Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 84.0

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

3 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

joinder of a plaintiff with standing.  If a proper plaintiff is
added,  the  District  Court  should  conduct  a  new  trial  and 
determine, based on proper evidence, whether enforcement 
of Act 620 would diminish the number of abortion providers
in the State to such a degree that women’s access to abor-
tions would be substantially impaired.  In making that de-
termination,  the  court  should  jettison  the  nebulous  “good 
faith”  test  that  it  used  in  judging  whether  the  physicians 
who currently lack admitting privileges would be able to ob-
tain privileges and thus continue to perform abortions if Act 
620  were  permitted  to  take  effect.  Because  the  doctors  in
question (many of whom are or were plaintiffs in this case) 
stand  to  lose,  not  gain,  by  obtaining  privileges,  the  court 
should  require  the  plaintiffs  to  show  that  these  doctors 
sought  admitting  privileges  with  the  degree  of  effort  that
they would expend if their personal interests were at stake. 

I 

Under our precedent, the critical question in this case is 
whether the challenged Louisiana law places a “substantial
obstacle  in  the  path  of  a  woman  seeking  an  abortion  of  a 
nonviable fetus.”  Casey, 505 U. S., at 877 (plurality opin-
ion).  If a law like that at issue here does not have that ef-
fect, it is constitutional.  Id., at 884 (joint opinion of O’Con-
nor, Kennedy, and Souter, JJ.). 

The petitioners urge us to adopt a rule that is more favor-
able to abortion providers.  At oral argument, their attorney
maintained that a law that has no effect on women’s access 
to  abortion  is  nevertheless  unconstitutional  if  it  is  not 
needed to protect women’s health.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 18– 
19.  Of course, that is precisely the argument one would 
expect from a business that wishes to be free from burden-
some regulations.  But unless an abortion law has an ad-
verse  effect  on  women,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  law 
should face greater constitutional scrutiny than any other
measure  that  burdens  a  regulated  entity  in  the  name  of