Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 13

8 

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

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

  These  requirements  establish  that  admitting  privi-
leges serve no “ ‘relevant credentialing function’ ” be-
cause physicians may be denied privileges “for rea-
sons unrelated to competency.”  Id., at 87 (quoting 
Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip. op., 
at 25)). 

  They also make it “unlikely that the [a]ffected clinics
will be able to comply with the Act by recruiting new 
physicians who have or can obtain admitting privi-
leges.”  250 F. Supp. 3d, at 82. 

  Doe 3 testified credibly “that, as a result of his fears, 
and the demands of his private OB/GYN practice, if 
he is the last physician performing abortion in either 
the entire state or in the northern part of the state, 
he  will  not  continue  to  perform  abortions.”  Id.,  at 
79;  see  also  id.,  at  78–79  (summarizing  that  testi-
mony). 

  Enforcing  the  admitting-privileges  requirement
would therefore “result in a drastic reduction in the 
number and geographic distribution of abortion pro-
viders, reducing the number of clinics to one, or at 
most two, and leaving only one, or at most two, phy-
sicians providing abortions in the entire state,” Does
3  and  5,  who  would  only  be  allowed  to  practice  in 
Shreveport and New Orleans.  Id., at 87.  Depending
on whether Doe 3 stopped practicing, or whether his 
retirement was treated as legally relevant, the im-
pact would be a 55%–70% reduction in capacity.  Id., 
at 81. 

  “The result of these burdens on women and provid-
ers,  taken  together  and  in  context,  is  that  many
women  seeking  a  safe,  legal  abortion  in  Louisiana 
will be unable to obtain one.  Those who can will face 
substantial  obstacles  in  exercising  their  constitu-
tional right to choose abortion due to the dramatic