最高法院将于2006年宣布一项裁决重大堕胎案很快，当它集中在一个州的法律上时，另一个问题出现了，这个问题可能会对美国堕胎法的未来产生巨大的影响。
琼医疗服务公司诉鲁索公司是一个挑战路易斯安那州的一项法律要求堕胎服务提供者拥有附近医院的准入特权，这是医生和医院之间的一项协议，允许病人在需要紧急护理时去医院。
然而，去年，就在最高法院同意接手此案之前不久，路易斯安那州又提出了另一个问题第三方地位问题。
什么是第三方地位?
诺玛·麦考维，美国最高法院堕胎裁决中心的女性，在DC国会山举行的罗伊诉韦德案25周年听证会上，向参议院司法委员会小组委员会作证。
第三方地位是一个法律概念，即允许第三方(如堕胎服务提供者)代表实际受影响的人(患者)进行辩论。当最高法院宣布将听取六月医疗，它也同意听取来自第三方地位的州的交叉请愿。
尽管1973年宣布堕胎为受保护权利的里程碑式案件——罗伊诉韦德案——包括一名质疑法律的病人，但自那时以来，所有重大堕胎案件都是由提供者和诊所提出的，如全女性健康、计划生育或六月医疗服务。
本质上，路易斯安那州是在问琼医疗服务公司是否有权首先挑战法律。如果最高法院就此问题做出裁决，在可预见的未来，它可能会改变堕胎法的处理方式，因为第三方通常会对法律提出质疑。
如果最高法院裁定第三方不能质疑堕胎法，患者自己将不得不提出质疑。这可能证明是非常困难的;堕胎权利倡导者指出，个人可能不想挑战法律，因为这将使他们成为反堕胎暴力和骚扰的目标。
考虑到堕胎时间有限，个人也很难挑战法律。例如，最高法院的路易斯安那州法律于2014年签署。路易斯安那州法律禁止在怀孕20周之后进行堕胎，只有少数例外。因此，如果一名寻求堕胎的患者在2014年对法律提出质疑，那么当最高法院在2019年同意受理一个案件时，该患者早就超过了20周的门槛——更不用说当法院宣布裁决时了。
本案中如何讨论第三方提问
凯瑟琳·皮特曼，洛杉矶什里夫波特妇女希望医疗小组的负责人。2020年2月20日，在诊所的康复室里为一幅肖像摆姿势。
路易斯安那州在质疑第三方地位的请愿书中写道:“几乎没有证据表明他们的病人的利益与原告的立场一致，即这种保护的负担超过了他们的价值。相反，无可争议的记录证据(包括原告不良的安全记录、不充分的认证实践和有问题的破坏争议法律的努力)表明原告直接不利于其患者的利益。很难想象第三方地位的情况会更糟。”
在June Medical Services诉Russo案的口头辩论在3月举行的一次会议上，第三方问题在有限的讨论中被提出。生殖权利中心的律师朱莉·里克尔曼代表琼医疗公司认为，国家在诉讼中提出这个问题为时过晚，在堕胎案件和与堕胎无关的案件中都有允许第三方诉讼的重要先例。
尤其是塞缪尔·阿利托法官，在这个问题上向瑞克曼施压堕胎诊所和患者的利益是否一致。
"这些医生与潜在的原告、女性相比，是否处于任何不同的地位，她们感到这项法律的负担?"索尼娅·索托马约尔法官在意大利航空公司问了一系列问题后问道。
“不，法官大人，”瑞克曼回答道。“事实上，州政府并没有指出如果有一名女性加入这场诉讼会有什么不同。与此相反，国家认为是本案关键问题的问题——该法律是否有利于健康和安全，以及医生获得特权有多困难——是医生特别适合提起诉讼的问题。”
在里克曼承认一些病人“可能”提起诉讼后，阿利托问道，“那么，为什么不能呢...为什么不应该由病人提起诉讼呢?”
“法官大人，这是一项通过规范医生而不是他们的病人来限制堕胎的法律，因此他们成为原告是合适的，”瑞克曼回应道。
在这一系列的提问过程中，斯蒂芬·布雷耶法官指出，如果法院推翻第三方地位，他们很可能不得不“直接或间接”推翻在最高法院辩论过的至少八个堕胎案例。
可能的结果
艾米·哈格斯特罗姆·米勒，全女性健康组织的主席兼首席执行官和生殖权利中心的主席兼首席执行官南希·诺苏普(右)在大会上发言...更多
2016年3月2日，全女性健康组织主席兼首席执行官艾米·哈格斯特罗姆·米勒(Amy Hagstrom Miller)和生殖权利中心主席兼首席执行官南希·诺苏普(Nancy Northup)在DC华盛顿州最高法院外对媒体发表讲话，此前在全女性健康组织诉赫勒斯特特(Hellerstedt)一案中就堕胎问题进行了口头辩论。
“最高法院有可能解决[第三方地位]，”生育权利中心的联合律师TJ Tu在二月份告诉美国广播公司新闻，“如果他们这样做了，我们相信他们会看到有超过40年的先例支持我们的立场，而实际上没有人支持路易斯安那州的立场，所以说堕胎服务提供者没有第三方地位是对法律的一个相当激进的改造。”
的确如此。如果最高法院做出不利于诉讼地位的裁决，目前正在进行的由第三方提起的其他堕胎案件也可能受到影响，其他堕胎案件的法官已经在寻求最高法院关于第三方诉讼地位的指导。
佐治亚州的一名地方法院法官上周表示，在最高法院宣布其6月份的医疗决定之前，他不会对一个挑战该州为期6周的堕胎禁令的案件做出决定。特别提到他在等待答案关于第三方常设问题。
最高法院是否会触及这个问题还有待观察——当然，这可能会让未来的案件中有更多的问题。
Explaining the third-party question in the Supreme Court abortion case
The Supreme Court will be announcing a decision ina major abortion casesoon, and while it's centered on one state law, another question has come up in the case that could have massive consequences for the future of abortion laws in America.
June Medical Services v. Russo is a challengeto a Louisiana law requiring abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital, an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go to that hospital if they need urgent care.
However, last year, shortly before the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case, Louisiana brought another question to the table, on theissue of third-party standing.
What is third-party standing?
Norma McCorvey, the woman at the center of the US Supreme Court ruling on abortion, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittee during hearings on the 25th anniversary of Roe v. Wade on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC.
Third-party standing is the legal concept that a third party -- like an abortion provider -- is allowed to argue on behalf of the person actually impacted: a patient. When the Supreme Court announced it would hear June Medical, it also agreed to hear the cross-petition from the state on third-party standing.
While Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case that declared abortion a protected right, included an individual patient challenging the law, every major abortion case since then has been presented by providers and clinics like Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood or June Medical Services.
Essentially, Louisiana was asking if June Medical Services had the right to challenge the law in the first place. Should the Supreme Court rule on that issue, it could change how abortion laws are handled in the foreseeable future, since third parties are the ones to typically challenge laws.
If the Supreme Court decides third parties cannot challenge abortion laws, patients themselves would have to challenge them. This could prove to be immensely difficult; abortion rights advocates point out that individuals may not want to challenge laws because it would make them a target to anti-abortion violence and harassment.
Individuals would also have trouble challenging laws given the limited time one has to get an abortion. The Louisiana law at the Supreme Court, for instance, was signed in 2014. Louisiana law bans abortions performed after 20 weeks of a pregnancy with limited exceptions, so if a patient seeking an abortion were to have challenged the law in 2014, that patient would have long surpassed that 20-week threshold by the time the Supreme Court agreed to take on a case in 2019 -- let alone by the time the court announced a ruling on it.
How third-party questioning was discussed in the case
Kathaleen Pittman, the administrator of the Hope Medical Group for Women in Shreveport, La., poses for a portrait in the clinic's recovery room, Feb. 20, 2020.
Louisiana wrote in its petition to question third-party standing: "There is little evidence that their patients' interests actually align with Plaintiffs' position that the burdens of such protections exceed their value. On the contrary, undisputed record evidence (including of Plaintiffs' poor safety record, inadequate credentialing practices, and questionable efforts to undermine the law at issue) shows Plaintiffs are directly adverse to their patients' interests. It is hard to imagine a worse case for third-party standing."
Inoral arguments for June Medical Services v. Russo, held in March, the third-party question came up in limited discussion. Center for Reproductive Rights attorney Julie Rikelman, representing June Medical, argued that the state brought up the question too late in the proceedings and there was significant precedent allowing for third-party standing both within abortion cases and in non-abortion-related cases.
Justice Samuel Alito, in particular,pressed Rikelman on the questionof if abortion clinics and patients had aligned interests.
"Are these doctors in any different position than potential plaintiffs, women, who feel burdened by this law?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked after a round of questions from Alito.
"No, Your Honor," Rikelman responded. "And, in fact, the state has not pointed to a single thing that would have been different if one woman had been joined in this lawsuit. To the contrary, the issues that the state says are the key issues in this case -- whether this law serves health and safety benefits and how difficult it is for physicians to obtain privileges -- are issues that the physicians are particularly well suited to litigate."
After Rikelman acknowledged that some patients "could have" brought the case, Alito asked, "Well, then why can't... why shouldn't [patients] be the ones to bring suit?"
"Your Honor, this is a law that restricts abortion by regulating the physicians, rather than their patients, and so it's appropriate for them to be the plaintiffs here," Rikelman responded.
In the course of this line of questioning, Justice Stephen Breyer pointed out that should the court overturn third-party standing, they would likely have to then "directly or indirectly" overrule at least eight previous abortion cases argued at the Supreme Court.
Possible outcomes
Amy Hagstrom Miller, president and CEO of Whole Woman's Health and lead plantiff, and Nancy Northup (R), president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, speak to the media outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, March 2, 2016, following oral arguments in the case of Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, which deals with access to abortion.
"It's within the realm of possibility that [the Supreme Court] could address [third-party standing]," TJ Tu, a co-counsel on the case for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told ABC News in February, "and if they do, we're confident that they'll see there's over 40 years of precedent supporting our position and literally none supporting Louisiana's, so it'd be a pretty radical remaking of the law to say that abortion providers don't have third-party standing."
Indeed it would be. Other abortion cases currently in progress that are being brought by third parties could also be impacted if the Supreme Court makes a ruling against the standing, and already judges in other abortion cases are looking to the Supreme Court for guidance regarding third-party standing.
A district court judge in Georgia said last week he will not be making a decision on a case challenging a six-week abortion ban in the state until after the Supreme Court announces its June Medical decision,specifically citing that he's waiting for an answeron the third-party standing question.
It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will even touch the question -- and that, of course, could leave it open to more questions in cases down the road.
