Newspaper Page Text
The Official Newspaper of the Diocese of Savannah
Vol. 99, No. 21 Thursday, October 10, 2019
Put Faith in Your Opinions
southerncross.diosav.org
More than 100 people from seven parishes, including five priests and two deacons, participated in a Life Chain Oct. 6 in Savannah near Daffin Park. The parishes
were: Savannah’s Blessed Sacrament Church, St. James Church, the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist, Sacred Heart Church, and St. Peter the Apostle Church,
Port Wentworth’s Our Lady of Lourdes Church and Tybee Island’s St. Michael Church. Other Life Chains, many of them also sponsored by the Catholic Church,
were also held in Albany, Augusta, Columbus, Hinesville, Macon, Springfield, Tifton, Vidalia and Warner Robins. Photograph by Jessica L. Marsala.
Supreme Court agrees to take up Louisiana
abortion case this term
By Carol Zimmermann
Washington (CNS)
The Supreme Court announced
Oct. 4, just three days before
it begins its new term, that it
will add an abortion case to its
docket.
The justices have agreed to
weigh in on a Louisiana law that
requires doctors at abortion clin
ics to obtain admitting privileges
from a nearby hospital.
It is the first abortion case the
court is taking up since Justices
Brett Kavanaugh and Neil
Gorsuch joined the bench and
also without the swing vote of
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who
retired in 2018.
The Louisiana case is almost
identical to a Texas case the
court struck down in 2016 that
required abortion clinic doctors
to have admitting privileges at
local hospitals and state abortion
clinics to comply with standards
of ambulatory surgical centers.
In the Texas case, the court
said both requirements imposed
“a substantial burden” on women
seeking an abortion and were
not necessary to protect women’s
health. Louisiana officials have
conceded that its law is practi
cally identical to the Texas law,
the only difference now is the
makeup of the current court.
Abortion providers in Louisiana
have said that if the law goes
into effect, it would leave only
one doctor performing abortions
in the state during the early
stages of pregnancy, and none
after 17 weeks of pregnancy.
Catherine Glenn Foster, pres
ident of Americans United for
Life, said in a statement that
her organization welcomes the
court’s decision to review this
case.
She said the court’s decision
in the similar Texas case held
the law’s requirements uncon
stitutional “but did not rule on
the overall validity of such pro
visions.” She also said that since
Louisiana’s admitting privileges
law would leave abortion centers
open in both population centers
in the state, “it does not create
an ‘undue burden’ on abortion
access in Louisiana.”
The statement said Americans
United for Life filed a friend-
of-the-court brief “in support of
Louisiana’s cross-petition, detail
ing numerous horrific violations
of basic health and safety stan
dards by abortion businesses in
the state.”
Earlier this year, the Supreme
Court temporarily put the state
law restricting Louisiana abor
tion providers on hold. In a brief
order, Justice Samuel Alito said
the justices needed more time
to review the documentation on
arguments for and against the
law, titled Louisiana’s Unsafe
Abortion Protection Act.
Both sides on the abortion
debate will be playing close
attention to what the court does
with this case: If it sticks to its
own precedent or not.
In defending its requirement
for abortion providers — sup
ported 2-1 by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
— the state of Louisiana said its
law would not have the impact
that similar legislation would
have had in Texas, mainly
because there is no evidence that
an abortion clinic would close
in Louisiana as the result of the
law.
A Louisiana abortion provider,
June Medical Services, which
objects to the law, appealed to
the full 5th Circuit in mid-Jan
uary to rehear the case, but the
judges voted 9-6 against doing so.
After the Supreme Court’s
2016 ruling that struck down
required hospital admitting priv
ileges, similar policies have been
struck down or unenforced in
Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Tennessee and Wisconsin.
Currently, Missouri, North
Dakota and Utah have such a
law.
In the Texas case, the U.S.
Conference of Catholic Bishops
and other religious groups sub
mitted a joint friend-of-the-court
brief in the case supporting the
law.
In response to the court’s deci
sion to strike it, the USCCB’s
Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities
said the ruling “contradicts the
consensus among medical groups
that such measures protect wom
en’s lives.”
The Texas bishops similarly
said the Supreme Court’s deci
sion “puts women at grave risk”
and said the purpose of the state
regulations was to ensure wom
en’s safety, noting: “Their lives
are just as precious as those of
their children.”
Follow Zimmermann on Twitter:
@CAROLMACZIM