Victory for Abortion Rights Might Be Short-Lived - Page 2

Analyses point out that John Roberts had a very narrow rationale in Louisiana case
By John Johnson,  Newser Staff
Posted Jun 29, 2020 1:55 PM CDT

  • Monday ruling is "in many ways a narrow ruling, resting on Roberts’ adherence to the court’s 2016 decision in the Texas case," writes Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog. "With four justices very vocal in their opposition to today’s ruling and a number of challenges to other laws regulating abortion in the pipeline, the legal battle over abortion seems likely to continue into the foreseeable future."
  • At Vox, Ian Millhiser goes further, writing that Roberts gave only a "very brief reprieve" to those who support the right to an abortion. "His opinion is laden with hints that, in a future case, he is likely to vote to restrict—or even eliminate—the constitutional right to an abortion." Notably, Roberts suggested he would welcome a challenge to Planned Parenthood v. Casey from 1992.
  • The ruling might upset conservative activists in the short term, writes Sam Baker at Axios, but "legal experts from both sides of the ideological divide still expect the court to ultimately chip away at access to abortion and narrow the scope of the precedents that make it legal." States will learn from the losses in Texas and Louisiana and craft laws that can be better defended.
  • Millhiser tweeted a similar sentiment: "Roberts' opinion in June Medical is basically a roadmap for anti-abortion litigators telling them how to win the next case."
  • The AP rounds up reaction from anti-abortion groups, including this from the director of Priests for Life. “Once again this ruling underscores the importance of elections,” says the Rev. Frank Pavone. “We need a solid pro-life majority on the Supreme Court to uphold the rights of women and the unborn.”
(Read more US Supreme Court stories.)

We use cookies. By Clicking "OK" or any content on this site, you agree to allow cookies to be placed. Read more in our privacy policy.