by Kimya Forouzan
On March 4th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case called June Medical Services v. Russo. The case arises from a Louisiana law which requires abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at hospitals within a certain distance to their clinic in order to continue providing abortion care. While this requirement may not seem particularly burdensome, the reality is that admitting privileges are extremely difficult to obtain. Hospitals can deny them if they do not want to affiliate with an abortion provider. Hospitals also may require providers to admit a certain number of patients per year in order to maintain their privileges, which is near impossible for abortion providers to do since abortion is such a safe procedure.
All in all, this law, should it be allowed to go into effect, could potentially reduce the number of abortion providers in Louisiana from three to one. What is even more concerning is that the Supreme Court ruled on an identical law from Texas in 2016. In Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Court struck down the law and stated that courts must balance the burden a law would impose on abortion access with the government’s stated purpose behind the law. Although the Court already ruled on an identical law, it chose to hear this case, leading many to worry about whether they would alter the precedent they had set.
The final decision in June Medical Services will likely be announced at the end of the Supreme Court term, sometime during the summer months. However, while it is vital to fight for abortion rights, it is also just as important to recognize that lack of access has left many people unable to exercise the right to abortion regardless of its legality. As restrictions have grown and clinics have closed over the years, those without the means to pay for the procedure have been unable to access the right.
While the procedure itself can be expensive, the burdens imposed by law have only driven up the cost, directly harming people of color and those with lower incomes. As more and more clinics have closed, people have to spend more on travel expenses to access care. Some states have imposed mandatory waiting periods, which require individuals to wait 24-48 hours after obtaining in-person, mandatory counseling prior to their procedure, leading to costs associated with lodging during that time. Individuals may also have to pay for child care and account for lost wages while they are away from their everyday lives attempting to comply with these many restrictions. All of these barriers amount to hoops that people have to jump through simply to access their right to abortion care, leaving people of color and those with lower incomes unable to access care.
Kimya is a member of HEART’s board of directors. She is also an attorney who works in reproductive rights and justice.
