A highlight from Ep. 1332 - The Holy Sacrament Of Abortion

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Pure talk is simply smarter. Wireless already so. The big news of the day is of course that the supreme court has not immediately enjoined a texas state law. That effectively prevents abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. And the reason that the supreme court did this is because of procedural mechanics here so basically the supreme court ruled and the ruling was it was a five to four ruling. With of course chief justice roberts joining the dissenters who's the the republican appointees on one side and then robert's with the liberals on the other and basic scheme of the texas law is why the law was not immediately taken the supreme court so normally in order for you to have a the lawsuit that is taken up by an appeals court or taken up by the supreme court. You have to have somebody to sue or just because he sees something wrong in like does not mean that you get to sue and the person who has to be the right person and you're suing over a law presumably if you sue for example the the person who is enforcing the law that person has to have the power to enforce law so for example in in reverse his weighed it was an official of government who was being sued in roe versus wade. Because it was that person's responsibility to enforce the loss of that person ends up as the defendants. This is usually the case when you have a case that appealed to the supreme court and it has to do with the law that is being enforced by the state usually. There's some official whose name you don't know who ends up. As the defendant in that particular lawsuit texas found a way around this at least for the moment sort of creative way round us the way that they wrote the law it is not that the texas state government is going to be enforcing the law. It's not like somebody comes to your door and takes you off to jail if you participate in the in the abortion process at twelve weeks of pregnancy instead what the texas state law basically did is created a private right of action. The private right of action essentially allows anyone to sue a person in court who has participated in the facilitation of abortion according to politico individuals found to have violated. That law would have to pay ten thousand dollars to the person who successfully brings such a lawsuit. It said so almost sort of a private bounty in other words. Let's say that there's woman who wants an abortion. I know abortion doctors providing her and abortion. I can sued the abortion doctor for providing her an abortion at ten weeks and then he has to pay me ten thousand dollars for his violation of the law according to political antiabortion groups in the states such as texas rates life have in recent weeks. Setup tip lines for people to anonymously report. Violators ahead of the law's implementation earlier on tuesday. A federal district issued a temporary restraining order barring the group from filing suits against a small group of individuals and organizations that assist patients in obtaining an abortion but both sides of the case acknowledged. The order is very narrow and the antiabortion groups had it still plans to solicit tips and bring lawsuits against abortion providers. Now that the courts have given a green light to the law's implementation so the supreme court majority does not say whether the laws constitutional they just say that it is not clear whether they can take up the case. Because there's nobody to sue yet right. Nobody has actually brought a lawsuit along these lines as of yet so the supreme court found to prevail in an application for a stay or injunction an applicant must carry the burden of making a strong showing that is likely to succeed on the merits and it will be irrevocably injured. Absent to stay. And the bounced equities favors it and that a stays consistent with public interest the applicants now before us have raised serious questions regarding the constitutionality of texas light issue but their application also presents complex and novel antecedent procedural questions which they have not carried their burden so this is the supreme court saying listen we might not straight down roe versus wade. We might in fact strike down this law but first you have to go through the actual procedure of somebody having been grievously harmed by a private after in this particular way because this lawsuit was again directed at a person austin reed jackson news a judge. It's directed a person who actually does not have the power to even enforce law per se. So says the majority federal courts. Enjoy the power to enjoy individuals task enforcing laws not the laws themselves. It is unclear whether the named defendants in this lawsuit or will seek to enforce the texas law against the applicants in a manner that might permit our intervention. The state has represented that neither it nor its executive employees possessed the authority to enforce the texas law either directly or indirectly nor is it clear whether under existing precedent this court can issue injunction against a judge's asked to decide a lawsuit under texas law. Which is the person who was sued in this particular case. Finally the private citizen respondent before us has filed an affidavit stating has no present intention to enforce the law and let such issues. We can't say the applicants have met their burden to prevail in an injunction or stay application again. Then there were the defense and then descends. At justice. roberts didn't say that he would vote to uphold roe versus wade. He just said that. He put an injunction on law pending some sort of resolution of the underlying issues. There's the procedural issues and then there's the underlying issue which is really the one at the heart of the case which is is it constitutional to pass a law that bars abortion after weeks. Now look from a from a pure constitutional perspective. The answer of course is fully constitutional for the vast majority. America's history there abortion laws in virtually every state and. Obviously there is no right to an abortion in the constitution of the united states. You can't point to it. You can't point to anything the points to it. It is emanations and numbers and in idiotic supreme court majority in rovers swayed that literally created a right to abortion out of whole cloth. I mean he's just created fully and your sits there like a third at the bottom of the toilet bowl. That's how bad that decision. It is a terrible decision. Even people who are advocating abortion generally recognized that rovers wade is not a good legal decision. They just like the album a so as a matter of just what's in the constitution on the underlying issue. The answer is of course. Texas can pass this law and california can also pass a law that allows abortion up until a particular point maybe beyond depending on exactly what exactly california is doing and whether the fourteenth amendment and the due process clause and the equal protection clause applies to the unborn right. There's a strong pro-life case that the equal protection clause read that everyone is entitled to equal protection of law so far as life liberty and and due process for

Coming up next