On March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear arguments in June Medical Services v. Gee, a critical abortion rights case that will assess the constitutionality of a Louisiana “admitting privileges” abortion restriction.
WLP will be heading to DC to participate in a rally and protest that will take place on the steps of the Supreme Court from 8AM – 11:30AM. You are invited! RSVP and spread the word about the rally here.
If you can’t make it, follow us on twitter, where we’ll be posting using the hashtag #MyRightMyDecision.
At issue in June Medical Services is Louisiana’s Act 620, which forces Louisiana abortion providers to enter into a type of business contract called “admitting privileges” with a local hospital. The primary purpose of such contracts is for hospitals to secure business. Ironically, because abortion is a safe procedure with a very low medical complication rate, admitting privileges have been denied to abortion providers because they don’t generate enough patients for hospitals to bother with unnecessary paperwork.
Zero evidence suggests such a business contract does anything but manufacture an opportunity to force physicians to stop providing abortion care by encouraging street protesters to intimidate hospital administrators out of entering into the contract.
As we explained in our recent op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
The playbook goes like this: First, pass an admitting privileges law. That’s simple enough, given lobbyists typically write the bills. Once the law is passed, all politicians have to do is wait for antiabortion extremists to threaten hospitals with “negative publicity” and harassment if they grant privileges to abortion providers.
We watched this strategy play out in Texas. After admitting privileges passed, antiabortion extremists published a step-by-step guide outlining how to find out where abortion providers applied for privileges and then threaten that hospital with disruptive protests until they give in to their demands. (From the guide: “Graphic images are highly controversial but this could be an appropriate location to hold graphic images if the hospital refuses to take action.”)
WLP attorneys detailed this argument in an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief filed in the case.
Nationally, between 1977 and 2018, there were 11 murders, 26 attempted murders, 42 bombings, 188 arsons, 100 attempted bombings or arsons, and four acts of kidnapping committed against abortion providers, according to the National Abortion Federation.
In 2017, threats of violence or death almost doubled at clinics from the year before.
Louisiana’s Maternal Mortality Rate is Double the Average
Louisiana has passed a blitz of abortion restrictions including a trigger law to ban abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned, state-directed counseling with a coercive script, arbitrary waiting periods, an insurance ban, a ban on telemedicine to administer medical abortion, mandatory ultrasound with forced description of it to the patient, a 20-week ban in most cases, and more targeted restrictions designed to sever access to all but the wealthy and connected, such as the politicians passing the laws.
Research shows adopting medically unnecessary abortion restrictions correlates with poor outcomes for women and children and indeed, Louisiana is one of the country’s most dangerous places to be pregnant.
In fact, the death rate for pregnant women in Louisiana is twice the national average—and the U.S. maternal mortality rate is highest in the world among similarly situated countries.
Violence is Another Leading Cause of Death for Pregnant Louisianans
A horrific new report reveals a leading cause of death for pregnant Louisianans is homicide.
In 2019, the state had the second-highest rate for men killing women, behind only Alaska.
Yet, anti-abortion radical lawmakers continue to fight for more abortion restrictions, and in this case, a restriction that relies on the threat of harassment to advance their agenda of closing clinics, rather than address the epidemic of maternity mortality and violence against pregnant Louisianans.
Attorneys at the Women’s Law Project filed the amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in the case making this argument on behalf of the Feminist Majority Foundation, National Organization for Women Foundation, Southern Poverty Law Center, and WLP. The private law firm Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, co-authored the brief together with David S. Cohen, WLP board member and professor of law at Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law; Susan Frietsche and Christine Castro of WLP; and attorneys from the Feminist Majority Foundation.
The Women’s Law Project is a public interest law center devoted to defending and expanding the rights of women, girls, and LGBTQ people in Pennsylvania and beyond.
Sign up for WLP’s Action Alerts. Stay up to date on issues and policy by following us on twitter liking us on Facebook and following us on Instagram.
We are a non-profit organization. Please consider supporting equal rights for women and girls by making a one-time donation or scheduling a monthly contribution.
