
PO
ST
ʔ*
ET
T<
^ S
A^8
L^ L
OE
Bʔ
AF
Pʔ
*E
TT
<
NEWSWEEK.COM 17
the u.s. supreme court heard
arguments in the case of June
Medical Services v. Russo on March 4.
While the name of the case may not
be widely known, the issue raised has
been a centerpiece of partisan politics
for half a century—namely, abortion
rights. If the Court upholds the Loui-
siana law at issue, which requires doc-
tors performing abortions to obtain
admitting privileges at nearby hospi-
tals, only one doctor at a single clinic
would be permitted to provide abor-
tions in the entire state. This result
will be devastating to the women of
Louisiana, most par-
ticularly black women.
And, of equal impor-
tance, such a ruling will
mark the death knell of
the Supreme Court’s
credibility as an insti-
tution and protector of the rule of law.
Forty-seven years ago, the Court
upheld a woman’s constitutional
right to terminate her pregnancy.
Twenty-eight years ago, the Supreme
Court prohibited laws that impose
an unconstitutional undue burden
upon a woman’s ability to terminate
her pregnancy. June Medical threat-
ens these precedents by giving states
carte blanche to erect insurmountable
barriers to abortion access, with reg-
ulations that burden both physicians
and women. The right to have an abor-
tion would be rendered meaningless if
states can prevent women from access-
ing those services.
Worse, ruling in Louisiana’s favor
would be an overt signal from the
Court that the rule of law is in serious
jeopardy. Just four years ago, in a 5-
opinion, the Court struck down a Texaslaw that is identical to the Louisiana
law now before the justices. In doing
so, the Court applied the “undue bur-
den” test and found that the Texas law
provided no health benefits to women
but imposed an undue burden on
women seeking abortions. The rule of
law requires a lower court to adhere
to the rulings of a higher court. It also
requires the higher court to adhere
to its own precedents unless changes
in society or the law dictate that an
abrupt change in the law is warranted.
There are no circumstances here that
would satisfy this test. Nevertheless,
this rule was blatantly
ignored by the appel-
late court in the June
Medical case. Today, 207
members of Congress,
all but two Republican,are calling on the Court to ignore these
precedents and overturn Roe v. Wade.
However, departing from Roe and its
progeny would be a lawless act flying
in the face of these bedrock principles.
Also important, however, is a
closer look at the undue burden test
in this case. Who is it that will suffer
disproportionately if the Louisiana
law is upheld? The evidence in this
case reveals, beyond doubt, that the
victims of this law—should it be per-
mitted to take effect—are poor black
women. These women are not mem-
bers of Congress, their voices are not
often heard in the public discourse,
and they do not contribute heavily to
political campaigns. But I, and many
others, have beseeched the Court to
hear them, as they will suffer most
from an adverse ruling.BYSHIRA A.
SCHEINDLINRuling in Louisiana’s favor would be an
overt signal from the Court that the ruleof law is in serious jeopardy.
INSIDE AND OUT Left: The current
justices of the Supreme Court. Right:
An abortion rights rally as the justices
heard arguments on March 4.