Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility
  • Arief
  • 03 Agustus 2022
  • 085600099586

Kuliah Umum Hak Asasi Manusia Seri II

The plaintiffs are 5 abortion clinics and 4 abortion providers challenging the Act as being unconstitutional because the Act imposes an undue burden on their patients’ right to obtain an abortion. The plaintiffs initially brought an action seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the law from taking effect which was granted by a District Court based on both factual and legal findings. The District Court found that abortion procedures requiring hospitalizations were exceedingly rare in the state of Louisiana (less than one per several thousand abortions). Further, there was no history of abortion complications that could have been avoided had the doctor performing the abortion had admitting privileges. Finally, the doctors involved in the litigation had limited success in receiving admitting privileges for reasons outside their competence. The district court also heavily relied on a previous SCOTUS ruling in which a near-identical act was found to be unconstitutional in Texas for creating an undue burden on women in Texas asserting their right to have an abortion.