WASHINGTON _ The Supreme Court's conservative justices sounded open Wednesday to upholding a Louisiana law that would put restrictions on clinics providing abortion, even though it is nearly identical to another state regulation struck down by the court just four years ago.
The tenor of the argument suggested the court's conservatives would like to move cautiously on abortion. But they also signaled they would not feel bound by the 2016 decision that invalidated a law in Texas that required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
It marked the first abortion case to come before the court since President Donald Trump's two appointees joined the bench, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh.
Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Kavanaugh said the court should focus on the facts in Louisiana, and not be bound by the earlier ruling.
The two justices did not make clear how they would rule. The four liberal justices strongly defended the court's 2016 ruling in the Texas case and said there was no evidence the Louisiana law would benefit women or protect their health.
At one point, Roberts said he was uncertain whether the Louisiana law would have benefits for women. He and the other justices seemed inclined to focus narrowly on the facts and to avoid a broader ruling on abortion.
Abortion rights lawyers said the Louisiana law, if put into effect, would shut down all but one of the abortion providers in the state. Clinics say it is often difficult for abortion providers to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals due, in part, to the controversy surrounding the procedure.
A state lawyer for Louisiana said the law would help ensure that only competent doctors are performing abortions.
Several conservative justices questioned whether doctors should have legal standing to challenge the state's law _ an issue that could have wide implications on the ability to challenge abortion laws across the country. But neither Roberts nor Kavanaugh focused their questions on that issue.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said he agreed with the state that "there's a real conflict of interest" between the patients and their doctors, calling it "amazing" that the doctors should have standing in court to fight a state's health and safety law.
Abortion rights groups say the ability of doctors and clinics to challenge state laws is vital since most individual women lack the resources for such a legal fight.
Justice Stephen Breyer said that for 40 years the court has upheld the principle that doctors could go to court to protect the rights of their patients. "Are we going to overturn eight of our past cases?" he asked.
Kavanaugh asked the lawyer representing the clinics if he thought a state abortion law could ever be constitutional, "regardless of the facts."
Kavanaugh went on to say that if the facts are different in Louisiana, and doctors there can more easily obtain admitting privileges than they could in Texas, then the Louisiana law may not put an undue burden on women.
.jpg?w=600)
