Justice Roberts flip-flops on abortion ruling after doing the opposite in 2016


The Supreme Court has ruled that a 2014 Louisiana abortion law is unconstitutional. The law required abortion doctors to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.

According to Bloomberg, John Roberts again sided with the libera[leftist] activists on the court in the 5-4 ruling. They struck it down on the grounds that Louisiana’s tough restriction on abortion violates the Constitution.

This ruling threatens to rollback other restrictions on abortion.

The court is not conservative, it’s liberal. Roberts is no conservative and he legislates from the bench.

NBC News reported that two Louisiana doctors and a medical clinic sued to get the law overturned. They said it would leave only one doctor at a single clinic to provide services for nearly 10,000 women looking to abort in the state annually.

The challengers said the requirement was identical to a Texas law the Supreme Court struck down in 2016. With the vote of then-Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that the Texas law imposes an obstacle to women seeking access to abortion services. And they ruled it doesn’t provide any medical benefits. Apparently, requiring a doctor with privileges in hospitals has no medical benefit.


Justice Stephen Breyer, who authored an opinion joined by his fellow Democratic appointees, wrote that the law placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. Roberts wrote separately to say his thinking was based on the court’s 2016 decision to strike down a similar law in Texas.

In 2016, Roberts wrote the dissent when Justice Kennedy was the swing vote.  Roberts is a flip-flopping hypocrite.

Roberts said his vote with the liberals on Monday was based on the top court’s precedent in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a case the court decided in 2016. The decision in that case, the court struck down a nearly identical Texas law by a 5-3 vote. Roberts voted at the time to uphold the law. 

Oddly, he now uses the 2016 decision he objected to as a reason to vote against the law!

In a reversal in his opinion on Monday, Roberts said that the legal doctrine known as stare decisis, or the principle of adhering to precedent, “requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike.”

“The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons,” Roberts wrote. “Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents.”


Justice Samuel Alito, joined by fellow conservatives Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote that it was true that the Louisiana case and the Texas case “have something in common.”

“In both, the abortion right recognized in this Court’s decisions is used like a bulldozer to flatten legal rules that stand in the way,” he wrote.

We need President Trump re-elected so we can put in a dyed-in-the-wool originalist to counter this.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments