Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 89.0

8 

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

ALITO, J., dissenting 

“ ‘background  check,’ ”  he  said,  is  not  within  his  “ ‘frame-
work.’ ”5 

Doe 4, who practiced at the now-defunct Causeway Clinic
near  New  Orleans,  recounted  the  meager  vetting  that  oc-
curred when he was hired at that facility.  He had to pro-
duce a valid medical license and DEA license but was not 
required  “to  undergo  anything  similar  to  review  by  a  cre-
dentials committee.”  Record 14156. 

In light of these practices, it is no surprise that the Loui-
siana Department of Health has issued Statements of Defi-
ciency  against  abortion  facilities  for  failing  to  adopt  “ ‘a 
detailed credentialing process for physicians,’ ” failing to in-
vestigate  “ ‘possible  restrictions’ ”  on  physicians’  licenses,
and  failing  to  look  into  “ ‘evidence  of  prior  malpractice
claims/settlements.’ ”6 

Louisiana adopted Act 620 in the aftermath of the Kermit 
Gosnell grand jury report, which expounded on the failures 
of regulatory oversight that allowed Gosnell’s practices to
continue for an extended period.  See Report of Grand Jury 
in  No.  0009901–2008  (1st  Jud.  Dist.  Pa.,  Jan.  14,  2011).
The  grand  jury  concluded  that  closer  supervision  would
have uncovered Gosnell’s egregious health and safety viola-
tions.  Gosnell had a medical license, but it is doubtful that 
any hospital would have given him admitting privileges. 

In sum, contrary to the plurality’s assertion, there is am-
ple evidence in the record showing that requiring admitting
privileges has health and safety benefits.  There is certainly 
room  for  debate  about  the  need  for  this  requirement,  but 
under  our  case  law,  this  Court’s  task  is  not  to  ascertain 
whether  a  law  “adds  significantly”  to  the  existing  regula-
tory framework.  Instead, when confronted with a genuine
dispute about a law’s benefits, we have afforded legislatures
“wide discretion” in assessing whether a regulation serves 

—————— 

5 Ibid. 
6 Id., at 9.