"The record here establishes that [the law's] admitting-privileges requirement places a substantial obstacle in the path of a large fraction of those women seeking an abortion", he said.
In an ironic turn, Roberts concurred with the Louisiana decision due to the precedent established by the Texas decision - which he dissented from. The result in this case is controlled by our decision four years ago invalidating a almost identical Texas law. "The question today however is not whether Whole Woman's Health was right or wrong, but whether to adhere to it in deciding the present case".
Roberts is no champion of abortion rights, but he is a stickler for precedent and he noted that Louisiana's law could not stand given the Texas decision.
Roberts made clear, though, that he was not tying his decision to any political preference.
And though it wouldn't seem like Louisiana's law has much to do with ME, people online are reminding Sen.
"Well, unfortunately, it's become less and less of a surprise when the chief justice - in these high profile cases - strays from what his legal position might have been", she told Kilmeade, citing a recent ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program where Roberts appeared to have flipped sides.
Dissenting were Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Abortion foes have in their sights the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade case, in which the Supreme Court legalised a woman's right to an abortion.
"Moreover, the fact that no five Justices can agree on the proper interpretation of our precedents today evinces that our abortion jurisprudence remains in a state of utter entropy", he adds.
You would think one ruling of the Supreme Court in 2016 would be enough to discourage abortion opponents from passing a law identical to the one the court threw out.
The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life and a member of Trump's Catholic voter outreach effort, said the president's "two appointees voted the right way" in supporting Louisiana's ability to require doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
He also argued that overruling precedent should be considered when a case is an "outlier".
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Louisiana's tough restriction on abortion violates the Constitution, a surprising victory for abortion rights advocates from an increasingly conservative court.
The "undue burden" test relied upon in the court's decision is a standard offered by the justices in their 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion, which affirmed a legal right to abortion while allowing states to regulate aspects of abortion practice to protect the lives and health of women. "And the idea that a regulated party can invoke the right of a third party for the goal of attacking legislation enacted to protect the third party is stunning". "Abortion clinics are bringing a lawsuit to avoid complying with a standard of care that applies to all doctors at ambulatory surgical centers throughout Louisiana, so the abortion industry is coming in and asking for a special exemption so they don't have to abide by health and safety standards".
The decision means that the three abortion clinics Louisiana has can continue to operate.