“Because plaintiffs challenging an abortion regulation bear the ‘burden to present evidence of causation’ — that is, evidence that the regulation itself, rather than other causes, had ‘the effect’ of creating a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion — any assertion that abortion providers are unable to comply with a regulation must be subject to searching review,” the administration’s brief reads.

READ: Admitting privileges are not ‘based on a lie.’ They’re needed due to the abortion industry’s abuses.

It was found that apparently only one abortionist had applied for admitting privileges, to just one of the nine local hospitals, and another needed only to find a “covering physician” for his practice in the case of his absence, yet he did not do so.

The administration also points out in its brief that it is inappropriate for the abortion providers to stand in as representatives for their patients when there is an obvious differing of interests:

Because the law creates compliance costs without any personal benefits for abortion providers, such providers have every incentive to see the law invalidated. For women, however, the calculus is different. The law imposes no direct costs on them, and they may see its benefits as quite significant (while viewing any indirect costs as speculative). Because plaintiff abortion providers have different and potentially conflicting interests, their suit does not provide assurances that Louisiana women themselves would have chosen to sue and to frame their suit in the same way if the providers had not sued.

In other words, the Trump administration and others believe those opposing the law have no standing to do so.

Oral arguments in the case are set for March 4th.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!

“Because plaintiffs challenging an abortion regulation bear the ‘burden to present evidence of causation’ — that is, evidence that the regulation itself, rather than other causes, had ‘the effect’ of creating a substantial obstacle to obtaining an abortion — any assertion that abortion providers are unable to comply with a regulation must be subject to searching review,” the administration’s brief reads.

READ: Admitting privileges are not ‘based on a lie.’ They’re needed due to the abortion industry’s abuses.

It was found that apparently only one abortionist had applied for admitting privileges, to just one of the nine local hospitals, and another needed only to find a “covering physician” for his practice in the case of his absence, yet he did not do so.

The administration also points out in its brief that it is inappropriate for the abortion providers to stand in as representatives for their patients when there is an obvious differing of interests:

Because the law creates compliance costs without any personal benefits for abortion providers, such providers have every incentive to see the law invalidated. For women, however, the calculus is different. The law imposes no direct costs on them, and they may see its benefits as quite significant (while viewing any indirect costs as speculative). Because plaintiff abortion providers have different and potentially conflicting interests, their suit does not provide assurances that Louisiana women themselves would have chosen to sue and to frame their suit in the same way if the providers had not sued.

In other words, the Trump administration and others believe those opposing the law have no standing to do so.

Oral arguments in the case are set for March 4th.

“Like” Live Action News on Facebook for more pro-life news and commentary!