The Supreme Court just agreed to take up a major abortion rights case this year, and pro-life legislators see this as an opportunity to strike a blow at Roe v. Wade.
A coalition of Republican representatives and senators — along with two House Democrats — have signed a petition calling for the Supreme Court to “reconsider” the landmark case that establishes the precedent for abortion services in the U.S.
Republicans want change
Multiple high-profile abortion law cases have opened up new routes to challenge Roe v. Wade, and the presence of Constitutionalist judges nominated by President Donald Trump on the Supreme Court has emboldened Republicans looking to take action.
The coalition of lawmakers, led by House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) filed an amicus brief stating that Roe “remains a radically unsettled precedent.”
The group of lawmakers argues that “there is an inherent conflict of interest between abortion providers and their patients.”
“It is impossible for abortion clinics and doctors to share or represent the interests of their patients when they seek to eliminate the very regulations designed to protect their patients’ health and safety.”
Planned Parenthood has used the landmark decision to protect their profits and avoid all regulatory crackdowns on their dangerous practices for years, and Republicans are hoping that the Supreme Court’s decision to take up an abortion law challenge from Louisiana in 2020 will provide the platform to review — and even overturn — Roe v. Wade.
Indiana and Louisiana
Scalise’s initiative was launched in support of a Louisiana law that requires doctors performing clinic abortions to have admitting privileges at local hospitals.
Challengers to the law say that if upheld, the law will force abortion clinics in the state to close, leaving the state with only a single abortion provider. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments regarding the case in March.
Another important case that may soon be headed to the Supreme court is an Indiana law stipulating that an unemancipated minor would need to notify their parents before receiving an abortion. The case is built using other legal precedents on minor-parent notification and consent.
Of course, this law did not escape the wrath of Planned Parenthood and its allies. The ACLU challenged the law on behalf of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. ACLU lawyer Ken Falk said, “This requirement would impose an undue burden on the recognized constitutional right of young women to obtain an abortion.”
Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill has petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying, “Even to get a tattoo, a minor in Indiana needs parental permission. Quite simply, parents have rights and responsibilities in the care and upbringing of a child.”