Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 25.0

20 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

missions  of  amici  in  the  medical  profession,  which  “de-
scribe[d] the undisputed general fact that hospitals often”
will restrict admitting privileges to doctors likely to seek a 
“certain number of admissions per year.”  Id., at ___ (slip 
op., at 24) (internal quotation marks omitted).  The likely 
effect  of  such  requirements  was  that  abortion  providers
“would be unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain 
those privileges for the future, because the fact that abor-
tions are so safe meant that providers were unlikely to have 
any patients to admit.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 25).  We also 
referred  to  “common  prerequisites  to  obtaining  admitting
privileges that have nothing to do with ability to perform
medical  procedures”;  for  example,  requirements  that  doc-
tors have “treated a high number of patients in the hospital
setting  in  the  past  year,  clinical  data  requirements,  resi-
dency requirements, and other discretionary factors.”  Ibid. 
To illustrate how these criteria impacted abortion provid-
ers, we noted the example of an obstetrician with 38 years’ 
experience  who  had  been  denied  admitting  privileges  for 
reasons “ ‘not based on clinical competence considerations.’ ” 
Ibid.  This, we said, showed that the law served no “relevant 
credentialing  function,”  but  prevented  qualified  providers
from serving women who seek an abortion.  Id., at ___ (slip 
op., at 25).  And that, in turn, “help[ed] to explain why the
new [law’s admitting-privileges] requirement led to the clo-
sure of ” so many Texas clinics.  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 24). 
The  evidence  on  which  the  District  Court  relied  in  this 
case is even stronger and more detailed.  The District Court 
supervised Does 1, 2, 5, and 6 for over a year and a half as
they  tried,  and  largely  failed,  to  obtain  conforming  privi-
leges from 13 relevant hospitals.  See 250 F. Supp. 3d,  at 
77–78; App. 48–55, 64–82.  The court heard direct evidence 
that some of the doctors’ applications were denied for rea-
sons  that  had  nothing  to  do  with  their  ability  to  perform 
abortions  safely.    250  F. Supp.  3d,  at  68–70,  76–77;