According to procedural rules, the repealed laws can not enter into force for 21 days, even until 28 August.
Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Roger L. Wollman and L. Steven Grasz noted that although Roberts sat down with the four Liberals of the court to pass the law in Louisiana in June, he did not sign on to their reasoning.
They pointed out how the Supreme Court in its corresponding opinion tackles the enormous burden standard set out in the Landmark Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. V. Casey to determine if a law creates a substantial obstacle in the way of a woman seeking an abortion. Roberts held that “state and federal lawmakers [have] broad discretion to pass legislation in areas where medical and scientific uncertainty is “consistent with that decision,” the judges noted.
While the lower court, in hitting the restrictions, held that courts, not legislators, should resolve questions of medical uncertainty, Roberts emphasized in the substitute Supreme Court case, “emphasizing the ‘broad discretion’ that courts should give to legislators in areas of medical uncertainty, “the judges said.
The correlative analysis of Roberts ‘opinion in a case that ultimately blocked an abortion budget in order to maintain other restrictions was expected by several supporters and opponents of abortion rights in light of Roberts’ opinion.
In a footnote, Roberts wrote that the “validity of allowing privileges depends on several factors that may differ from state to state.”
CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law Stephen Vladeck said at the time that Roberts suggested he did not necessarily support the analysis of the 2016 decision, which seemed to focus as much on whether the restrictions actually benefited provided for pregnant women as if they had imposed a disproportionate burden.
“In the process,” Vladeck said, “narrower opinion of the Supreme Court implies that states that make different arguments in different cases may justify future restrictions. In that regard, the Supreme Court today may have sides with advocates of abortion,” but their victory may be short-lived. “
Supporters of abortion rights who helped bring the case against the law threw the decision and promises to fight it through in court.
“This statement is a reminder that the fight against these extreme restrictions on abortion is far from won,” Holly Dickson, legal director and interim executive director of the Arkansas ACLU, said in a statement. “We are evaluating our next steps and will continue to fight to ensure that these harmful and unconstitutional laws do not come into force.”
Hillary Schneller, a staff lawyer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that “the Supreme Court just weeks ago reaffirmed that a state can not pass laws that tax a person without access to abortion, and that is exactly what these laws do.”
Opponents of access to abortion cheered the verdict.
“Arkansas has taken a strong stand to protect the unborn from inhuman treatment,” Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge said in a statement, adding that she “would continue to defend our state’s legal right to protect the unborn.”
Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said her group is confident that “below the standard set out in the 1992 Supreme Court decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood that this law will prevent” and “it protect the lives of unborn children. ”
CNN’s Ariane de Vogue, Joan Biskupic, Devan Cole and Doug Criss contributed to this report.
.
