Latin: "to stand by things decided"
That is the doctrine for US Court precedent.
The latest Supreme Court decision regarding an abortion law / change is important, but not because of the result of the decision alone.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented on the previous Texas ruling decided to change his stance based off of "stare decisis" or legal precedent.
"
instructs us to treat like cases alike, the Louisiana law burdens women seeking previability abortions to the same extent as the Texas law"
This means Justice Roberts chose to uphold the standard of US law over choosing a political stance. This is exactly what a judge is supposed to do, and as such reduces the impact of things like politicians parading potential Justices names around in their election campaigns. For instance when Trump said "That will happen, automatically in my opinion" when discussing Roe v Wade and who he will appoint as SC Justices.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-o... The shut-down Texas law was almost identical to the current Louisiana one in question. This was considered a potential "win" simply because the Supreme Court Justices changed and the balance of political affiliation shifted. If an identical law passes based off of political affiliation, and not legal structure, we are all in trouble.
Whether one agrees with the outcome of the decision or not, we should all be happy that law was actually followed over opinion, affiliation and campaign contributions.