Â鶹ŮÓÅ

The Supreme Court on Tuesday let stand appeals court decisions that had blocked abortion restrictions in Mississippi and Wisconsin. The orders, part of a final set from the court before the justices left for their summer break, underscored the sweeping nature of Monday’s abortion rights decision striking down similar restrictions in Texas. In the Mississippi case, Currier v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 14-997, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, had said the challenged law would have shut down the state’s only abortion clinic. (Liptak, 6/28)

The brief, unsigned orders rejecting the state appeals, reflected the first fallout of the court’s decision to strike down Texas provisions that included the admitting-privileges mandate along with a requirement that abortion clinics meet the strict building standards of ambulatory surgical centers. If implemented, the Mississippi measure was expected to lead to the closure of the state’s only abortion facility. (Bravin and Radnofsky, 6/28)

Reverberations from the U.S. Supreme Court's major ruling backing abortion rights were felt on Tuesday as the justices rejected bids by Mississippi and Wisconsin to revive restrictions on abortion doctors matching those struck down in Texas on Monday. (Hurley, 6/28)

Handing down its second major abortion action in as many days, the U.S. Supreme Court refused Tuesday to rescue a Wisconsin law restricting abortion clinics and doctors in the state, leaving in place lower court rulings that had struck it down. The unsigned order ends a three-year legal fight and was accompanied Tuesday by another rejection of an appeal by Mississippi that sought to reinstate a similar law requiring abortion doctors to be able to admit patients to nearby hospitals. Wisconsin taxpayers now also face the potential of having to pay perhaps $1 million in attorney fees to abortion clinics, according to one lawyer's rough estimate. (Stein, 6/28)

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away an appeal by a family-owned pharmacy that cited Christian beliefs in objecting to providing emergency contraceptives to women under a Washington state rule, prompting a searing dissent by conservative Justice Samuel Alito. The justices left in place a July 2015 ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a state regulation that requires pharmacies to deliver all prescribed drugs, including contraceptives, in a timely manner. (Hurley, 6/28)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to hear a case challenging a Washington state policy that requires pharmacists to sell the so-called morning-after pill despite religious objections. In Stormans v. Wiesman, a group of pharmacists in Washington state says that the state does not have a conscious protection that would protect them from having to stock and sell the morning-after pill, which they say their religious beliefs inform them is akin to abortion. The FDA says that the drug is a form of birth control and does not cause an abortion. (Haberkorn, 6/28)