Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 40

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

35 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

trict Court for factoring Doe 3’s departure into its calcula-
tions.  The  appeals  court  thought  that  Doe  3’s  personal
choice to stop practicing could not be attributed to Act 620. 
905 F. 3d, at 810–811.  That is beside the point.  Even if we 
pretended as though (contrary to the record evidence) Doe
3 would continue to provide abortions at Shreveport-based 
Hope  Clinic,  the  record  nonetheless  supports  the  District
Court’s alternative finding that Act 620’s burdens would re-
main substantial.  See 250 F. Supp. 3d, at 80–81, 84, 87.

The  record  tells  us  that  Doe  3  is  presently  able  to  see 
roughly 1,000–1,500 women annually.  Id., at 81; see App. 
207, 243–244.  Doe 3 testified that this was in addition to 
“working  very,  very  long  hours  maintaining  [his]  private
[OB/GYN] practice.”  Id., at 265, 1323; see id., at 118, 1147. 
And,  the  District  Court  found  that  Doe  5  can  perform  no
more than roughly 3,000 abortions annually.  See supra, at 
33.  So even if Doe 3 remained active in Shreveport, the an-
nual demand for abortions in Louisiana would be more than 
double the capacity.  And although the availability of abor-
tions in Shreveport might lessen the driving distances faced
by some women, it would still leave thousands of Louisiana 
women  with  no  practical  means  of  obtaining  a  safe,  legal 
abortion, and it would not meaningfully address the health 
risks associated with crowding and delay for those able to
secure an appointment with one of the State’s two remain-
ing providers. 

* 

* 

* 
Taken together, we think that these findings and the ev-
idence that underlies them are sufficient to support the Dis-
trict Court’s conclusion that Act 620 would place substan-
tial obstacles in the path of women seeking an abortion in 
Louisiana.