17 Burst results for "Parenthood V Casey"
The Charlie Kirk Show
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"And he's still taking seriously money. Yeah, I think people aren't aware of this story. There's no interest in who's going to tell the story. We can tell it, but you're not going to learn about it in schools. The public school system isn't going to sit with kids down until Oprah is not going to do a special on John money. Let me tell you everybody in our book club about John money. Actually, it's going to happen. The interesting thing is that she actually did. Back when she was a real journalist. Right. Back like 20 years ago. Back 20 years ago, she had fat Oprah, not old, exactly. Yeah. Back when you could talk about these things, she actually had this Bruce reimer on to talk about his experiences. But I'm sure if you were to check back with her now about gender she does. Yeah, I don't think she'd want to do it. But so then that's another interesting point before we go deeper into the history is you said you just said we used to be able to talk about these things. So old Oprah had an interesting show. That used to be something you could talk about. How is it that gender ideology has become this total thought crime? I think it's almost more prohibited to talk about than, I don't know, black crime. Yeah, I think it's the number one, it's the ultimate third rail. It's the number one thing you're not allowed to talk about. Because I think it's so fundamental to the left's cultural project that they can't, they can't allow you to question it because if you start to question it and you start to be skeptical about it, then the whole House of Cards comes tumbling down, I think. Because what lays at the root of gender ideology, there's a reason why, in the film, if you watch the film, every single conversation I had with someone on that side would eventually devolve into this kind of punches pilot, what is true thing? Yes. That's what lies at the bottom of it. It is this project of relativism. We all get our own truth. Planned Parenthood V Casey, man. Right, exactly. And so if they allow us to assert that, well, actually, there are some fundamental truths like human biology as a fundamental truth, then they've just admitted that there is a fundamental truth..
The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Dinesh D'Souza Podcast
"The Supreme Court came out on Friday with the expected but nevertheless bombshell decision overturning roe versus wade. I mean, that was the real meaning of the decision, the immediate focus was on the Mississippi law, which essentially outlawed abortion after 15 weeks. And there was one justice as it turns out the chief justice, Roberts, who wanted to sustain role, but in a sense limited. He wanted to uphold the Mississippi law and say in effect that, yeah, you do have an abortion right. States, in other words, can't regulate abortion for the first 15 weeks, but after that, they can. And what's really interesting is that this was a kind of middle position that Robert was hoping to sell, you may say, vote to the left and to the right. Oddly enough, I both sides gone along with it. You would have had a different outcome. But neither side was interested in it. In fact, I remember when Elizabeth Prada, the solicitor general, was arguing the case. She said there's an old middle ground. She goes, look, either you uphold row and the Casey decision, Planned Parenthood versus Casey. Or the whole thing falls. And I guess the court decided let it fall. So the only guy who's trying to sustain this middle ground was, in fact, was in fact
The Charlie Kirk Show
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"We have been speculating on this show to what extent would the left rise up in their frustration at the leaked Dobbs decision, which demonstrated that in a 5, four majority, roe V wade, and Planned Parenthood V Casey were both going to be overturned. Alito was the drafter in that leaked decision. Now, a lot of people are speculating who leaked it. A lot of people are speculating who's going to be caught if that leaker is going to be brought to justice. Senator Ted Cruz has been speculating that it would come out of Kagan's clerkships. Now, something interesting to note here with the clerkships, each justice only has four clerks, so you've got 9 justices. You've got four clerks each. That is a very small potential pool of candidates and leakers. Now, senator Cruz says that it was likely Kagan, though he has no evidence. But based on a hunch, he believes that it was probably Kagan's because she is the most hardened partisan on the bench. Now our friend will Chamberlain, who came on the show last Friday and gave his breakdown of who he thought it was. But regardless of who the leaker is, it has set off wide street, widespread, protest, activists, and the like around the whole houses of these justices, which is despicable.
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on 77WABC Radio
"Joy Reid I think not only helped spark hate in this country but she also helped spark violence and so do the other hateful vile demagogues she knowingly brings on her program to spew their portion And she's not alone That entire network is filled with these reprobates Starting with the morning show right into the night Let's take a listen cut 8 go Planned Parenthood versus Casey That's the one that set up until 1993 when that ruling happened Women had to ask their husbands for permission of what to do with their bodies They had to have a man's permission essentially a reward of the man you married Okay let's slow down First of all that wasn't true in every state And secondly the view wasn't You have to pass your man for permission The view was it took two people to create that baby And that a person shouldn't get a woman shouldn't get an abortion without at least informing that individual Of what she was doing Especially if they're married I know that's such a horrific obstacle isn't it But you see the way they keep talking about it's a woman's body It's a woman's body It's also a baby's body This is the one case where it's two bodies It's two bodies She doesn't talk about viability because she doesn't care about viability
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Argument
"So we're going to talk a little bit about how Politico even got a hold of this draft, but I want to talk about the substance of the opinion. Jesse briefly, what does this draft say? The opinion itself strikes down roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey the 1992 opinion that pretty significantly cut back on the right to an abortion, but preserved the fundamental freedom to choose to terminate a pregnancy. It strikes them down really in quite sweeping and certain terms because among other things, as justice Alito writes in the draft, there is no right to abortion in the constitution. In fact, the constitution says nothing about abortion at all. And also because as he put it, there is no long-standing right to have an abortion in this country until we got to the late 1960s, early 1970s, with the ruling in row in the first place. So it's about as worst case scenario as you could get for those of us who believe in protecting a woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body, but it's not unexpected. So there was talk that maybe the court would set a standard for viability or something narrower than what this decision appears to look like. And I think a lot of conservatives have argued that all this court is doing is sending the decision back to the states. But is that how you're reading this? Is that what the intention here is? That's literally what the court is doing. Yes, it sends the decision back to the state. It allows states to ban abortion outright if they choose. It allows states to legalize abortion if they so choose. Most states, I think if not all states are on the record and doing one or the other of those things or regulating it somewhere in between. But I think I will say and I'm sure Michelle has a lot to say about this as well that we all know this isn't the real endgame because there's a whole movement behind the anti abortion movement that is this so called fetal personhood movement, which attempts to vest fetuses with the rights of born people. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a very strong effort nationwide to not just send this matter back to the states, but to make it difficult for states to legalize abortion at all. Michelle, again, this is a draft decision, a decision has not yet actually been made. But what would this mean for people seeking abortions? Who's access is likely to be most restricted? So I agree with Jesse that the ultimate endgame is nationwide abortion ban, although it's not something that's going to happen imminently as long as we have a democratic president. I think that there will be a debate if there's ever a Republican trifecta. Again, which there's likely to be about whether they should get rid of the filibuster in order to enact a total abortion ban. But for the time being, if this is the decision that comes down in June, you're going to see abortion banned in the 13th states that have what are called trigger laws. So these are laws that basically say if and when a row is overturned, abortion is illegal in this state. There's a bunch of other states that have still their pre row abortion bans on the books and those could start to be enforced. So the estimates I've seen are that somewhere between 24 and 26 states abortion will be banned. So in blue states, abortion will still be available, although what's going to happen is it's going to become harder to access just as a matter of crowding. Every state with functioning clinics are likely to be overrun. The other thing that I think is going to happen is that women who have miscarriages are going to come under a lot of suspicion, maybe not all within, you know, maybe not sort of white middle class women with private doctors, but a woman who shows up in the hospital, having a miscarriage, it's going to be, what did you do to cause this? It's just going to be a mess. Again, because so many of these decisions are going to be left to individual prosecutors and also because doctors are going to have to operate under sort of worst case scenario of how this legislation can be interpreted. It's also worth talking about what Jesse said about these fetal personhood laws because these have already been enacted in many, many states. The idea is to sort of set a precedent to fetal personhood that would make it easier to overturn roe versus wade or easier to kind of conceptualize the fetus as a distinct person in the law in the culture and the reason I think this is really, really important is because before row by and large, women were not going to prison for clandestine abortions. They would sometimes be threatened with prosecution in order to get them to testify against doctors or against abortion providers. But abortion was the crime, the crime wasn't murder. And so we now have a very different situation after 49 years of arguing about fetal personhood of arguing that abortion is kind of a type of homicide. So you already are seeing there's a bunch of cases where women have been prosecuted under fetal homicide laws or fetal endangerment laws for doing drugs while they were pregnant for attempting suicide while they were pregnant. And it's only been roe versus wade that has stopped prosecutors from prosecuting women who have abortions, right? They've always had to have an exception in these fetal endangerment and fetal homicide laws for abortion because of roe versus wade. But that in a few months, that likely changes. And so we already have some intimations of what this is going to look like. I want to back up a little bit also because I think that there's been a lot of doom saying and doom scrolling going on online, particularly talking about what this could mean that this will obviously mean that loving versus Virginia is gone. Is gone. But there's a whole paragraph of the draft decision that ties Casey to a bunch of decisions, including loving versus Virginia, which struck down laws against interracial marriage. The case skinner versus Oklahoma, which was about the right not to be sterilized without consent, fascinating case, very disturbing, but also discusses such cases. Lawrence V Texas, which ended sodomy bands and obergefell versus Hodges, which instilled marriage equality across the land. And as someone who now has been married for 7 years, huge fan. So I think that my concern here is that a lot of people who are very concerned about this draft are tying together a lot of different pieces here. And I do not want to be wrong about this. I do not want every Cassandra online to be correct. But I don't think that this decision is the first step to winding back every civil rights decision we've ever had. There's been a march for life every January for my entire life before. There's no march against loving versus Virginia. Not yet. But that's the thing. It's like, I'm not sure. I am. I think that I think that we shouldn't lump all these things together, right? I mean, yes, I don't think that this is the end of every single civil right, obviously. I don't think that there is a constituency in this country for repealing, loving versus Virginia. Obergefell, I think, might be a little bit more vulnerable, especially because it's very explicitly, I mean, Jesse can correct me if I'm wrong, but based on.
The Eric Metaxas Show
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Eric Metaxas Show
"But John, I want to get into some of these the logistics of what we're talking about, because not everybody's tracking. Roe V wade, and I forget the other case, were Planned Parenthood V Casey in 1992. As a result of some of the cases that the court heard very recently, if the court rules a certain way, it would effectively overturn roe V wade and send this horrible thing back to the states, which people make such a big deal of it. Like, oh, then other people are going to get to decide. It's not the law of the land. Every state's going to have to make some decisions on this. So they act like, well, that's the end of abortion. We're never going to, it's not even that. I wish it were. But the point is that how does it work? In other words, they hear this, then different justices are picked to draft opinions, but it's held for months and months and months until what? In other words, until June, they vote on it. How does that work? I don't know the details of when it becomes official. I think it has to be officially published in the name of the court for it to become the mystical law of the land. I mean, it makes me stick to my stomach that court decisions determine what are law in this country. That's not democratic. It's not Republican. It's not American. But that's where we are. I'm actually, I don't even understand what you just said. 5 lawyers. 5 lawyers getting what laws are launched. Call the Supreme Court and you need a backstop. I mean, look, if everybody in America voted, kill all the Jews, wouldn't you want an arm of government to say, excuse me, we can't do that. And if people voted that way, they wouldn't listen to a court
The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Times: Daily news from the L.A. Times
"Argument this morning in case 1913 92 Dobbs versus Jackson women's health organization. General Stewart, mister chief justice and May it please the court. Roe versus wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, haunt our country. They have no basis in the constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. In anticipation of the Supreme Court making this decision, the times is looking at the issue from a number of perspectives. Today, the complicated story of how evangelicals mobilize around restricting abortion and one woman's place in all of this..
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"The state's law. Thank you, your honor. I find that really shocking, Andrew. I know we all know that's what's going on, but is this one of the first times they've been so bold as to be in front of the Supreme Court and say, overturn roe, it isn't, but it is the first time that advocates could have the level of confidence that you just heard in that closing argument on behalf of the state of Mississippi. So we've talked about this. We did a deep dive into Planned Parenthood versus Casey, a two parter, back in season one. And that was the last time that the right wing tried this trick. They looked at it and they said, hey, we've had a pretty good run. We had an awful lot of Nixon appointments, then Jimmy Carter was president for like 8 and a half seconds, and then you know we had back to back terms of Ronald Reagan plus bush like we've controlled the presidency as Republicans for all but four years from 1969 all the way up to 1992 and shocker what that means is we've had an awful lot of Republican Supreme Court nominees, the courts way more conservative than it was in the 70s, which was true. And so why don't we test these Reagan appointees out? And see if we can get the court to overturn explicitly overturn roe versus wade. And so what they did was they crafted a series of laws that were designed broadly to appeal to the public, but also plainly too violate the roe versus wade trimester standard. Again, we've been through that. Go back listen to those initial Casey episodes, because I think we did really, really good work in that and maybe a historical footnote in a couple of months. So the road test said that the state may not burden. In other words, it was a trimester balancing test. It had absolutely nothing to do with the viability of the fetus or anything like that except that it roughly coincided. What a pin in that everybody. Yeah, it roughly coincided that fetal viability in 1973 was roughly equivalent to the third trimester. But instead, what the court did, the government did a classic kind of balancing interest, and they said, and again, I'm going to use the archaic language from roe versus wade. We've spoken on this issue a lot. It is very, very important to know that men that trans men can become pregnant that has led to hospitalizations, death, a parade of horribles. We have spoken out on that. I mean, when people don't recognize that fact. Yes, exactly. Right. You know, it's led to men who come in who are marked as men in the hospital say they're pregnant and then they don't get triage. We are in solidarity with you are trans listeners. This is the case from 1973. Roe versus wade said, there are two important interests here. There is the state's interest in protecting future life, and there is the women's liberty interest in determining what to do with their own body. So we came up with a three part balancing test, right? We said, hey, first trimester, the woman's liberty interest is Paramount and therefore the state may not restrict may not interfere with her right to have an abortion. Third trimester states liberty interest is Paramount and, therefore, the state may outlaw abortion entirely in the third trimester. It doesn't have to. But it can. And then in the middle, they're in equipoise. And so we will tolerate regulations, but not outright banning. And that was the state of the law for 20 years. And then Pennsylvania and a bunch of other states in the early 90s act the direction completely AstroTurf ginned up by the same groups that are doing this now. Decided that what they wanted to do was come up with legislation that was broadly popular that would nevertheless contravene the roe versus wade trimester system. And what they came up with was parental consent laws. And again, I am opposed to these laws. We are both opposed to these laws, but you can understand the focus group driven nature of how these laws were crafted. It was, hey, your daughter's 15 shouldn't you have a say? Shouldn't you at least know if she's going to get a clock? Do you know if your daughter's getting an abortion or not? Exactly right. And that wound up being a very good wedge issue in getting suburban parents who would identify as pro choice, right? Who certainly were not pro life to say, well, okay, but this seems like a reasonable restriction. You should tell me if my daughter is about to have a medical procedure. Never minding, of course, that the only reason not to tell parents based on significant in family abuse. We don't need to go down there. But notice that that structure violated the road trimester system because you had to inform the parents and to get their consent. So that would be like a regulation in the first trimester. Right, exactly. It would be a regulation throughout, and that's prohibited in the first trimester. So when Planned Parenthood versus Casey was teed up, the first question that was asked, the way that it was argued was, you should overturn roe V wade. This is a good example of that. You were a little young, Planned Parenthood versus Casey's in 1992 decision. I was a politically aware teenager and there was the same level of tension of, hey, the Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in Planned Parenthood versus Casey. This could be the case that overturns roe versus wade. And it was heralded as a surprise and, you know, a victory for the, you know, sort of apolitical impartiality of the Supreme Court when three, as you say. Three Republican appointees. Yeah, go ahead. Well, as you say, a court that had been controlled by Republican presidents for whatever, 30 something years minus four, whatever, not even that court would out and out overturn roe on the flip side, a court that is full of appointees from presidents who have not won the popular vote except a single time in the past, however many decades, they, on the other hand, are going to overturn row. And it's sickening. I don't even know how to deal with it emotionally. Yeah, and the reason is that this court has abandoned all pretense of being a political and trying to reach the proper result. I would read a little bit from the majority opinion. Again, written by three Republican appointees, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and not people, not too many people know this because he drifted immediately to the left, but David suter, George W. Bush appointee. Back then, they did not have the federalist society gatekeeping to make sure that you only appointed ideologues. And what happened was George W. Bush appointed somebody that was recommended to him as a jurist of impeccable intelligence and integrity in David souter and got that. Thank you to happen too, but in any event, the Casey opinion, written by those three Republican appointees, begins, part one says liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. Yet 19 year. They were like, man, it's been two decades of overrated. It's not 5. 19 years after our holding that the constitution protects a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages, that definition of liberty is still questioned. Joining the respondents is amicus curiae, the United States, as it is done in 5 other cases in the last decade, again asks us to overrule row. And then it goes into the importance of starry decisis and I'm sure we're going to talk about that. But to begin kind of this monument is holding with, when we're talking about fundamental rights, this should not be something that is up for grabs based on the political content of the Supreme Court. I'm guessing you're not going to see that language written in a majority opinion or concurrence, except possibly ironically, in this case..
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on WTOP
"The first time in nearly three decades the future of abortion rights is facing its most consequential test when the Supreme Court convenes tomorrow at the center of the case before the Supreme Court a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy And joining a slide to talk more about it Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert Barnes Robert great to have you back here on P what's at the center of this very high profile case Well it's a big term for abortion rights at the Supreme Court as you know This Mississippi case is one that would say there can be no abortions after 15 weeks with some very limited exceptions And that is well ahead of what the Supreme Court precedence would allow The Supreme Court precedents in row and in a case called Planned Parenthood the Casey said that states can not prohibit abortions before the point of viability that is when the fetus could survive outside the womb And that's usually thought of as 22 to 24 weeks So this law is clearly in conflict with that What are some of the potential outcomes from the high court Could they uphold the Mississippi law without overturning row Well you know the Supreme Court can do whatever it wants to People on both the left and the right say that it's very hard to square those precedents with this law Now the court has said that the court that the states can not put an undue burden over a woman's right to abortion before the point of viability And Mississippi does also say that this is not an undue burden They only clinic in Mississippi only provides abortion up to 16 weeks But this idea of not allowing a prohibitions before viability that's one that's hard to square with the Mississippi law Robert you write about justice clarence Thomas the court's longest serving justice Perhaps the most conservative member as well What kind of influence will he have in the courtroom during this case Well as you talked about it's been 30 years now since Thomas was a dissenter in Planned Parenthood V Casey and said that he did not believe roe was correctly decided he does not think that the constitution provides a right to abortion He has written that many times in this intervening time And you know at the time that he first said that he was the junior rookie member of the Supreme Court He is now the senior member of the Supreme Court And there are more justices who are conservative share his conservative viewpoint now on the court than there has ever been in his tenure Appreciate your time and getting us set up for tomorrow That's Washington Post Supreme Court reporter Robert.
TIME's Top Stories
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"In other words, the Supreme Court, with its 6 to three conservative majority featuring Amy Coney Barrett in place of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is prepared to review the precedent of roe V wade itself. It's been clear for 50 years that a ban like Mississippi's is unconstitutional. Rickman says, if the Supreme Court upholds this ban, it will have effectively overturned roe V wade. The case comes at a delicate political moment. In the past year, state legislatures have passed a record breaking 106 new laws restricting abortion and in September, Texas implemented the nation's single strictest abortion law since 1973, banning nearly all abortions after 6 weeks of pregnancy. The Texas law may also come before the Supreme Court this term. The stakes of this moment recommend says our monumental. A grounding in human rights. Rigelman has been preparing for this fight for decades. Born in Kyiv, she emigrated to the U.S. with her parents in 1979. After they experienced severe discrimination in the former Soviet Union for being Jewish. Her mother was blocked from medical school because of her religion. And when her parents arrived here, barely speaking English, they had to restart their careers from scratch. Rickman herself learned English as a second language and says seeing her family's struggle shaped her interest in civil rights from an early age. I definitely grew up thinking about how important it was for people to be able to make personal decisions about their lives for themselves. She says and not have the government make those decisions for them. In school, Rickman sometimes felt like an outsider, but in college, she found her niche. She remembers taking a class on sex discrimination that introduced her to Supreme Court cases about reproductive rights. She had found her calling. She still keeps that college textbook in her office. Some of the cases she reads now in her work at the center for reproductive rights are the same ones she underlined as a 19 year old. After falling in love with constitutional law, Rickman clerked for a judge at the third circuit Court of Appeals, and the first female judge on the Alaska Supreme Court. Then, accepted a fellowship at the center for reproductive rights. The powerful nonprofit that was founded in 1992 to represent the abortion clinic at the heart of Planned Parenthood V Casey. The lesser known Supreme Court case that upheld the right to abortion that year. After a stint as vice president of litigation at NBCUniversal, Rickman returned to the center in 2011 and has been there ever since. In the years after the center for reproductive rights was founded, it grew quickly into a legal powerhouse, employing 75 lawyers and wielding a $40 million budget to fight many of the country's high profile abortion legal battles of an alongside Planned Parenthood and the American civil liberties union, more recently, its role has become even more outsized. In the decades since Rickman joined the center as a senior attorney, the types of lawsuits aimed at abortion access have changed..
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"On bypass. But if you do, we are that this is what a conditional. That's the if then. We are then cross petitioning for cert and we think the question should be and this is the first time this would be put before the court. This starkly should this court overrule roe V wade and Planned Parenthood V Casey. So there you have it. I don't know how if this were a functioning Supreme Court. This is the kind of own goal error that gets you reversed 9 to nothing. Because seriously, think of what they have just presented in their brief. They have said to the Supreme Court of the United States, there was absolutely no conflict with the existing precedents that this court has set out and the existing law and interpretation of the constitution that protects the right to an abortion. And in forcing Texas SBA. But also, if you do take this case up on the merits, we would like to reverse Planned Parenthood. Unrelated, you know, just while you're at it unrelated to the case here, but just overturn roe. It is as stark in admission that your position. Well, they said in black and white. Oh, you've accused us of hiding the ball. Okay, fine. We're not hiding the ball any longer. We are opposed to roe V wade period. Can I play handmade advocate? Oh, sure. Not really, but just in the terms of what this means. You've given us many examples of pleading in the alternative or whatever. And so is this not the same as that where you're like, I didn't do it, but if I did it, then also this other thing. And it seems to me that learning from you on the show that that seems to be a common practice. It's not a huge own goal to be like, no, I didn't do it, but also, if you're going to say that I did, then here's what that kind of thing. Is this different than that? I love that you bring that up. And I think that that is a fair sort of surface level argument to say like, no wait, like you can request different kinds of relief. That's why I read the previous passage, right? Because this is not a question about the this is we've now moved past the request for relief. That is, are you going to reverse the 5th circuit and lift the stay in permit the injunction to go forward or not? This is a question about what does the appeal mean? And on the question of, again, you can also plead in the alternative in terms of certified questions, but you can't win something is a certified question in your petition, you must answer that question. You must actually take a stand. So that's the thing that I think makes this different than just ordinary pleading in the alternative. Because when you say to the Supreme Court, so for example, the case that is pending for which oral arguments will be heard on December 1st. That is Dobbs versus Jackson women's health. The certified question in that case is whether the constitution prohibits all pre viability abortions. Because remember the Alabama law that is the subject of that case prohibits abortions after 16 weeks, and 16 weeks is pre viability. So you had to take and the parties did. Take a position on that certified question. Alabama said, no, it doesn't. Jackson women's health said yes, it does. So when you put as your certified question, whether the Supreme Court should overrule roe V wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey, you were saying, yeah, we're taking a yes. That's not a maybe. That's not an in the alternative. That is our position as the state is X, that's not good law. And I don't know how you can say as a state, we don't think that's part of the constitution, but by the way, you can trust us to respect that part of the constitution in connection with our law that completely contravenes. So I see the distinction there. So it's a little bit different than simply pleading in the alternative. Yeah. But I love it. Again, let's paint the most the most robust picture we can. Does this then become an opportunity for the court to overturn row even earlier than we thought they might? No, if the Supreme Court were to grant bypass cirt they would consolidate the cases. Okay. It's October 21. You would say, let's get expedited briefing and we'll hear you at the same time that we hear Jackson. Which by the way is actually a reasonably smart thing. Assuming you had a Supreme Court that was interested in doing its job rather than a Supreme Court that's interested in making abortion illegal as quickly as possible. You know, you would say, yeah, look like this seems to be the exact same question that we're about to hear from. My prediction is you're going to get a one line procurement opinion that says, it is the judgment of this court that the judgment of the 5th circuit staying the injunction issued by the U.S. district court for the central division of Texas is hereby affirmed period. And then you're going to get four descents. You're going to get a moderate descent from Roberts joined by the other three liberals. And then you're going to get a fulminating descent, probably from Sotomayor joined by the other two serious voices on the court. But probably not joined by Roberts on the maps. So that's what we're going to see. The show's brought to you by Roman. Squeaky doors, clog sinks, finicky engines, when things break around the house, you take care of it. But when something's off in the bedroom, most people just try to not think.
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on BrainStuff
"Both roe v wade and planned parenthood v casey so let's talk about precedence. They're considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving similar facts or legal issues. The concept called stereo decisiveness. Which means let the decision stand in. Latin provide stability and predictability in law when a new president is established or laws changed on an issue. It's known as a landmark decision olym- quiz said president is one of the cornerstones of our judicial system. The system of president provides that when courts make decisions in those decisions become law they will remain on the books until that same court or an appellate court overrules those precedents a judges and justices often rely on precedents to make rulings and other cases. A for example. Five justices relied on the precedent. Set by casey when striking down a louisiana law that would have required doctors performing abortions to have emissions privileges at a state authorized hospital within thirty miles. Forty eight kilometers of the clinic. The supreme court can overturn in existing precedent with the majority vote. And this happens perhaps surprisingly more often the general public realizes about two to three times a term linquist says though these cases unlike row aren't ones that make the news. If roe is ultimately ended the aftershocks would be felt immediately eleven states have trigger laws in place that would instantly ban abortions conversely fourteen states plus washington. Dc have laws in place to protect abortion access. Overturning roe would also add strength to texas's sp eight law linquist says however if roe is upheld quote it will have major implications for the texas case simply because it will reaffirm the core right to abortion prior to viability. The supreme court isn't likely to deliver a decision in the mississippi case until these spring or early summer of twenty twenty two..
The Michael Knowles Show
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Michael Knowles Show
"And this is what our society is now exalting as the height of freedom the freedom of a sixty three year old woman to dress up like a like a woman of ill repute alona onstage putatively for the sexual ratification of the audience. But i don't think that was actually the effect. That's the height freedom right. no. I don't think so. This is i mentioned george orwell earlier. This is really aldous huxley. This is really brave new world. This is the state coming in and undermining people's freedom by appealing to their most base desires which unfortunately is a product not just the radical left but also of the libertarians who mistake pursuing your appetites. And your whatever disorder desires you have for true freedom and the result of that is that people become enslaved to their sexual desires. People become enslaved to their drug desires. People become enslaved to all manner of selfishness and they lose the ability to govern themselves. And this is exploited by bad men who want to rule over you regardless of your constitutional order. Okay really bad stuff. And it's no coincidence that this has happened with the decline of religion. John adams set the constitution's built for moral and religious people. It is not fit to govern anyone else. That wasn't just a talking point that why when he was observing that. If you do not have religion and morality to reign in your bassist appetites which are licentious. They're not they're not true liberty. Then you're not gonna you're not gonna be able to attain liberty. You're not gonna be able to cover yourself so it's no coincidence that we have lost. Our political rights as religion has declined. There was a study just came out versus. Yeah i guess. I guess you'd call this study. It seems like kind of suspect. Study from the christian post is reporting on it. Study was published by the cultural research center of arizona. Christian university says that most adult. Us christians don't believe the holy spirit israel now look. I'm no statistician. I'm no social scientist. But i'm pretty sure one hundred percent of us. Christians believe the holy spirit israel and the reason is if you don't believe the holy spirit is real. You're not a christian study. Says christians don't believe in the holy spirit but ontological and the definition of words says they do because they do because you just can't be a christian. You don't believe that but this is. This is part of the same problem that you see in transgenderism that you see all the kooky radical racial ideologies that you've seen the oppression olympics. It's the idea that you you actually sit in planned. Parenthood v casey when anthony kennedy came out and said that everyone has the right to define his concept of existence. You don't you don't have the right to just define what a christian is outside of christianity. You don't have a right. You don't have a right to identify as christian if you're not a christian you don't have a right to do all of these kooky things but this this identity politics this ever less less and less coherent identity. Politics is ripping the country. Report your seat on the football field right now. The nfl has decided this season to debut black national anthem at games. There's something called the black national anthem. And i guess it's the song lift every voice and sing and they're gonna play it before each gain as part of a quarter billion dollar investment towards social justice. Whatever that is so. This is a black national anthem now. Whatever whatever this song is. It's not a national anthem..
WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on WSJ Opinion: Potomac Watch
"I i mean there's a part of this texas law that says someone an abortion provider. Who's sued under it has an affirmative defense. They can point to roe v. Wade they can point to planned. Parenthood v casey Up until the supreme court overrules a if and when those those decisions and so you could imagine a state like california passing a law The second amendment the big second amendment decision it of course is is heller. You'd imagine state like california saying private citizens are assault. Weapons are banned in the state of california and no state official may enforce that private citizens may sue other private citizens I if they haven't assault weapon in their homes and defendants can point to heller up until the point at which heller is is overruled I mean i think that second amendment advocates would have a big problem with the law like that. Well absolutely i mean and by the way so called. Assault weapons are already. I don't think they're allowed in california. But it would be more just simply had a handgun or rifle or something that there seems to be little question that the supreme court protects your second amendment right to own or for instance climate change suits holding companies responsible or holding individuals responsible. If they don't have clean energy enough homes or whatever it is we really don't want to get into the business of deputising private citizens to sue other individuals For things that they believe to be Transgressions of law or moral code It's a it's a very scary thing to get into. And i think something like it. Almost strikes me. This law was a little too clever by half clearly was designed to escape the kind of scrutiny that the court says imposed in the past on abortion laws by coming up with this work around of deputising average citizens to be the ones doing the suits rather than public officials. But it's a terrible precedent. And i don't think the republicans who put it into place really thought through all of the ramifications And that goes to a lot of levels by the way to which we can talk about just whether or not in in general Going this far with the law that they have and giving democrats all the ammunition that they now are. Whether or not all of this was. We'll be worth it or my actually set back the cause of those who have been trying to rein in to some degree. Some of the more expansive abortion laws across the country bill. What's your your rita. That i mean the way that i am seeing this essentially a texas recognizes even in the law that abortion providers right..
The Charlie Kirk Show
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"And she's in charge of a certain circuit courts the way it is that every single one of the. Us supreme court justices the oversee a certain circuit court for emergency appeals. They could decide to take them right opinions on them. It's not a final decision but they all over see that area. They can block it though so. Us supreme court justice amy coney barrett refuses to block indiana university's vaccine vaccine mandate for students. She acted alone and gave no explanation. She's from indiana. She's also a practicing catholic. Why the inaction what's a couple of reasons number one. This is a tough fight. Don't count on the court to pick tough fights where the political will of a nation is not in alignment alexander. Hamilton famously predicted this. He said the courts will almost never challenge public opinion. And we know this throughout history. I mean the courts made a terrible decision that dread scott decision seven two two seven democrats to republicans as dissenting because public opinion was that blacks were not humans at the time an awful and disgusting an evil dosage. It's time progressed. And public opinion changed the courts reverse their decision. Actually no just kidding. We believe that all humans are created equal if they just would have listened to the tenants of the united states constitution and declaration of independence. They wouldn't have had to do some sort of movement in the dread scott decision to come to that conclusion but instead the court's conformed public opinion. How about griswold. V connecticut griswold. V connecticut was around birth. Control was the last state to fall when it came to the pill public opinion. Very much in favor of allowing the pill. The courts allowed it to happen. How about roe versus wade and the doe case that accompanied it public opinion said abortion should be safe legal and rare and the courts. Let it happen. How planned parenthood v casey. Mikey can check this. I think it was one thousand. Ninety two was planned. Parenthood v casey famous justice anthony. Kennedy's interpretive clause life is what you want it to be. I'm not gonna tell you that. There's one way to live on the other ninety two nineteen. I was right in nineteen ninety-two the courts conform to the people now. This is something that we as conservatives. Don't talk about enough. We think that the courts are going to make sober and fair and unbiased decisions regardless of the clamoring the chattering class hamilton. Never thought never thought this isn't the case he wrote about this in the federalist papers and you wrote about this in his private journals and alexander. Hamilton is actually a ghost rider for a lot of george washington speeches in a second term of his presidency. Now the idea of judicial review came in thanks to marbury versus madison. Which really kind of enshrine this idea that. The supreme court is a co equal branch of government. The supreme court has the ability to have a check and balance against tyrants and dust spots or unconstitutional measures when the legislature as we've covered extensively in a previous episode of our podcast. Joe biden has just basically said. I don't care if the supreme court says i am going to do. What i believe is right let roberts sent his army. Let marshall sent his armies. Andrew jackson said an booster versed beaver. V georgia a lot of people debate whether it or not but the essence definitely fits andrew jackson's persona. So i guess we're left to this question. What do we do. Here's a big lesson for conservatives. We have to cut it with the messianic complex of politics. What does that mean. It means we as conservatives like to outsource our hope to other people. Oh donald trump's gonna solve everything. He's in a comment on air force. One and the country will be made great again that if we get the right people in the supreme court that's gonna turn the nation around. We know that's not true. We know that outsourcing our hope to a group of people. If you have your hope in people you will be let down. Here's a newsflash. You get a leader. Like lincoln and churchill. Once every hundred years. We were lucky to have. In one generation both reagan fatter churchill. Eisenhower would be in addition to that. Most of our leaders are gutless wonders. Compared to lincoln churchill fatter in reagan. So just going. All in on one person is doomed to fail to look at the roman empire. You know what happens when you have a great emperor. Marcus aurelius great. Emperors usually have really bad kids communists and the whole empire starts to fall. Apart could work for a moment. But there's no sustainability to it now. I'm not saying that. Amy conybeare editor brett. Caviar neal gorsuch roman emperors but a lot of power and we haven't invested as the conservative movement too much in individuals now. I'm glad the supreme court has a majority. I'm glad that we're going to at least have some sort of a check and balance on joe biden's activism but we're gonna let down more and more. Now maybe things will change. But amy conybeare it and brent cavanaugh neal gorsuch to a lesser extent and definitely. Not clarence thomas. Let me make sure. I clarify this. Clarence thomas is an american hero. You wanna talk about someone who never cares about. The other side is to say about him. Clarence thomas clarence thomas. Ten out of ten alito nine. Ten gorsuch eight out of ten cabin on amy coney barrett t b d. We don't know we thought brett cabinet. I was gonna come on the scene because the left slandered him so much. Well he's been okay on certain decisions but not great and any coney. Barrett has been lackluster at best now. She had an opportunity to intervene and say experimental. Medicine cannot be forced upon the students of the great state of indiana..
Democracy Now! Audio
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio
"Control by china since democracy now democracy now dot org the warren peace report. I'm amy goodman as we turn now to another right. Democrats face mounting pressure to preserve women's right to control their own bodies and choose to have an abortion advocates note. President biden has not publicly. Said the word abortion wants since he became precedent until two thousand nineteen supported the hyde amendment which bans federal funding for abortions enforces medicaid patients in most states to pay for their abortions who are stay pregnant because they can't afford the procedure well on monday for the first time in four decades a key house subcommittee cleared a spending bill for the department of health and human services without including the hyde amendment. This is appropriations committee. Chairwoman rosa delauro. I know that this is an issue. On which many of us disagree but regardless of the original intent of hide it has disproportionately impacted women of color and it is alternately. Lead to more unintended pregnancies and later riskier and more costly abortions quite frankly allowing the hyde amendment to remain on the books is a disservice not only to our constituents but also to the values that we espouse as a nation we are finally doing what is right for mothers our families our communities by striking this discriminatory amendment once and for all this comes as a now ultra conservative supreme court etc review in mississippi law intended to challenge roe v. Wade that would ban abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. If roe v wade does not survive reproductive rights be preserved without for more we're joined by the co authors of a new book that addresses this question just out today. It's titled controlling women what we must do now to save reproductive freedom in philadelphia. Catherine colbert joins us longtime public interest. Attorney who argued the landmark case of planned parenthood v casey before the supreme court in one thousand nine hundred ninety two which is credited with saving roe v. Wade and in new york. Julie k is a human rights attorney. Who's argued for abortion rights internationally including for the european court of human rights in abc versus ireland which prompted the liberalisation of ireland's abortion law. We welcome you both to democracy. Now could he colbert. Let's begin with you. We have a democratic president. Democrats control the senate and the house. President biden has not said the word abortion since becoming president Can you talk about the significance of this and what you think has to happen right now if you believe row. V wade were If you throw v wade were to be overturned. And if it isn't thanks amy it's great to be here and let me just say i think it's more important for the president to do the right thing not to talk about it so i'm not disturbed by the fact that he hasn't mentioned the question of abortion but And i do think that. The fact that the hyde amendment efforts to repeal the hyde amendment are going to congress are a very good thing. But let's remember that bill has a long long way to go It has to get through the house and the senate and there are not currently a sufficient votes to Support a hide free bill so we we have a long way to go. Let's go back though to the the more important question is what's the supreme court in the do around this issue and i think it's very very likely that the court will either eradicate the right to choose abortion as we now know it completely or so undermine at to make meaningless for most of american women and that means that we as a nation need to stand up and make changes both at the state level and in congress to ensure that our rights are protected. And unless we do so unless we change tactics unless we go forward with a new vision of what's possible We're gonna be in for a very very very difficult. A period of talking you explain the hyde amendment short so the hyde amendment isn't appropriation to is a wider appropriations bill. It prevents a poor women of those who collect a medicaid funding whom obtaining an abortion and there are high like restrictions on a whole range of federal laws that prohibit for example women in the military women than peace corps Arrange anyone who receives essentially a federal funding for their healthcare from obtaining abortions. And what this means is that the ability to have a baby is paid for the ability to every other type of healthcare is paid for except abortion and what that means for poor women is they don't have the means to obtain service It is extremely discriminatory against poor women. Young women women of color and it means that their ability to exercise that choice they want is prohibit. This is justice. Ruth bader ginsburg speaking during her nineteen ninety. Three supreme court confirmation hearing my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy. And my answer to you is. it's it's both. This is something central to a woman's life to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her she's being treated as less than fully adult human responsible for her own choices. Ruth bader ginsburg was unapologetically. pro choice. She was confirmed ninety. Six to three. That was nine thousand. Nine hundred ninety. Three kitty colbert in one thousand. Nine hundred ninety two. You made your second appearance before the. Us supreme court arguing planned parenthood versus casey the landmark case widely credited with saving roe v. Wade with what has been called one of the most audacious litigation strategies in supreme court history. Can you lay that out what it is how you argue this well. Let's say Ab that the what happened in one thousand nine hundred is being replicated. Now we had at the time believed that roe is going to be overturned and in fact there were five votes at the time to a repeal roe to totally eliminate it. It was only the last minute. Change by justice kennedy That lead to what we now know is planned parenthood versus casey. And what that case did is it established that you had a right to have an abortion up until the time of ability but stay had a lot more power to restrict those rights and over the years. They've chipped away and chipped away and chipped away what we now think of as the right to choose abortion and and at what that's meant is many many women particularly poor Poor women and young women have been unable to obtain services in states all across the country as the court has gotten more conservative. We're likely to see not only Replication of that but at this point. I think it's absolutely clear. There are six clear votes on this court to eliminate row said the question back to the states and then we are back to a a state by state question state. Legislatures will have tremendous power to ban abortion. And we estimate that about a third of the states in this country will ban abortion. Should the court the right to do that. This is how you began your opening argument in the us. Supreme.
Democracy Now! Audio
"parenthood v casey" Discussed on Democracy Now! Audio
"Control by china jackson since democracy now democracy now dot org the warren peace report. I'm amy goodman as we turn now to another right. Democrats face mounting pressure to preserve women's right to control their own bodies and choose to have an abortion advocates note. President biden has not publicly. Said the word abortion wants since he became president until two thousand nineteen supported the hyde amendment which bans federal funding for abortions enforces medicaid patients in most states to pay for their abortions are stay pregnant because they can't afford the procedure well on monday for the first time. In four decades a key house subcommittee cleared a spending bill for the department of health and human services without including the hyde amendment. This is appropriations committee. Chairwoman rosa delauro. I know that this is an issue. On which many of us disagree but regardless of the original intent of hide it has disproportionately impacted women of color and it is alternately. Lead to more unintended pregnancies and later riskier and more costly abortions quite frankly allowing the hyde amendment to remain on the books is a disservice not only to our constituents but also to the values that we espouse as a nation we are finally doing what is right for mothers our families our communities by striking this discriminatory amendment once and for all this comes as a now ultra conservative supreme court etc review in mississippi law intended to challenge roe v. Wade that would ban abortion after fifteen weeks of pregnancy. If roe v wade does not survive reproductive rights be preserved without for more we're joined by the co authors of a new book that addresses this question just out today. It's titled controlling women what we must do now to save reproductive freedom in philadelphia. Catherine colbert joins us longtime public interest. Attorney who argued the landmark case of planned parenthood v casey before the supreme court in one thousand nine hundred ninety two which is credited with saving roe v. Wade and in new york. Julie k is a human rights attorney. Who's argued for abortion rights internationally including for the european court of human rights in abc versus ireland which prompted the liberalisation of ireland's abortion law. We welcome you both to democracy. Now could he colbert. Let's begin with you. We have a democratic president. Democrats control the senate and the house. President biden has not said the word abortion since becoming president Can you talk about the significance of this and what you think has to happen right now if you believe row. V wade were If you throw v wade were to be overturned. And if it isn't thanks amy it's great to be here and let me just say i think it's more important for the president to do the right thing not to talk about it so i'm not disturbed by the fact that he hasn't mentioned the question of abortion but And i do think that. The fact that the hyde amendment efforts to repeal the hyde amendment are going to congress are a very good thing. But let's remember that bill has a long long way to go It has to get through the house and the senate and there are not currently a sufficient votes to Support a hide free bill so we we have a long way to go. Let's go back though to the the more important question is what the supreme court in the do around this issue. And i think it's very very likely that the court will either eradicate the right to choose abortion as we now know it completely or so undermine at to make meaningless for most of american women and that means that we as a nation need to stand up and make changes both at the state level And in congress to ensure that our rights are protected. And unless we do so unless we change tactics unless we go forward with a new vision of what's possible We're gonna be in for a very very very difficult. A period of talking you explain the hyde amendment short so the hyde amendment isn't appropriation to is a wider appropriations bill. It prevents a poor women of those who collect a medicaid funding whom obtaining an abortion and there are high like restrictions on a whole range of federal laws that prohibit for example women in the military women than peace corps Arrange anyone who receives essentially a federal funding for their healthcare from obtaining abortions. And what this means is that the ability to have a baby is paid for the ability to every other type of healthcare is paid for except abortion and what that means for poor women is they don't have the means to obtain service It is extremely discriminatory against poor women. Young women Women of color and it means that their ability to exercise that choice they want is prohibit. This is justice ruth bader ginsburg speaking during her nineteen ninety. Three supreme court confirmation hearing my thinking about equal protection versus individual autonomy. And my answer to you is. it's it's both. This is something central to a woman's life to her dignity. It's a decision that she must make for herself. And when government controls that decision for her she's being treated as less than fully adult human responsible for her own choices. Ruth bader ginsburg was unapologetically. pro choice. She was confirmed ninety. Six to three. That was nine thousand. Nine hundred ninety. Three kitty colbert in one thousand. Nine hundred ninety two. You made your second appearance before the. Us supreme court arguing planned parenthood versus casey the landmark case widely credited with saving roe v. Wade with what has been called one of the most audacious litigation strategies in supreme court history. Can you lay that out what it is how.