The 日本人出演 外国ポルノ映画steps of the Supreme Court are a popular place to be when abortion rights are at stake.

On Wednesday morning, actresses Elizabeth Banks and Busy Philipps showed up there to headline a rally attended by abortion rights activists. They were joined by liberal Congresswomen, including Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, and Barbara Lee of California. (Abortion rights opponents gathered on the steps in protest as well.)

Inside the court, the justices heard oral arguments in June Medical Services v. Russo, a case that will determine the fate of abortion access in Louisiana and has the potential to undermine abortion rights across the United States.

Banks, who most recently directed the Charlie's Angelsreboot, and Philipps, formerly the host of Busy Tonight, are members of the Center for Reproductive Rights Creative Council, an initiative meant to harness Hollywood's influence to advocate for sexual reproductive health and rights.

Lawyers from the Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization, presented arguments to the Supreme Court, asking the nine justices to strike down a law in Louisiana that would ostensibly shutter all but one abortion clinic and leave an estimated 10,000 women who seek abortion annually in the state with access to a single doctor. In 2016, the Supreme Court found the same law, when implemented in Texas, unconstitutional.

"Today we are taking the opportunity to present reproductive freedom, including abortion, for exactly what it is: no less than liberty itself," Banks said.

For Amy Hagstrom Miller, CEO and founder of the abortion provider Whole Woman's Health, the case feels like a "time warp."

Nearly four years ago, Hagstrom Miller challenged Texas' law and descended triumphantly down the Supreme Court steps when the justices struck it down in a 5-3 ruling for Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt.

The victory created a new standard for states hoping to pass abortion restrictions: Legislators had to demonstrate with clear, fact-based evidence that regulations protect women's health and do not pose an undue burden on patients. Previously, lawmakers could merely assert they were acting on behalf of women's health and safety without providing compelling evidence to back that up. The decision was the first in decades to fundamentally strengthen abortion rights.

"Some days I feel like, wait we already did this, we already proved this, and the court ruled in our favor," says Hagstrom Miller. "But look, they’ve been trying to unravel [Roe v. Wade] for pretty much my whole life time. I can’t be surprised."

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

At issue then and now is whether it's constitutional for states to require physicians who work at abortion clinics to obtain hospital admitting privileges. Advocates of the law say the regulation safeguards a woman's health in the event that she needs to be admitted to the hospital following an abortion procedure.

Opponents argue that abortion-related hospital admissions are exceedingly rare and that the process for getting privileges is often unpredictable and onerous. Hospitals don't need to respond to every request and may not explain why they've rejected applications. They might dismiss an application because they don't want to be affiliated with an abortion provider, or because they know abortion-related admissions are rare and therefore a physician won't be a reliable source of income. Some clinics in Texas that were subject to admitting-privileges regulations prior to the Supreme Court decision closed because they could not comply with the law.

The Center for Reproductive Rights expects the same to happen in Louisiana if Act 620 goes into effect. The law will effectively shutter two of the three abortion clinics in Louisiana, leaving one physician (who already has admitting privileges) to provide abortion care to thousands of women who seek them in the state each year, creating a clear undue burden on patients. Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry says the restriction would not close clinics.

This Tweet is currently unavailable. It might be loading or has been removed.

The law, which passed in 2014, reached the Supreme Court because the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a district court finding that the law was unconstitutional. Landry has argued that the legislation is significantly different than Texas' bill because, among other things, it didn't impose criminal penalties on providers.

The Supreme Court will now potentially uphold its previous decision, or narrow its finding, which would weaken Whole Woman's Health. Reversing or watering down that decision would undermine abortion rights by opening the floodgates for new legislation designed to restrict abortion access under the guise of ensuring women's health and safety. Should the majority choose to overturn the decision, it will erase the victory advocates claimed in 2016.

"Some of those justices would like for Whole Woman's Healthto not have happened in the first place," says Hagstrom Miller. "Now that it is precedent, how will they apply it? Will they narrow the scope in some way? Those are the things I dwell on and think are likely."

In addition to taking up admitting privileges again, the Supreme Court will also consider whether abortion providers can challenge state restrictions as a third party. June Medical Services is the corporate name of Hope Clinic, a provider in Shreveport, Louisiana, that sued the state to stop the implementation of Act 620.

While legal rulings over the past 50 years have held that providers can sue on behalf of their patients' constitutional rights, lawyers representing the state of Louisiana have argued that providers don't share a close relationship with their patients and that their interests compete with those of their patients.

If the Supreme Court agrees, it could prevent providers from making legal challenges and effectively force patients to file their own lawsuits. An amici brief filed by Whole Woman's Health lays out a compelling case for why patients wouldn't — or couldn't — pursue a complex and expensive legal strategy, including the "profound stigma" of seeking an abortion and the "personal struggles" many women endure during that time.

"If providers such as Amici are no longer permitted to enforce the constitutional rights of their patients, those patients’ voices will likely go unheard and their rights un-vindicated," the brief argues.

Hagstrom Miller describes asking a pregnant person to bring a lawsuit on behalf of themselves as "ridiculous" and "cruel." Doing so, she says, would require significant personal and financial resources, surrendering confidentiality, and subjecting oneself to public scrutiny and shame.

"We've endured all of these things as an organization and we barely made it through," says Hagstrom Miller. "It's bullying for really powerful people to say, 'You can't have your rights unless you stand up and speak in front of us.'"

Following the oral arguments in June Medical Services, the justices will spend the next few months formulating and writing its decision. Its ruling is expected to come this summer.