FRC laments defeat for women's health in Supreme Court's abortionist admitting privileges decision

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

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Family Research Council President Tony Perkins was shocked and deeply disappointed in the decision handed down today by the U.S. Supreme Court in June Medical Services v. Russo, which allowed abortion providers and activists to once again successfully challenge a state pro-life law. With Chief Justice Roberts joining the Court's four liberals to deliver a 5-4 vote striking down the law as unconstitutional, the silver lining in this case is that President Trump's two Supreme Court appointments -- Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh -- dissented from the opinion.

At issue in the case was a state law requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital to provide for better emergency care and treatment of women. As a Louisiana legislator, Perkins authored the first version of the state law providing state oversight and regulation of abortion clinics. Family Research Council filed an amicus brief in the case.

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins released the following statement:

"For too long, abortionists have flouted the law and derided health standards for women seeking abortion. As a Louisiana legislator, I authored one of the first abortion clinic regulations in the country to stop abortion clinics from operating in filthy, disgusting, unregulated conditions. Unfortunately, in Louisiana and elsewhere these facilities have shown minimal concern for the well-being of women as many continued performing abortions in marginal conditions that put lives at risk as they falsify records to cover up their malpractice. With this decision, the Supreme Court has prevented Louisiana from enforcing the law to stop abortionists who regularly deride and violate health standards for women seeking abortion.

"Despite the Left's hysterical fear-mongering, the case was not about the Supreme Court's self-created 'right' to an abortion in Roe. This case was about whether the state has the right to ensure that abortionists who take women's money also provide for their safety. However, I do 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," concluded Perkins.

Katherine Beck Johnson, an attorney and Research Fellow for Legal and Policy Studies at Family Research Council, added:

"With its decision today, the Court has destroyed the right of states to provide oversight and regulation of abortion clinics, treating them like every other outpatient surgery center. The Court failed to clarify that abortionists cannot truly represent the interests of women when contesting health and safety requirements designed to protect those very same women.

"Not only do we disagree with the Court's ruling that hospital admitting privileges create an 'undue burden' for women, but we also strongly disagree with the decision that abortionists should be able to automatically represent women in court. There is a clear conflict of interest with abortionists representing women as they prioritize profit over women's health," said Johnson.