In Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, P.S.C., the Supreme Court of the United States considered a Kentucky law that required abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals and mandated that abortions be performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs). The court held that this law was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on women seeking abortions without providing any medical benefits to them or their fetuses. Furthermore, the court found that there were other less restrictive means available for protecting women’s health during abortion procedures than those imposed by the state legislature in this case. In its decision, the majority opinion stated: “The burdens [of these requirements] are substantial; they constitute an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional right to choose." This ruling reaffirms previous decisions from lower courts which had also struck down similar laws as unconstitutional due to their imposition of an undue burden on women seeking abortions without providing any medical benefit whatsoever.

In the case of Cameron v. EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Kentucky law requiring abortion clinics to have written transfer agreements with a hospital and ambulance service was constitutional. The majority opinion held that the law was constitutional, but Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion. Justice Breyer argued that the law was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions. He argued that the law was not necessary to protect women’s health, as the majority opinion claimed, because the state already had laws in place to ensure that women received proper medical care in the event of an emergency. He also argued that the law was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, as the majority opinion claimed, because it imposed a burden on women seeking abortions without any evidence that it would actually improve women’s health. Justice Breyer concluded that the law was unconstitutional because it imposed an undue burden on women seeking abortions without any evidence that it would actually improve women’s health. He argued that the law was not necessary to protect women’s health and was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest. He concluded that the law should be struck down as unconstitutional.