FRC's Tony Perkins Optimistic Supreme Court Will Protect Women from Unsafe Abortions in Louisiana Admitting Privileges Case

CONTACT: J.P. Duffy or Joshua Arnold, (866) FRC-NEWS or (866)-372-6397

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins attended this morning's oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of June Medical Services v. Russo, in which an abortion center is challenging a state law that requires abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. When he was a state legislator in Louisiana, Tony Perkins authored the first version of this law. Family Research Council filed an amicus brief in the case.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"Based on what I heard in the oral arguments, I'm optimistic the Court will affirm the right of states to provide oversight and regulation of abortion clinics, treating them like every other outpatient surgery center. The Court should also take the opportunity to clarify that abortionists cannot truly represent the interests of women when contesting health and safety requirements designed to protect those same people.

"For too long, abortionists have flouted the law and derided health standards for women seeking abortion. As a Louisiana legislator, I authored some of the first abortion clinic regulations in the country to stop abortion clinics from operating in filthy, disgusting conditions. These facilities are still performing abortion on women in unsanitary conditions and then falsifying records to cover up their malpractice. They must be stopped.

"Despite the Left's hysterical fear-mongering, the case before the court today has nothing to do with Roe. This case is about whether the state has the right to ensure that abortionists who take women's money also provide for their safety. That said, I look forward to the day when the Supreme Court will correct the gross injustice of the Roe v. Wade decision that has led to the killing of tens of millions of unborn babies.

"The oral arguments I witnessed today underscore that elections have life and death consequences. In the 2016 election, voters had the choice between life and death. They chose life in President Trump, with pro-life voters making very clear that the Supreme Court was a major reason for their vote. Candidate Trump built trust with pro-lifers when he created his list of potential nominees who could be vetted publicly. Two of those justices are on the bench today," concluded Perkins.