Abortion rights had a surprisingly hopeful day in the Supreme Court

[Soph0571]

Wednesday morning’s arguments in the biggest threat to abortion rights to reach the Supreme Court in nearly 30 years went so badly for Louisiana Solicitor General Elizabeth Murrill, who was defending Louisiana’s restrictive abortion law, that by the end even Chief Justice John Roberts appeared uncomfortable with her arguments.
------
These weaknesses in Louisiana’s arguments seemed to trouble Chief Justice Roberts: Twice, Roberts inquired what the “benefits” of such a law were, and he did so in a way that directly contradicted the state’s defense of its law.

The core of the state’s argument, after all, is that its admitting privileges law benefits abortion patients by making abortions safer — and that it does so even though the Supreme Court held in Whole Woman’s Health that a very similar Texas law does not benefit such patients. But Roberts appeared to reject this argument rather explicitly.

“I understand the idea that the impact might be different in different places,” the chief justice told Murrill at one point, “but as far as the benefits of the law, that’s going to be the same in each state, isn’t it?”

[link:https://www.vox.com/2020/3/4/21164699/abortion-supreme-court-hopeful-june-medical-services-russo-chief-justice-roberts

We will see, but a sliver of hope?

[TwilightZone]

1. It's always a bit dangerous to analyze arguments as a sign of how the judges might rule.

That being said, it does sound fairly promising.

On a side note, I can't believe that we're counting on Roberts to be the "rational" vote in a lot of these cases, but here we are. We're probably lucky that he seems very concerned about the legacy of "his" court and may be hesitant to do anything too rash, though one never knows.