Stare decisis- It already has been decided. An important legal principle. Could have easily gone the other way.
Discuss.

Supreme Court, in 5-4 ruling, strikes down restrictive Louisiana abortion law
The measure would have required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at hospitals within 30 miles of a clinic.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Louisiana's tough restriction on abortion violates the Constitution, a surprising victory for abortion rights advocates from an increasingly conservative court.

The 5-4 decision, in which Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the court's four more liberal justices, struck down a law passed by Louisiana's legislature in 2014 that required any doctor offering abortion services to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles. Its enforcement had been blocked by a protracted legal battle.

Two Louisiana doctors and a medical clinic sued to get the law overturned. They said it would leave only one doctor at a single clinic to provide services for nearly 10,000 women who seek abortions in the state each year.

The challengers said the requirement was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. With the vote of then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that Texas imposed an obstacle on women seeking access to abortion services without providing any medical benefits. Kennedy was succeeded by the more conservative Brett Kavanaugh, appointed

Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the Texas decision, also wrote Monday's ruling. The law poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking an abortion, offers no significant health benefits, "and therefore imposes an undue burden on a woman's constitutional right to choose to have an abortion."

Roberts said he thought the court was wrong to strike down the Texas law, but he voted with the majority because that was binding precedent. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

Louisiana defended the law, arguing that the requirement to have an association with a nearby hospital would provide a check on a doctor's credentials. But opponents said a hospital's decision about whether to grant admitting privileges had little to do with a doctor's competence and more to do with whether the doctor would admit a sufficient number of patients.

A federal judge ruled in 2017 that the law was likely unconstitutional and blocked its enforcement. But a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals voted to lift the stay, finding that it would present far less of an obstacle than the Texas law would have, because less than one-third of Louisiana women seeking an abortion would face even the potential of longer wait times.

The Supreme Court put that ruling on hold while it considered the case, which prevented the law from taking effect.

Just read the whole thing. I can't add much. Pretty heady stuff. Interesting how differently they see things.

I don't always agree with him but I am starting to really respect Roberts.

The atual SCOTUS Opinion or an article I can't find the Opinion to read.

the actual opinion

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/29/politics/abortion-louisiana-supreme-court-opinion/index.html 

Too long for me today.

I stated previously elsewhere that I didn't believe systemic racism existed in America but I'd like to correct that.
Systemic racism does exist in the American abortion industry. Margaret Sanger of planned parenthood is into eugenics and has stated she believes the cure to race issues was ending more African American pregnancies when they can't be prevented with contraception.
They target poor black communities and I believe the current average is 247 blacks a day. Caucasians and Hispanics aren't far behind these days but clinic location choices seem obviously skewed towards Sanger's goal.
Very sad.
States should get to decide such things. imho

You should talk to MACS.

Have you forgotten Roe v. Wade?

Wasn’t that overturned when Trump got to appoint two Supreme Court judges?! I was told it would be.

Stare decisis baby!

So all that screaming about those appointees was fake? I’ve been lied to again.

Yeah, they are actually the constitutionalists they profess to be. I find it interesting that Roberts seems to be taking on the centrist role. Major props to him. We need a balanced SCOTUS. Sure he will always be conservative. That's who he is. But damn is he subjugating his personal belief for the good of the country.

Roberts got off to a rocky start by concurring with Citizen's United, but has shown his moderate leanings since...jurisdictional limits...

he just followed a law that he was against when it was in front of him.
He's respecting precedence, not agreeing with the right itself, just with the existing law that exists.
That alone shows his ability to be immune to political expectations of the executive branch when it comes to checks and balances.