Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

23 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

Louisiana.  Many Louisiana hospitals require applicants to 
identify  a  doctor  (called  a  “covering  physician”)  willing  to 
serve as a backup should the applicant admit a patient and 
then for some reason become unavailable.  See Record 9154, 
9374, 9383, 9478, 9667, 10302, 10481, 10637, 10659–10661, 
10676.  The District Court found “that opposition to abor-
tion can present a major, if not insurmountable hurdle, for 
an applicant getting the required covering physician.”  250 
F. Supp. 3d, at 49; cf. Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at 
___  (slip  op.,  at  25)  (citing  testimony  describing  similar 
problems faced by Texas providers seeking covering physi-
cians).  Doe  5  is  a  board-certified  OB/GYN  who  had  been
practicing for more than nine years at the time of trial.  Of 
the thousands of abortions he performed in the three years 
prior to the District Court’s decision, not one required a di-
rect transfer to a hospital.  App. 1134.  Yet he was unable 
to secure privileges at three Baton Rouge hospitals because 
he could not find a covering physician willing to be publicly 
associated  with  an  abortion  provider.  Id.,  at  1335–1336. 
Doe  3,  a  board-certified  OB/GYN  with  nearly  45  years  of 
experience,  testified  that  he,  too,  had  difficulty  arranging 
coverage because of his abortion work.  Id., at 200–202. 
  Just as in Whole Woman’s Health, the experiences of the
individual doctors in this case support the District Court’s
factual  finding  that  Louisiana’s  admitting-privileges  re-
quirement, like that in Texas’ law, serves no “ ‘relevant cre-
dentialing function.’ ”  250 F. Supp. 3d, at 87 (quoting Whole 
Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 25). 

2 
The Court of Appeals found another explanation for the
doctors’  inability  to  obtain  privileges  more  compelling.    It 
conceded that Doe 1 would not be able to obtain admitting 
privileges in spite of his good-faith attempts.  It concluded, 
however, that Does 2, 5, and 6 had acted in bad faith.  905