BATON ROUGE, LA – The United States Supreme Court will hear oral
arguments on Louisiana’s pro-woman admitting privileges law on Wednesday, March
4, 2020. In light of misinformation being published and false comparisons being
made about the case, the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office issued the
following information for clarification purposes:
Louisiana is not Texas. Louisiana Act 620 is not Texas H.B. 2. June
Medical Services vs. Russo is not Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt;
our facts, our evidence, and our generally applicable medical regulations are
all different.
Louisiana’s law does not force clinic closures.
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that
Louisiana’s law would not force any abortion clinic closures, saying, “there is
no evidence that any of the clinics will close as a result of the Act,” and
reiterating later that “the only permissible finding, under this record, is
that no clinics will likely be forced to close on account of the Act.” This is
different that Texas’ law which, the Supreme Court concluded, “led to the
closure of half of Texas’ clinics, or thereabouts.”
Louisiana abortion providers are able to obtain admitting
privileges – if they provide competent care.
Before Act 620, four of the six abortion providers
contracted with Louisiana’s abortion clinics had admitting privileges during
their medical careers – including at times they were performing abortions.
After examining Act 620, the Fifth Circuit determined “with the definite and
firm conviction that the district court erred in finding… that the application
process creates particular hardships and obstacles for abortion providers in
Louisiana” and that “there is insufficient evidence to conclude that, had the
doctors put forth a good-faith effort to comply with Act 620, they would have
been unable to obtain privileges. Instead… the vast majority largely sat on
their hands, assuming that they would not qualify.” Three abortion providers in
Louisiana currently have qualifying privileges, and hundreds of obstetrician/gynecologists
and family practice doctors have privileges and are qualified to perform
abortions if they chose to do so. A doctor’s decision on whether or not to
perform abortions is a personal decision.
Louisiana did not single out abortion providers.
Under Louisiana law, all Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC)
medical staff are required to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals –
regardless of the procedure. This rule recognizes the higher degree of risk to
patients at facilities where a high volume of surgical procedures are
performed. Act 620 closed a statutory loophole by requiring abortion clinics to
meet the same standards as other Louisiana Department of Health-licensed
outpatient surgical facilities in the State. Texas’ law, in contrast, did not require
ASC medical staff to have privileges. Louisiana’s law simply ensured women
receive proper care if they have complications; it did not have new building
requirements and it conforms with pre-existing facility requirements. H.B. 2 –
the law challenged in Hellerstedt – required only abortions providers to
have admitting privileges and also mandated abortion clinics meet physical
plant standards for ASCs. Texas neither grandfathered in any existing
facilities, as it had done in the past, nor allowed abortion clinics to apply
for a waiver (even though it had given many to ASCs).
Louisiana provided abundant state-specific evidence of the
purpose and the benefits of admitting privileges.
Public records, legislative testimony, and expert
witnesses provided to the court in June Medical Services vs. Russo show
the appalling history of substandard care by abortion providers, abortion
clinics’ failure to perform any meaningful credentialing review for competency
in hiring medical staff, and serial non-compliance with basic health and safety
standards in Louisiana. This egregious conduct by both abortion providers and
abortion clinics necessitated the passage of Act 620. Among other evidence, the
Legislature and the Courts have heard how abortion clinics in Louisiana like
June Medical failed women by hiring radiologists and ophthalmologists to
perform abortions, not reporting rapes of young girls, and not monitoring vital
signs of sedated women. The Fifth Circuit acknowledged that “the admitting
privileges requirement performs a real, and previously unaddressed,
credentialing function that promotes the well-being of women seeking abortion.”
Louisiana did not impose criminal penalties against providers or
women.
Violations of the Texas law at issue in Hellerstedt
were misdemeanor crimes. Louisiana’s law is a regulatory matter, not a criminal
matter. Act 620 provides exclusively for a fine, assessed by the Louisiana
Department of Health, against the abortion clinic and exposes the abortion
provider to a referral by LDH to the doctor’s professional licensing body,
which may or may not result in any consequences as determined by the Louisiana
State Board of Medical Examiners.
Louisiana abortionists have
gone to extraordinary lengths to block this bipartisan law that promotes the
well-being of women and protects minor girls who may find themselves in the
hands of incompetent providers and under unsafe conditions. The Attorney
General’s Office will not waver in defense of the pro-woman law, and we will
continue to do all we legally can to protect Louisiana’s women and girls.