Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 43

38 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

the  name  and  telephone  number  of  the  hospital 
nearest  to  their  home);  cf.  Whole  Woman’s  Health, 
579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 23). 

  As in Whole Woman’s Health, the State introduced no ev-
idence “showing that patients have better outcomes when 
their  physicians  have  admitting  privileges”  or  “of  any  in-
stance in which an admitting privileges requirement would 
have helped even one woman obtain better treatment.”  250 
F. Supp. 3d, at 64; Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ 
– ___ (slip op., at 23–24); see also Centers for Medicare and 
Medicaid Services, 84 Fed. Reg. 51790–51791 (2019) (“Un-
der  modern  procedures,  emergency  responders  (and  pa-
tients  themselves)  take  patients  to  hospital  emergency
rooms without regard to prior agreements between partic-
ular physicians and particular hospitals”); Brief for Ameri-
can  College  of  Obstetricians  and  Gynecologists  et al.  as 
Amici Curiae 6 (local admitting-privileges requirements for 
abortion  providers  offer  no  medical  benefit  and  do  not
meaningfully advance continuity of care). 

VI 
Conclusion 

We  conclude,  in  light  of  the  record,  that  the  District 
Court’s significant factual findings—both as to burdens and 
as  to  benefits—have  ample  evidentiary  support.    None  is 
“clearly  erroneous.”    Given  the  facts  found,  we  must  also 
uphold the District Court’s related factual and legal deter-
minations.  These  include  its  determination  that  Louisi-
ana’s law poses a “substantial obstacle” to women seeking 
an abortion; its determination that the law offers no signif-
icant  health-related  benefits;  and  its  determination  that 
the  law  consequently  imposes  an  “undue  burden”  on  a 
woman’s constitutional right to choose to have an abortion.  
We  also  agree  with  its  ultimate  legal  conclusion  that,  in 
light of these findings and our precedents, Act 620 violates 
the Constitution.