State Attorneys General Amicus Brief

12.02.19

Primary Content
  • Amici are 21 States and the District of Columbia.

  • These states argue that Whole Woman’s Health correctly held that a state restriction on abortion cannot survive constitutional scrutiny if it imposes greater burdens than benefits. Under this precedent, states are obligated to do more than merely identify a permissible governmental interest, they must proffer credible evidence demonstrating the law actually advances the asserted interest.

  • Louisiana's law is invalid because - like the law in Texas - it purports to promote women's health, but in fact fails to do so.

  • Amici further argue that reliance on Supreme Court precedent establishing a constitutional minimum is important for State policymakers. States devote substantial resources to improving health care outcomes for all women, against the backdrop of a federal constitutional floor that protects abortion access in every state. Departing from well-established federal constitutional protection would undermine these States’ reasoned policy judgments and interest in advancing women’s health.