Supreme Court orders Indiana abortion laws be reconsidered in light of its new pro-abort ruling By Calvin Freiburger for Life Site News
The court also let stand a third ruling, which allowed the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health a provisional license to open an abortion facility in South Bend, Indiana and denied pro-life petitions to review ‘buffer zone’ laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Louisaiana’s law requiring admitting privileges for abortion facilities is already impacting other abortion cases working through the legal system, with the Supreme Court ordering Thursday that two lower-court decisions on Indiana pro-life laws be vacated and reconsidered in light of the days-old precedent.
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals had previously blocked a pair of Indiana pro-life laws, Reuters reports, one of which required that women be offered ultrasounds before going through with abortion and another that required parental notification before minors’ abortions, even when the minor is seeking a judicial bypass.
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court ordered that both rulings be vacated and returned to the Seventh Circuit “for further consideration in light of June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo,” this week’s 5-4 decision claiming it’s unconstitutional to require abortion facilities to establish admitting privileges with nearby hospitals in the event of life-threatening complications.
How individual justices ruled was not released, but only four justices are required to grant a writ of certiorari, meaning the court’s four Democrat appointees would have been enough to grant Planned Parenthood’s request.
The court also let stand a third ruling, which allowed the abortion provider Whole Woman’s Health a provisional license to open an abortion facility in South Bend, Indiana; and denied pro-life petitions to review “buffer zone” laws keeping pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors away from abortion facilities in Chicago, Illinois and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The order notes that Justice Clarence Thomas would have heard the Chicago case.