Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Abortion Restrictions
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Louisiana law that could have left the state with a single abortion clinic.
© Michael A. Mccoy/Getty Images Anti-abortion demonstrators protesting in front of the Supreme Court in Washington last week.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. voting with the court's four-member liberal wing but not adopting its reasoning. The chief justice said respect for precedent compelled him to vote with the majority.
The case was the court's first on abortion since President Trump's appointments of two justices shifted the court to the right.
The Louisiana law, which was enacted in 2014, requires doctors performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals.
Sign Up for the Morning Briefing Newsletter
The law's supporters said the law protects the health and safety of women seeking abortions, and that the requirements for obtaining admitting privileges helps ensure the competence of doctors. Opponents disputed that, saying that hospitalizations after abortions are rare, that women would receive medical care at hospitals whether their doctors had admitting privileges or not and that abortion providers are often unable to obtain admitting privileges for reasons unrelated to their competence.
Only two of the five doctors who provide abortions in Louisiana have obtained admitting privileges, one in New Orleans and one in Shreveport. But the Shreveport doctor testified that he could not handle the clinic's work alone. If the law went into effect, a trial judge concluded, there would be a single doctor in a single clinic, in New Orleans, available to provide abortions in Louisiana.
The judge, John W. deGravelles of the Federal District Court in Baton Rouge, struck down the Louisiana law in 2017, saying it created an undue burden on women's constitutional right to abortion. The experience of the clinic in Shreveport, Hope Medical Group for Women, showed, he wrote, that the law was a solution in search of a problem.
"In the last 23 years, Hope Clinic, which serves in excess of 3,000 patients per year, had only four patients who required transfer to a hospital for treatment," Judge deGravelles wrote. "In each instance, regardless of whether the physician had admitting privileges, the patient received appropriate care."
The law, Judge deGravelles ruled, was essentially identical to the one from Texas that the Supreme Court struck down in the 2016 decision, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, writing for the majority in that decision, said courts must consider whether the benefits claimed for laws that put restrictions on abortion outweigh the burdens they put on the constitutional right to the procedure.
There was no evidence that the Texas law's admitting-privileges requirement "would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment," Justice Breyer wrote. But there was good evidence, he added, that the requirement caused the number of abortion clinics in Texas to drop to 20 from 40.
The vote in that decision was 5 to 3, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court's four-member liberal wing to form a majority. It was decided by an eight-member court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that February, and since then, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was appointed to succeed Justice Scalia and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to succeed Justice Kennedy.
In 2018, a divided three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in New Orleans reversed Judge deGravelles's ruling and upheld the Louisiana law notwithstanding the Supreme Court's decision in the Texas case, saying that the law's benefits outweighed the burdens it imposed.
"Unlike Texas, Louisiana presents some evidence of a minimal benefit," Judge Jerry E. Smith wrote for the majority. In particular, he wrote, "the admitting privileges requirement performs a real, and previously unaddressed, credentialing function that promotes the well-being of women seeking abortion."
Judge Smith faulted doctors seeking to provide abortions in the state for not trying hard enough to obtain admitting privileges and said abortions would remain available after the law went into effect.
In dissent, Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham wrote that the majority's ruling was impossible to reconcile with the Supreme Court's 2016 decision in the Texas case and with its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which banned states from placing an "undue burden" on the constitutional right to abortion.
"I fail to see," Judge Higginbotham wrote, "how a statute with no medical benefit that is likely to restrict access to abortion can be considered anything but 'undue.'"
The full Fifth Circuit refused to rehear the case by a 9-to-6 vote. In dissent, Judge Stephen A. Higginson wrote that the Louisiana law was "equivalent in structure, purpose and effect to the Texas law" invalidated by the Supreme Court in 2016.
"I am unconvinced that any justice of the Supreme Court who decided Whole Woman's Health would endorse our opinion," Judge Higginson wrote. "The majority would not, and I respectfully suggest that the dissenters might not either."
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.
Tags
Who is online
51 visitors
Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?
Please?
If they get enough ideologue conservatives on there they will.
This decision today is only because Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the :liberals".
he followed precedent, JR.
That is what the article states.
All the Chicken Littles running around whining and crying were wrong, wrong, wrong,
Again.
Yes, and yet there were still 4 conservatives wanting to allow it.
[deleted]
Well, no kidding, Sherlock.
And what does the law say?
Was it upheld, and you still want to bitch about it?
You fanciful dreams of what may happen are very entertaining--I love fiction!
Which means that Trump's two picks did NOT.
I am almost positive that this may come as a shock to you, but people actually can and do interpret things differently.
Yep. Roberts actually voted for the Texas law. The only reason he voted against this one was he cited precedent from their last ruling.
It seems the two new judges (and two others) do not think precedent should matter.
That's never stopped a conservative from bitching about the supposed "left" [deleted]
Or, how 'bout - WTF do they think they can tell women what they can/can not do with their body??
I sure as hell don't think I can - nor would I ever consider going down that trail.
So, let's just go one more step. How 'bout telling males that they can not be sterilized for whatever friggin' excuse because "you" (the general/non-specific you) don't think they should be? I mean, after all, it does take a male's participation, either directly or indirectly, to introduce the semen to the egg - true?
Why don't you start a thread on that under your own article, as that is clearly NOT the topic here.
SPECTACULAR deflection.
Is THAT what you "think" the article is all about?
get ON TOPIC.
I'm not shocked at all Tex. I didn't believe what either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh said in thier confirmation hearings about their respect for stare decisis or precedent.
Doesn't matter what you personally thought of them.
Decision made, no need to whine anymore!
You opened up the topic by claiming "Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?". I merely used another example of a law that many conservatives pretend a liberal SCOTUS would end. The seed is simply about a correct ruling by the SCOTUS. You turned it into some attack on liberals concerned with conservatives trying to end abortion. I see that because you didn't have a decent argument refuting my example you simply had to mark it as "off topic". Cute.
Then why did you bring up being shocked Tex?
I didn't whine.
You're the one that keeps whining about whining?
It was marked off topic because it
...was too hard for you to counter with any logical, rational argument.
Think whatever you choose. It was off topic. Deal with it.
That's the first time I heard anyone try to explain the contradiction! One note of caution - I wouldn't count on Roberts every time.
I was going by what he himself had said.
According to him, even though he voted for the first law, a ruling was set. Since the two laws in question were almost identical, he thought it wrong to go against what the court had ruled previously.
I don't trust him completely yet he seems to be the one on the court that has the ability to stop draconian rulings. The two new justices seemed to be too willing to overturn a precedent which they both said in hearings they were against doing.
I guess we are all in the same boat on that.
The ironic thing is, everyone says they don't think the justices should set law or write law, yet states and others keep sending cases like this to them to do exactly that.
Actually Roberts has said he is open to restrictions on Abortion. So I wouldn't put it past him to make other rulings outside the realm of these past two.
I have yet to see those who claim Justices are making law or "legislating from the bench" actually specify what laws have been made or passed by them. Justices interpret and rule on the constitutionality of law, as is their job.
The sad thing is that congress is so polarized on social issues that the SCOTUS has begun to get the idea that they can fill that void. The Constitution is clear on why only those who are elected by the people should be writing/legislating law.
Actually Roberts has said he is open to restrictions on Abortion. So I wouldn't put it past him to make other rulings outside the realm of these past two.
I can see that happening. On the other hand, I'm afraid that John Roberts is far too concerned with the reputation of the Court and extremely sensitive to criticism.
I know. What I see though is people keep making laws they know don't pass muster so they keep rewriting them and sending them to the courts hoping they will come across a sympathetic judge.
Not to mention the court stacking with ideologues.
The problem I see is states trying to write separate laws.
It is legal to get an abortion in the whole of the US yet states are trying to restrict it almost to the point of it being non existent.
Just like states cannot write laws that restrict federal civil rights, they should not be able to write laws restricting other federal rulings.
I think you are correct in that assessment. It's the most plausible explanation for states repeated unconstitional attempts to restrict or prohibit abortion.
I was waiting to see who would post this one. Good job Tex. It was partly about precedent.
My first question is with Roberts opinion: If this case was identical to the Texas case, why did the Court take it?
There is a consolation to this ruling. Donald Trump wasn't the one who nominated Roberts!
Because a Supreme Court Justice must always do what the President who nominated them wants. /s
It certainly seems that way on the liberal side!
Well, you know no Democrat will appoint a judge who isn't publicly against abortion restrictions, and who doesn't openly support abortion rights.
That is the left's litmus test for Justices.
yeah, it's called freedom of choice, backed up by the constitution.
And the beauty of it is their picks are ideological solid - they never stray. There's no Earl Warren or William Brennan turn coats over there!
Never claimed otherwise. Do you have an actual point to make that someone is arguing against?
Just pointing out how one-dimensional a lot of the left is.
I made my point. The liberals vote together as ideologues, yet the Conservatives consider the law.
Now Vic, no comedy please. This is a serious topic.
i'm sure you found some humor in that, but it is true - there has never been a liberal judge who evolved into an originalist!
Can we all finally stop pretending that SCOTUS will end abortion?
Not till all of the states still think it isn't settled law. This was a 5-4 decision. A one vote difference.
Feel free to continue [on,deleted]
Bitch when you win, WTF would you do if you lost?
Please list any and all SCOTUD decisions in the last 40 years that makes you think the Court will end abortion.
Surely you must have SOME legitimate reason to believe that swill!
Till a woman's right to choice based on Roe v Wade, never makes it past a challenge at the state level, I'll keep a mindful eye on legislation heading to the federal courts. There always seem to be those on the right that want take away a woman's choice for some reason. And that's not bitching as you put it.... those are facts.
It's never gonna happen, not with all the precedent in the world. The left stole the Roe decision and as Ruth Bader Ginsburg correctly pointed out:
"The seven to two judgment in Roe v. Wade declared “violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” a Texas criminal abortion statute that intolerably shackled a woman’s autonomy; the Texas law “except[ed] from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the [pregnant woman].” Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe , to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force. Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court’s splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ? A less encompassing Roe , one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy."....Ruth Bader Ginsburg
time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade/
W-a-h, w-a-h.
Can you name one SCOTUS decision in the last 30 years which negatively affected a woman's right to have an abortion?
One?
scratch one dependable right wing wedge issue prior to a general election. too bad, so sad...
Tex... Fanaticism is forever busy, and requires feeding.
Besides, what's all this pain and anguish from you all about? If you're a male, what do you care about the right of choice? Seems like you are all spooled up over something you need not worry about.
Me, I've got three daughters, and I want them to always have the right to choice. A choice a number of conservatives in this country still will try to take away from them even with this decision.
WTF are you bleating on about now??
They have their choice. And please list any SCOTUS decision in the last 30 years that would take that right away from them.
Once again, you are babbling off topic.
Shocking!
[deleted] Read it again.. I asked you a straight forward question. Why are you all spun up on this topic if you think that this is forever settled law?
Where did I say that this was settled law and could never, ever change?
Are you again attempting to tell me what I think now?
Get off if it.
You said pain and anguish. I am not in pain or anguish about this, and wouldn't be either way the decision went. THAT is the crap I was asking about you bleating about.
[deleted]
Actually, I've no doubt conservative Republicans somewhere will use this to claim they need MORE conservative Justices and will use it as a wedge issue to try and convince the poorly educated evangelicals to vote for a serial adulterer, again, just so they have a shot at overturning Roe next time. They don't care that Roberts followed precedent, they only see the narrow margin of 1 justice between them and effectively wiping out abortion clinics in Red States.
This decision won't stop states from passing unconstitutional restrictions on abortion. Unless and until Judges start fining them for frivolous litigation, they'll never stop.
Without question, Monday’s ruling is a political opportunity to energize the President's religious base. You can count on that! How did Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, refer to the ruling? I believe she called it “unfortunate.”
“Instead of valuing fundamental democratic principles, unelected justices have intruded on the sovereign prerogatives of state governments by imposing their own policy preference in favor of abortion to override legitimate abortion safety regulations”....Kayleigh McEnany.
Religious groups hear the call!
Was't the decision 5-4?
Many of these justices are fairly old. Little by little some will die and new ones will therefore be appointed.
So its possible that someday they will end abortion.
Or not.
(I don't know enough about this to make any predictions-- I don't know if they ever will end it or not).
If eventually (probably not in your lifetime) the Court ends abortion, then the side who loses will be bringing just as many lawsuits as there are now about abortion.
Personally, I say have any and all abortions you can afford and are willing to pay for yourself.
TIRED OF PEOPLE HAVING KIDS THEY REFUSE TO SUPPORT.
it's hilarious watching the alleged defenders of individual liberty [deleted] on this issue for almost 50 years. their own political karma runs over their religious dogma once again. get off the fucking crosses, we need the wood.
Almost as hilarious as watching the Chicken Littles droning on and on how abortion will be stopped.
Will you tell them to just chill out?
please explain which side of the issue trumpski's 2 appointees and the tea party token came down. individual freedom of choice for the largest voting block in america will never again be altered by religious conservative ideology.
Why do I need to educate you on SCTUS decisions?
Does a 5-4 decision carry less weight of law than a 9-0 decision? How so?
Does a 5-4 decision carry less weight of law than a 9-0 decision? How so?
Actually I think it does...... Legal types around here could say better, but think back to the 9-0 Brown vs the Board of Education.... That has never been challenged as the SCOTUS sent a unified message. With a 5-4 decision.... many still think there is room for a different decision if they can make the right argument.
Again I will defer to the legal types here on NT.
Then you clearly don't understand how decisions work.
In law, it makes no difference whatsoever whether a law is upheld 9-0 or 5-4 or 6-3.
A law upheld is a law upheld.
And all are subject to that law.
Spinning won't change that.
Then if what you say is the case, why are anti-abortion type continuing to challenge the original ruling?
Laws can and will be challenged. Seriously, do you not recognize that fact?
Of course we have cases that will appear before courts challenging laws.
How do you think some laws are stricken?
Laws can and will be challenged. Seriously, do you not recognize that fact?
Of course we have cases that will appear before courts challenging laws.
How do you think some laws are stricken?
So right there you just answered in your own words as to why it's not pretending that Roe v Wade could possibly be overturned at some future date.
Game... Set.... Match.
The reason it hasn't been overturned is because at least one conservative justice has had the ability to see that women will not just accept being shoved back into the home. And yes, mandating that all pregnancies end in birth (one way or another) is exactly that.
As I said earlier Thrawn..... Fanaticism is forever busy.
Oh, FFS.
I readily admit that it is POSSIBLE that virtually any law COULD be overturned.
But why worry about shit that CLEARLY isn't happening at SCOTUS, despite the constant histrionics from the left?
I don't worry about the Second Amendment being overturned because SCOTUS hasn't made decisions signaling that they would ever overturn it.
You want to worry about a bunch of crap that won't ever come to fruition, be my guest!
Seems like an awful waste of time of tears and time.
I know, they never take a break. They will keep trying, the rest of us just have to be sure we bitch slap them with a majority every time.
You may not worry about the 2ND.... but many conservatives do... Besides that's even harder as that's in the Bill of Rights and has to go to the states.
But even with that, gun rights advocates never stop bleating about "The Slippery Slope" to limiting gun rights.
So if you apply the same level of fanaticism on the gun rights issue that many have, you will have your answer on the right to choice is still a hot button issue.
Then you should address your concerns to THEM, not me.
Again, take it up with THEM if there is some problem, not me.
BTW, you have ignored this twice now:
Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that SCOTUS will knock down abortion.
tell that to the religious nuts that can't seem to let it go, for almost 50 years...
No need. They have been hearing people holding your views whine for a long time now. Don't need to add my voice to the drones.
I've ignored it because it is worthy of being ignored Tex.
Turn it around..... "Please name any SCOTUS decisions in the last 30 years that would lead any rational being to suspect that will impact the 2nd."
And you answered that question in your 2.1.10.
That's a swing and a miss again Tex...... Keep this up, and you're gonna get sent back down to the minors...
That is an awfully convenient answer when you don't really HAVE one.
Kudos.
yes, I damn sure did!
I stated this:
I readily admit that it is POSSIBLE that virtually any law COULD be overturned.
But why worry about shit that CLEARLY isn't happening at SCOTUS, despite the constant histrionics from the left?
I don't worry about the Second Amendment being overturned because SCOTUS hasn't made decisions signaling that they would ever overturn it.
You want to worry about a bunch of crap that won't ever come to fruition, be my guest!
Seems like an awful waste of time of tears and time.
Please DO note the bold section!
Your analogy lacks sense and credibility.
AGAIN, since it is Monday and comprehension is low--if you have a problem with someone else's views on the Second Amendment--TAKE IT UP WITH THEM!
I look forward to you jumping in whenever a conservative cheers on Trump's promises to do just that.
It's been pointed out that the Texas law was much the same and the Louisiana law yet the SCOTUS took the case anyway. They seem to enjoy revisiting this uber litigated issue every year, sometimes more than once. The anti-choicers will NEVER stop litigating this and they are hoping that EVENTUALLY they will get the wording just right and the court will let them have their way. Much like Trump did on his Muslim ban.
Remember the the big 4 wedge issues pushed by every republican to get their single issue voters out....God, Gays, Guns and Abortion. It's the GOP bread and butter for simple minds. Things they can put on a bumper sticker....
The reason you shouldn't be worried about that is because an Amendment to the Constitution can NOT be 'overturned' by the SCOTUS.
That's great!.
There was no Muslim ban. Don't be so ridiculous
Almost as hilarious as watching the Chicken Littles droning on and on how abortion will be stopped.
Will you tell them to just chill out?
I'm wondering why it upsets you so much. People make all sorts of predictions, especially about politics. Constantly!
For example, it seems like everytime I watch the news there are some people predicting Trump won't get elected-- they are sure of it!
And there are also people predicting he will get re-elected-- they are also sure that they're right!
Don't bother me none-- I'm so used to it I ignore them...
(Of course if it really does bother you that much, you could avoid all political discussions here on NT. And stop watching the news. Don't have to watch the new you know-- there are a lot of good movies on TV. And cop shows. And Quiz shows. Oh-- you can even escape by watching The Real Housewives of _____________(Pick your favourite locale)!
Remember, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Not upset--just don't like the lies and fake anguish.
Wonder no more!
Lol. Man social conservatives have been getting their asses handed to them by a conservative SCOTUS in the last couple weeks.
it's been a non-stop comedy, with the right wing as the butt of the joke...
So the whole issue for you is really about liberals and conservatives, and precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion.
Got it.
Haha! You go ahead and think whatever you like, i am just going to keep laughing at you [deleted]
I'll continue to think the truth, thanks!
This from the guy who has been whining ad nauseam about liberals and said little to nothing on the subject of a woman's right to abortion.
Hence my GIF lol.
Abortion is the law . Why do I need to comment on it for you?
That's a perfect example of hypocrisy Tex.
You've been criticizing others for commenting "precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion."
Let me break it down for you:
Abortion is legal.
Good enough for ya?
If not, too bad.
There are lots of laws no one ever talks about, so me talking about abortion will never change the fact that abortions are perfectly legal.
What is to argue??????
Also, take note that I am not the one who still thinks SCOTUS will strike down abortion--even though no rulings from SCOTUS would ever give a real thinking person cause to think they will overturn it.
So the whole issue for you is really about liberals who still think that the SCOTUS will strike down abortion, and precious damn little to do with a woman's right to abortion.
Got it.
If and when, if ever, you "get it", then you will see how silly and pointless your comment is.
Personally, I don't have much hope for that ever happening.
Perhaps if you ever managed to make a cogent and consistent argument throughout a seed you would get the point.
Personally, I don't have much hope for that ever happening.
As it is, you're much more consistent in contradiction and deflection.
If I thought for one minute you knew what you were talking about, it might be worth listening to.
I could not care less whether you 'listen' or not Tex.
Don't get over confident.... there are still a bunch of other decisions that the court is going to be handing down that liberals might not be too happy about.
pretty sure that SCOTUS justices can be impeached, along with every other judicial appointee...
Oh I just think it is funny as hell. Abortion is their thing, and their own justices are shooting them down.
What I think is funny is that you don't seem to give a damn about abortion rights at all---you just want to try to stick it to someone!
Yeah, they CAN be impeached.
For something OTHER than making a decision you personally don't like.
Of course, in the entire history of SCOTUS, only one has ever been impeached--well over 200 years ago.
Yeah, I'd bank on THAT crap if I were you!
Taking a cue from you my friend!
I don't believe that is even in the realm of possibility.
Lol, you'd be surprised.
No, I would be completely and utterly SHOCKED!
I suppose miracles do happen....
Keep an open mind.
I do.
Did you not see the part about miracles?
Would it be?
yes
Definitely
A good call by the SCOTUS. The repeated attempts by some states to restrict or circumvent abortion rights is getting ridiculous.
Getting ridiculous Gordy? This fight to maintain the right of choice for women is long from over. There are still too many people that want to take their shoes away from them and keep them in dual careers as domestic short order cooks and human incubators simultaneously....
Would "absurd" been a better term?
I think you might be right about that. Especially since that fight has been going on since the Roe decision.
Voting against their own best interests...... Seems to be a trend here in the US.
it parallels the do as I say, not as I do mentality involved...
Just gotta love it when someone is so smart as to tell others who they voted for isn't who they should have voted for. Or basically telling others they voted stupidly.
Thank Goodness folks aren't worried if "DOC" can take them to a hospital or not, if things go wrong !
What could go WRONG anyway ? It's like getting a tooth pulled !
It makes no sense to require abortion providers to have admitting privileges. Abortions are generally safe and easy outpatient procedures with a small chance of complications. If anything should go wrong, the a patient is brought to a hospital via 911, just like for any other clinic or office. So requiring admitting privileges is clearly an underhanded and unnecessary attempt to restrict abortions.
Excerpt from:
Sometimes, a doctor cannot obtain or renew admitting privileges until they reach a certain quota of the number of patients they treat. Some hospitals also require their doctors to live within a certain distance away from the hospital in order to be given admitting privileges.
Proponents of abortion admitting privileges claim the privileges are only there for safety’s sake , and that safe doctors should be meeting the criteria to earn the privileges anyway. However, pro-choice advocates argue that admitting privileges are “medically unnecessary” and “a back-door attempt to shut down clinics.” It is also worth mentioning that facilities that provide other medical procedures that are statistically riskier than abortion often do not require their doctors to obtain admitting privileges.
While examining a doctor’s licensing and professional history is an important part of maintaining a responsible and trusted hospital staff, trivial things like the distance a doctor lives from their hospital of employment have nothing to do with how safely they are able to perform medical procedures. Many doctors travel in and out of state to work at different hospitals and medical clinics, none of which suddenly diminishes their medical knowledge and skills. Also, many doctors are unable to meet the minimum amount of admitted patients needed to obtain admitting privileges, because hospitalization is unnecessary for most abortion patients .
Hospitals are also hesitant to enter the political fray that comes with providing abortions in traditionally red states, and some have even taken admitting privileges away from doctors after coming under fire with anti-abortion protestors . “For a hospital to [allow doctors admitting privileges to perform abortions in typically anti-abortion states], it would be making a conscious decision to take on the state legislature,” said Dr. Willie J Parker, who works at Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic, the Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
Admitting privileges are just another obstacle on the laundry list of hardships doctors face when trying to provide abortions to their patients, and (perhaps more importantly) yet another hurdle for the patients themselves.
Another thing to take in consideration is, some people are just plain nuts and threaten harm or violence against abortion providers and clinics, which has also been demonstrated in the past. So if a hospital grants admitting privileges to an abortion doctor, they risk an increased threat to hospital security and staff. So a hospital probably doesn't want to deal with the hassle and cost of beefing up security measures.