Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

7 

Opinion of BREYER, J. 

problem that the new law helped to cure.’  The rec-
ord does not contain any evidence that complications
from  abortion  were  being  treated  improperly,  nor 
any evidence that any negative outcomes could have 
been avoided if the abortion provider had admitting 
privileges  at  a  local  hospital.”  Id.,  at  86.  (quoting 
Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
22)); see also 250 F. Supp. 3d, at 86–87 (summariz-
ing conclusions). 

  There  was  also  “no  credible  evidence  in  the  record 
that  Act  620  would  further  the  State’s  interest  in 
women’s  health  beyond  that  which  is  already  in-
sured under existing Louisiana law.”  Id., at 65. 
Turning to Act 620’s impact on women’s access to abor-

tion, the District Court found that: 

  Approximately  10,000  women  obtain  abortions  in 
Louisiana each year.  Id., at 39.  At the outset of this 
litigation, those women were served by six doctors at
five abortion clinics.  Id., at 40, 41–44.  By the time
the court rendered its decision, two of those clinics 
had  closed,  and  one  of  the  doctors  (Doe  4)  had  re-
tired, leaving only Does 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.  Ibid. 

  “[N]otwithstanding the good faith efforts of Does 1, 
2, 4, 5 and 6 to comply with the Act by getting active
admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of
where  they  perform  abortions,  they  have  had  very
limited  success  for  reasons  related  to  Act  620  and 
not related to their competence.”  Id., at 78. 

  These  doctors’  inability  to  secure  privileges  was
“caused by Act 620 working in concert with existing 
laws  and  practices,”  including  hospital  bylaws  and 
criteria  that  “preclude  or,  at  least  greatly  discour-
age, the granting of privileges to abortion providers.” 
Id., at 50.