- The start of theSupreme Court's new term

is just three days away and we're learning

about some major developmentson the abortion front.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear

an abortion case regarding a Louisiana law

that could leave the state with one doctor

and a single clinic to provide abortions.

This is the only caseconcerning abortion this term.

Paul Strand joins usnow from our DC bureau

to weigh in on the announcement.

Paul, why is this case so important?

- Well, Mark, this is,so far it's the only case

this year about abortionand it's the first one

in three years, which waswhen Justice Anthony Kennedy

was still on the Court,and he would usually rule

with the four liberalswho would always vote

for the abortion side on these things,

not always, but usually.

So, it's a new day and it'sa new setup for the Court.

- The Court has alreadystruck down a Texas law

that was a twin of this Louisiana law.

Why would the ruling comeout any different now?

- Okay, what this is about is it's whether

they're forcing doctors in Louisiana

to have hospital, access to the hospital,

to be sort like, they'vegot privileges there

at the hospital andthey could admit a woman

from the abortion clinic.

If an accident happened they could go

to the hospital with herand they could work on her.

And, the pro-choice side issaying that's too restrictive.

The pro-life side issaying actually that well,

it's good to know that a doctor has

these admitting privileges'cause that means

he's been checked out by the hospital.

That means he's not grossly incompetent

or has something horrible in his record.

So, they're saying it'll help save women.

The other side says thatoften women don't need

to go to a hospital anyway.

They get their abortionand they're outta there.

So, that's sorta thetwo sides on the issue.

- Let's talk a little bit more about that.

Some say this is toorestrictive and will hurt

women's easy access to abortion.

What is the argument for why it's needed?

You talked about makingsure that the people

that are doing the proceduresare not grossly incompetent.

Can you elaborate a little bit more

about on the argument asfar as this side saying

that this law is needed?

- Yeah, it sorta goesdown to the whole idea

of whether there shouldbe any sort of rules,

rather than just what the abortion clinics

themselves have and in thiscase, you take hospitals

that are around the abortionclinic and they actually have

to check this guy out.

They have to say, has hedone anything suspicious?

Does he have a record, et cetera?

In other words, he gets checked out.

If you've got a guy like a Kermit Gosnell

up in Philadelphia, theone who was snipping

baby's spinal cords, he justwasn't checked out by people.

People didn't know what he was up to.

So, this way they get aneye on it and it represents

the side that says, all these restrictions

that we're trying toput on abortion clinics

is basically for the safetyof women and to protect them.

This way, like I said,if something goes wrong

and this doctor gets admittedto all the local hospitals,

that means any of those local hospitals,

she gets in trouble, hecan get her right in there

and he, who knows exactlywhat's happened to her,

he's the one who can work on her.

- Many pro-life advocates,Paul, are hoping

the court might end upreversing Roe v. Wade

because of this case.

What do you think the odds are of that?

- Well, that's sort of interesting.

Like I said, Kennedy is gone now.

That's the main difference,and he would usually vote

with the pro-abortion side.

Now we have Gorsuch and Kavanaugh,and people tend to think

that they're on the pro-life side.

The thing is, we don't really know.

We haven't had a chanceto see what happens

with these decisions.

Also, John Roberts,the Chief Justice, he's

sort of a wild card.

He is the one before this,they put this Louisiana law

on a stay and he's the one whovoted with the liberal side

to do that.

So, we have, we have these wild cards,

Kavanaugh and the Chief Justice himself,

so we have to see.

But, a lot of people right now are saying,

this is the first time that it looks like

a five to four majorityfor the pro-life side.

So, that's why folks arehopeful that this could be used

to overturn Roe v. Wadebecause they're saying

well, you're getting in thereand you're messing around

with abortion anyway,why not go all the way

and put severe restrictions on it?

So, those are the, that'sthe argument for it.

- All right Paul Strand,thank you for your analysis.

We appreciate it.