Source: http://www.overruleroe.com/States/Louisiana.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 12:20:56+00:00

Document:
1 La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:87 (West 1964).
2 See State v. Sharp, 182 So.2d 517, 518 (La. 1966).
3 The state board of medical examiners was empowered to revoke the license of a physician who performed an abortion “unless [the procedure was] done for the relief of a woman whose life appears in peril after due consultation with another licensed physician.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 37:1285(6) (West 1964). In Rosen v. Louisiana Board of Medical Examiners, 318 F.Supp. 1217, 1225 (E.D. La. 1970), vacated and remanded, 412 U.S. 902 (1973), the court construed §§ 14:87 and 37:1285(6) in pari materia and upheld their constitutionality.
4 See Rosen v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners, 380 F.Supp. 875 (E.D. La. 1974), summarily affirmed, 419 U.S. 1098 (1975); Weeks v. Connick, Civil Action No. 73-469 (E.D. La. 1976), summarily affirmed sub nom. Guste v. Weeks, 429 U.S. 1056 (1977). Prior to Roe, the Louisiana Supreme Court consistently rejected attacks on the constitutionality of § 14:87. See State v. Campbell, 270 So.2d 506 (La. 1972); State v. Scott, 255 So.2d 736 (La. 1971); State v. Shirley, 237 So.2d 676 (La. 1970); State v. Pesson, 235 So.2d 568 (La. 1970).
5 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
6 See Weeks v. Connick, 733 F.Supp. 1036 (E.D. La. 1990).
7 1991 La. Acts, No. 26, codified as La Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:87 (West 2004).
8 See Sojourner T. v. Roemer, 772 F.Supp. 930 (E.D. La. 1991), aff’d sub nom. Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27 (5th Cir. 1992), cert denied, 507 U.S. 972 (1993).
9 See 2006 La. Acts Pub. Act 467, § 2 (signed June 17, 2006).
10 Id. § 1 (adding § 1299.30 to the Louisiana Revised Statutes Annotated).
11 Apart from § 14.87, it is unlikely that Louisiana’s post-viability statute, see La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 40:1299.35.4 (West Supp. 2005), would effectively prohibit post-viability abortions because it allows such abortions to be performed to preserve the pregnant woman’s life or health, health not being defined in the statute. In interpreting the undefined health exception in the pre-Roe District of Columbia abortion statute, the Supreme Court held that “the general usage and modern understanding of the word ‘health’ . . . includes psychological as well as physical well-being.” United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62, 72 (1971). See also Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 192 (1973) (in determining whether an abortion is medically necessary, “all factors– physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age–relevant to the well-being of the patient” may be considered). There would be few, if any, abortions that could not be justified on psychological or emotional grounds.

References: § 14
 v. 
 § 37
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 14
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2
 § 1
 § 1299
 § 14
 § 40
 v. 
 v.