Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

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

Syllabus 

eral conclusions in respect to the burden that Act 620 is likely to im-
pose upon women’s ability to access an abortion in Louisiana.  It found 
that enforcing that requirement would prevent Does 1, 2, and 6 from
providing  abortions  altogether.  Doe  3  gave  uncontradicted,  in-court
testimony that he would stop performing abortions if he was the last 
provider in northern Louisiana, so the departure of Does 1 and 2 would
also eliminate Doe 3.  And Doe 5’s inability to obtain privileges in the
Baton Rouge area would leave Louisiana with just one clinic with one
provider  to  serve  the  10,000  women  annually  who  seek  abortions  in 
the State.  Those women not altogether prevented from obtaining an
abortion  would  face  “longer  waiting  times,  and  increased  crowding.” 
Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___.  Delays in obtaining an abor-
tion might increase the risk that a woman will experience complica-
tions from the procedure and may make it impossible for her to choose
a  non-invasive  medication  abortion.    Both  expert  and  lay  witnesses
testified that the burdens of increased travel to distant clinics would 
fall  disproportionately  on  poor  women,  who  are  least  able  to  absorb 
them.  Pp. 31–35.

(c) An  examination  of  the  record  also  shows  that  the  District 
Court’s findings regarding the law’s asserted benefits are not “clearly
erroneous.”    The  court  found  that  the  admitting-privileges  require-
ment serves no “relevant credentialing function.”  250 F. Supp. 3d 27, 
87.  Hospitals can, and do, deny admitting privileges for reasons unre-
lated to a doctor’s ability safely to perform abortions, focusing primar-
ily upon a doctor’s ability to perform the inpatient, hospital-based pro-
cedures  for  which  the  doctor  seeks  privileges—not  outpatient 
abortions.  And nothing in the record indicates that the vetting of ap-
plicants  for  privileges  adds  significantly  to  the  vetting  already  pro-
vided by the State Board of Medical Examiners.  The court’s finding 
that  the  admitting-privileges  requirement  “does  not  conform  to  pre-
vailing medical standards and will not improve the safety of abortion 
in  Louisiana,”  ibid.,  is  supported  by  expert  and  lay  trial  testimony. 
And, as in Whole Woman’s Health, the State introduced no evidence 
“showing  that  patients  have  better  outcomes  when  their  physicians 
have admitting privileges” or “of any instance in which an admitting
privileges requirement would have helped even one woman obtain bet-
ter treatment,”  250 F. Supp. 3d., at 64.  Pp. 35–38.

(d) In  light  of  the  record,  the  District  Court’s  significant  factual 
findings—both as to burdens and as to benefits—have ample eviden-
tiary support and are not “clearly erroneous.”  Thus, the court’s related 
factual and legal determinations and its ultimate conclusion that Act
620 is unconstitutional are proper.  P. 38. 

THE CHIEF JUSTICE agreed that abortion providers in this case have