22 Burst results for "Roe V Wade"
Fertile Ground
"roe v wade" Discussed on Fertile Ground
"We're starting to see that term come, but they're still a lot of work to do when those arenas. And it's us up to us in these communities to let our voices be heard. So that's what we kind of have to do. I invite the conversation around this topic on the Facebook page on the Instagram page. I want to hear how you guys feel. About this. And from an infertility perspective, what are your thoughts? And what can we do as a community to continue to support each other through these events? Because it's going to take that now. This is where we are. And we're going to have to band together even more closely as women, to support each other through these tough situations, these tough scenarios where we have to really make these life altering decisions. So I mean, that's huge. So taking a moment to kind of transition to the moral ground issue, right? So here's so so many people talk about the separation of church and state. In this. By any means, let me just put this disclaimer out there right now. I am not by any means supporting lobbying or by any means supporting telling my listeners or followers to go down in March against blah blah blah. No, that's not what I'm saying. This is about public opinion. This is about expressing your concern over over your beliefs over what you feel. And I am here to respect everyone's beliefs. I believe that everyone has a right to believe and to feel the way they choose. Because that's your, that's your prerogative. That is your God given choice. But at the same time, you know, if we're talking about the moral issue, it feels as though, you know, one can be judge and jury in certain situations, but, you know, on the other side of the fence, you're saying, you know, no one can judge anyone for their, you know, for their beliefs.
Bloomberg Businessweek
Fresh "Roe V Wade" from Bloomberg Businessweek
"Well as the editor of magazine, the Joel Weber. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, there was There was a a lot of interest in how law enforcement would use all of the data that Google has about us. And So we wanted to look at the search warrants that police are submitting to Google because we knew that that that the was best way that we could get a handle on what was actually happening. And so to do that, Davey and I and our colleagues fanned out to different courthouses around the country and we just took it page by page, thumbing through these warrants, identifying the ones that were submitted to Google, and then scrutinizing them to see the nature of the case and what cops ultimately got. So give us an example of how this has played out in the real world. So one interesting example, there was a young detective in North Carolina. He's getting ready for work. He leaves his car running and he comes out and the car is gone and inside is some police here. The police car is gone. It's like, Yes, it's his personal vehicle. But there's near inside and it's gone. And, you know, the department tells him, you know, they're very supportive. They reassure him it'll be all right. But then they go to work and they turn to Google. They send them a warrant for everyone who's devices were near the place where the vehicle disappeared. And they also asked for information about people who searched for the model of the radio. And Google told us that they didn't provide search data, but they did provide some location data. And so this is just a real world example of how property crimes are attracting these requests. And obviously with that information, they were able to get the radio back, right? They were not. The radio check in the sea. So Davey come on in on this because when it really turns upside down and you guys lay this sets out so clearly in the story. The idea of a search warrant, right, would be typically on an individual, right. And now you've got, thanks to Google, you can take a location and kind of search for information, but it feels like it opens up that information can reach a wider swath potentially of individuals, who some may not at all be connected to a possible crime. Yeah, absolutely. Tech companies hold a lot of data on people, that's no surprise. But usually when you think of search warrants, in the traditional sense, you would think, okay, police are looking at this one suspect, let's go and learn more about them. And maybe we'll serve a search warrant to a company to get information on a particular individual, a suspect. In this case, police are using the most basic parameters to even jumpstart sort of leads when they don't have any leads. So they'll, for instance, give four location coordinates. And then within these four points, you'll draw like a little polygon. And then they will say to a judge, like we have reasonable expectations that there will be a criminal that we can find within this area. If you sign off on this warrant for a certain period of time, so that's the offense warrants. then, And you know, police are also increasingly using search warrants, which are, you know, sort of warrants that are served to Google to try to surface people who have Googled a certain term. So in one of the cases that we we covered in in our our story, there was a terrible crime, it was an arson and a family he died in this fire. And what investigators did was go to Google and say, say, hey, did anyone search for this address so that that yielded some some suspects that in case? Well, let's stick with that one, because that one hasn't totally played out yet. And it gets to, I think, maybe the ultimate tension in in the story, right? Yeah, absolutely. That one, you know, the Colorado Supreme Court is going to rule on it. We don't know exactly when but we're expecting it to come down at some point this year, to just sort of decide whether or Google providing that data to investigators was an overreach on the investigators part. And, and if you think about especially searching on Google, that is just so many people that that could ensnare, you know, going back to the example that Julia mentioned at the very beginning, they police had served Google with a warrant for anyone searching on this particular car radio model. And Google did not turn over data in that case, to be clear, but you could imagine People like radio enthusiasts who might be searching for a particular radio model completely innocently who could potentially get swept up in one of these warrants. I'm guessing privacy experts have something to say about this and activists because, you know, if Carol, Tim and I get swept up in the same search, what do the privacy advocates have to say about all of this? So privacy advocates are very concerned about both of these techniques. You know, the thing is if If there's no suspect involved, then the only way that Google can provide a list of hits is to everyone's search data and so law enforcement will receive, you know, a short list of people who fit the criteria and they then have to go through and identify who they think might be their suspect but everyday people who had nothing to do with the crime are often swept up by these warrants and so I think that's really the heart of privacy advocates concerns and Legislation has been proposed in California and New York that would ban the from seeking these warrants of Google. The legislation has stalled so far but activists are still hoping to get something done on that front and the Colorado case would also be first the time that a court weighs in on the constitutionality of that keyword search Okay so how does Google feel all about this? It puts them in a difficult spot you know these are court orders they're they're not optional Google has to comply and they often are important cases however
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"Well, the opinion of the popular opinion is that we want more gun restrictions. Who's popular opinion? Liberals? CNN's, right? Did Supreme Court all of our courts? None of our courts are supposed to be looking at public opinion in their decisions, right? That's not the rule of law. Nor should things be leaked and then their house stalked out. And by the way, who's the leaker? Right. Seriously? Right. If that was a Republican, they'd have been in the gallows by now. That he's sitting in the J 6 prison, right? With no bail. That's right. That's right. January 6th, they know that a 75 year old lady was escorted in by the FBI and now she's still sitting in jail. That's right. But yet they don't know the leaker of this, right? I sure they don't. Garbage. Right. They were hoping to put pressure on the court. And how is it that we are by the way? I actually think that helped the conservatives. I mean, it got leaked out there. And instead of it being sprung now on in the midsummer, there was leaked out. People knew it was coming. I mean, not that it was good. That should never happen, but it backfired on him for sure. It did backfire on him, but the fact of the matter is that they have an out of the leaker yet, and they haven't prosecuted is outrageous. It really is. They were hoping. The fact that they were allowed the protest in front of Supreme Court judges houses, especially the ones that have kids, is out of control. You can't tell me that. Of control. How is it that a bunch of conservatives didn't show up and perform citizens arrest? Can you still do that in this country? Because that's illegal. And for the U.S., whether it's the feds or the FBI or the U.S. Marshals or whoever's tasked with protecting them. For you folks to just stand there and allow these protests to happen in front of Kavanaugh's house in front of Amy Coney Barrett's house. Shame on you. Shame on you. You should turn in your badge, turn into whatever law enforcement crunch you have and go so hot dogs on the corner because if you're not going to enforce the law, right? These are the same kind of clowns that walked in with health inspectors. I'm sick of it. I tell you, the police have done a lot of damage to themselves as far as reputation goes. And it's because of stuff like this. Enforce the law. There's a specific law that says you can not protest in front of Supreme Court judges houses. There's a reason for that, right? Because they're not supposed to be able to intimidate them. That means stepping up to leadership as well because if you look at the leadership and it's top down from the state of Florida, Florida, by the way. That wouldn't happen. It desantis is saying, look at I support you. The leadership and the police departments are saying we support you. And guess what? You don't get things are safe. There's no burning of buildings or none of that. I would suggest that Kavanaugh Barrett and the Russell moved to Florida, where if there's a protest in front of your house, you can rest assured that the Stanford is sending the National Guard if that's what it takes. That's right. To put a four block perimeter around your house. So they can't get anywhere near you, right? And that's how it should be. Because that's the law..
Bloomberg Businessweek
Fresh update on "roe v wade" discussed on Bloomberg Businessweek
"Tim Stenebeck from Bloomberg Radio. Google maintains one of the world's most comprehensive repositories of location information. It can often estimate a user's whereabouts to within several The company mainly gathers this information to sell advertising. But in recent years, police started dipping into it to further their investigations. The company's trove of user data now attracts thousands of requests from law enforcement across the U .S. in cases large and small. Police say the warrants but to get those leads cops often have to rummage through Google data on people who had have Bloomberg Business Week cover story with our Bloomberg News tech team of Julia Love and Davey Alba, as well as the editor of magazine, the Joel Weber. In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade, there was There was a a lot of interest in how law enforcement
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"And I think if people knew that, when I tell people that number, they're like, oh my God. It's not 5%, folks. It's 50 in New York City. 50 as genocide, like 50 is wiping out. It's still going to be 50% next year. No, New York will still be 50. Here's the other thing that's amazing too. Let me talk about misinformation for a second. How about this for misinformation? We can't defund Planned Parenthood because where would people get their mammograms? Did you know that Planned Parenthood doesn't give mammograms? None. No. Zero. Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms at any facility in the country at all. Not one, and yet if you ask a liberal, the first thing they'll say is, if you get rid of Planned Parenthood, women will have no place to get their healthcare. Planned Parenthood is an abortion factory. That's what it is. That's all it is, okay? That's all it's ever been. And by the way, many conservative groups who have gone undercover have exposed that, right? Absolutely. For them actually selling body parts at one point. Yes. And it's on video. I tell people that, like, no it didn't happen. There's a video. It's on video. We were talking about, well, if you could, if you can keep them more intact. If you can not take the arms off, we really need an intact torso for this disgusting. But that's what they did. That's what that's what they've done. New York, watch the watch the medical corridor and watch how it expands. Now that Missouri has no abortion, right? And there'll be a lot of southern states, probably like 15 to 20 of them. That's a nun. There's already some that have kicked out. You'll be flying in. But New York. Factory. Some of the dollars will go right to the UB medical campus, which is funded for a reason. Somehow that will cost the New York taxpayers off. Probably. It won't be a problem..
Bloomberg Law
Fresh "Roe V Wade" from Bloomberg Law
"The power regulatory agencies before a conservative court whose recent decisions have overridden the authority agencies of and reigned in the so -called administrative state. I've been talking to Gregory Gahr, a partner at Latham & Watkins and the former U .S. Solicitor General. Greg, now we're on to the regulatory area. Let's discuss Loper -Bryde Enterprises versus Raimondo, where a 39 -year -old incident, the Chevron Doctrine, is on the line. Will you explain Chevron? Sure. So the Chevron Doctrine is one of the most important doctrines of administrative law that has been around since 1884. Basically, what it says is that where you have a statute that is ambiguous doesn't speak directly to an issue, that the courts would give deference to the administrative agency's interpretation of the statute. So this case involves a law that requires fishing boats in the North Atlantic to have observers to collect data and the like. And the question is whether the fishing boats or the government has to pay for those observers. the And statute doesn't address that question, but the agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, interpreted it to require the fishing boats to pay for these observers and the court lower said that that was a reasonable interpretation, so the courts would defer to it under Chevron. And the Chevron doctrine has come under assault by the conservatives as being contrary to the long -standing central principle that it's the duty of the courts to say what the law is. And so there's a great concern that they've sort of delegated that task to the administrative agencies and there have been many justice, maybe five in this case, to be willing to overturn the Chevron doctrine and give the courts the sort of frontline role in interpreting what the statutes mean without administrative deference. So has the Supreme Court been chipping away at Chevron in recent years? So some say if they overturned Chevron it wouldn't be that big a deal. It would be a big deal doctrinally, but you're exactly right. They've been chipping away it. at And then someone interestingly, they've actually just been ignoring it, giving the cold shoulder the last few years, where they won't even cite it in cases where it really is directly implicated. So in that sense, doing with away the doctrine wouldn't make a big practical shift, but doctrinally it would be a big shift. And in line with one of the big things we see from this conservative court, which is reconsidering relationship the among the branches with respect to the administrative state and scaling back on deference doctrines that has empowered the administrative state. I believe it's been four times since 2019 that the court has been asked to revisit Chevron and hasn't done so. Do you think it will reverse Chevron in this case? You mentioned that there are perhaps five justices willing to that. do So this case feels different. The court granted certiorari in the question of whether or not should Chevron be overruled. If you connect the dots over the last few years, it seems as though the court is tilting towards the direction of actually overruling Chevron. But it remains to be seen whether or they not take that step and that the broader question of stare decisis is something that we've seen over the last several years and the justices have very strongly held in different views about when or whether it's appropriate to overrule a case. But in this case it does seem as though Chevron is on the chopping block. I wonder if they were struggling with that while they were deciding whether to take the case or not. Because it took a time long to decide how to handle the case. They scheduled it for potential discussion at five private conferences before announcing that they would take the case. So that's exactly right. You know obviously the decision to take the case was not a good one for the government ultimately. But the court does have the fallback option of just saying that the agency's interpretation is unreasonable in this case. But really the focus is on the broader question of whether or not the Chevron doctrine is really consistent with our legal principles and practice. Do you agree with this that critics of big government have targeted the Chevron doctrine much as anti -abortion groups targeted Roe v. Wade? I think that's a fair analogy, June. I mean it's really on the short list of cases that you know would be on a wish list that this more conservative court would overrule and it's in line again with the trend that we've seen in the last few years where the court been has willing to reconsider doctrines that have on balance favored the administrative state. So this is one where if the court took the step it would be certainly in line with decisions we've seen in recent years. Another agency the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is before the court again. The oral arguments in this case are actually next week. It's CFPB versus Community Services Financial Association. And this is in line with our assault on the administrative state. So in this case though it's a really interesting challenge. It's a challenge to the funding mechanism for this agency. So usually when Congress passes an appropriation it specifies a specific amount that goes to the agency typically on an annual basis. And in this case what Congress did in setting up the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is it said we're not going to have annual appropriations a of specific amount. You're going to get your funding from services and fees generated by the Federal Reserve. There's no requirement to go back to Congress every year. This is sort of an indefinite appropriation and it's up to an amount that you can just sort of dip into that the agency hasn't come close to dipping into. So as a practical matter it's basically an unlimited funding mechanism for the agency which gives it greater from the legislative branch. This is a Fifth Circuit decision that it's being appealed from. Is this a novel theory that they came up with? It's the first time in history that an appellate court has invoked the appropriations clause to invalidate a statute, so it is certainly novel in that respect. That said, the CFPB, the agency here is itself novel and this is something that sort of haunted the agency a few years ago in a different case that involved a removal provision of the head of the agency and Congress set this agency up to be different, but because it did so it sort of made it vulnerable to these different lines of constitutional attacks that we're seeing. And the Solicitor General said the ruling of the Fifth Circuit threatens the validity of virtually all past CFPB actions, including numerous regulations that are critical to consumers in the financial industry, but the court refused to put it on an expedited schedule. Does that say anything to you? I don't think the decision not to expedite it, but the government is right in this sense, that if the court were to hold that the funding mechanism is unconstitutional, then, you know, a logical might be to say, well, then everything that it did with that funding should be set aside. And that really sort of tees up the second question in the case, which may be even more difficult, which is if the court was to adopt this novel appropriations theory, then what's the remedy? And the parties are very definitively divided on that. I mean, the government says that the remedy should just be forward -looking or that you could go back and just sever a particular part of the law, but you wouldn't say that everything that the agency has done in administrative actions or by rule is invalid. So there's been this momentum to rein in the administrative state. Will this case be a test of just how far the justices are willing to go in that direction? Yes, I think it will be, you know, in part just because this is a relatively
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"Abortion even becomes an option. How inconsiderate of you? What if I'm raped? Are you expecting me to carry my rapist's child? No, absolutely not. That's why there are procedures in place. If you go to a hospital and report it, they'll scrape your uterus clean, so there's no possible pregnancy. But I don't want to report it. That's okay. You don't have to tell the police anything if you don't want to, but you can at least be medically taken care of. Speaking of, men shouldn't even get a say in this. This is about my body. Oh, okay. In that case, he doesn't have to pay child support. What? Well, yeah. You know, that is, for just a second, just a second. We talk about women's rights a lot. Well, women, the Democrats do. They don't believe it, of course, but they talk about it, right? But what about men's rights? To be honest, half your baby. I mean, in all seriousness, shouldn't there be some sort of a consent of a sign off? I mean, you can get pregnant and carry a baby and never tell the husband, right? Or the father, I should say. And then years later have that baby out all the time. 5 years later, bring a paternity suit. Back against an individual, do a DNA test. And now that guy who had never had an idea is liable for it happening at every day in this country. Or the opposite where the father wants the baby and the mom says, nope, it's my decision. Well, how is it not a joint decision? There's so many wrong things with this. But the fact of the matter is, going back to the decision from a legal standpoint, if you want the Supreme Court to determine and interpret the constitution, which is what I want, just I love the liberals of well, that sort of precedent. So once there's precedent, no, no, no. Just because it was a bad precedent, it doesn't mean it. There's nothing in the constitution. If it's not in their favor, if it's not the way they think about it, cheating. But the reality of it is, the decision is a legislative one. It should be fought out at the ballot box. It should be made by voters. And state the states. So you have the option to be able to at least be mobile to be able to get out of the states that you don't agree with. By the way, and move to the states that you do..
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"This is crazy. But again, the lies the lies, right? Abortion is now illegal in the country. No, it's not. Let me play it. It's just unreal. I don't think you have a chance to see this tic tac video. But this young lady nails it. And she's humorous, but spot on. It's a little bit lengthy, but it's well worth to leave roe V wade has been overturned. Yeah. I can't believe roe V wade has been overturned. Yeah, but it wasn't banned or anything. It just means that the federal government gave the right to decide on the law back to the individual states. What am I supposed to do now? Well, birth control condoms and plan B are all readily available at multiple different facilities and sometimes even for free. You don't understand. This is a war on women. Oh, I'm glad to see that you remember what a woman is. How can you be okay with the government just taking away our people? Positively. Let me tell you this. Absolutely spot on. And how crazy it is that these same lunatics are like, you know, we're going to pronounce them about pronouns and men can get pregnant. And then because this is so political. And this is not about most of these people actually getting an abortion. This is about their political views that this is Republican Ron and for some reason because it's a Republican agenda. They don't want anything to do with it. But that was the right decision. Whether you agree with abortion or not, the decision back to the states. Right. The court, the court of 1973, that whole Supreme Court was a very activist Supreme Court, right? We know that, right? The war in court was a liberal activist court. There is nothing in the constitution. Now, if you want to say that it was a right wing decision, let me tell you what a right wing decision would have been. A right wing decision would have been the interpretation of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness to determine that life starts at conception and then to outlaw abortion. The Supreme Court could have done that. They could have looked at the constitution and said, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we are terminating a life as a result. That's a violent, but they didn't do that. They didn't make that radical call what they made was, hey, we looked at the constitution. There's nothing in this constitution that talks about abortion. There's certainly nothing that guarantees a right to an abortion that's preposterous to even say so. And the reality of it is this isn't even a court decision to make. This is a legislative decision that the power should be given back to the states if the federal government's not going to act. And the federal government has failed to act. And guess what? Places like New York, nothing will change. Nothing. Kathy hochul's not going, we're going to look at the Supreme Court decision in a site we have to do. What do you have to do?.
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"Here's what happens is, please, please, please don't shut us down. You beg. You beg like the dogs that you are for the little bit of freedom that they might give you. I'm not begging. We never shut down. Don't shut down. Don't do it again, right? But hold them accountable. Get them out of office. Call their office saying, I haven't forgotten what you did to me. That's the way to be. I have a forgotten what you did to the kids. If I have a forgotten, just got involved and explained to you. People are voting on people. Hey, look, do you remember when your child wasn't getting an education? That's right. And they were sitting at home for a year. That's right. Democrats over a flu that had a 0% chance of killing them..
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"What's more important? A brand new bike path? Yeah. Or protecting our kids, right? That's right. Because guess what they've spent money on. What's more important to you as a citizen of western New York, putting more money in the art bright knocks art gallery or protecting our kids. Honestly, I could give two cents to a rat's nothing about the art gallery. I don't care closed it. I don't care. The art gallery has plenty of left wing rich lipstick. Plenty of left wing left wing, rich liberals who should be donating to that, right? But you know what? The bond king who I'm sure has considered doing a fundraiser. Hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers to set up his hedge fund. I'm sure he can kick in the other $40 million that they made. But this is where we spend our money all the time. We want better roads in Western Europe, and we want bike paths, right? We get bike paths. We never get what we want. They get what they get, what makes them feel better, right? But none of the problems are ever solved with twice the budget, by the way. And I can't stop saying that. Twice the budget. Florida has great roads and a $100 million budget. Western New York has third world country roads. All of New York and storm will cut your own and $200 million bunch of $1 billion budget $1 billion. In no state tax. And those states Florida, right? Roads are better. Crazy. All the schools are about, oh no, that's all BS. No, it's all about, by the way, I think Florida is now up to like 8th or 9th place when it comes to SAT scores. New York is 32 or 30. That's right. So the whole argument of, well, we have better schools, not even close. Not even close, not even close. Not even close. But this is where they're spending the money, right? They take your money and they spend it on things that have absolutely no, I am never going to ride the bike path..
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"But that's what these folks are friends, right? They go home, they have they open a beer, they spend time with their kids. They have no idea what's going on. And sadly, you know, go back to the gun owners for a second. You know, these gun owners, half of them are going along with, well, I'll just vote republic Democrat because that's what my union. That's what you use. That's what my wife wants me to do. The union is still strong here in New York State. And it's bigger and better than ever. Because it can collectively take your dues and spend them in these elections. And that's what they're doing. They're not trying to make your life better. They're not trying to make better working conditions. They're certainly not trying to negotiate for a better wages on your part anymore. That's what they used to do, right? Now what they're doing is saying, um, how can we win the school elections? By the way, if you look at stuff on the high low, ran in the town of Hamburg, that Hamburg race tons of union money came in to go after him. Why? Because he was a right wing conservative and not part of the radical agenda. So the unions are, I hate to say it, but the unions, especially the public sector unions, are a cancer. They really are. And when you look at private sector unions, look at United auto workers, for example, right? At least there's a limit, right? You can take your company to bankruptcy. You've done that. Well, Obama, if it wasn't for Obama, let's be honest. It wasn't for Obama. They would have gotten wiped out, right? Obama completely violated a hundred years of bankruptcy law, basically. But if it wasn't for that, they get wiped out, right? How many companies airline companies? How many companies have been wiped out by unions where they've got to reset the table. Usually the unions end up taking it in the shorts..
The Financial Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Financial Guys
"Welcome back. Michael must come with a little financial guide. The place where money meets politics and will be all over the board today. We do manage money for a living. So if you need our help, make sure you use us as a resource, a three three fin guys. Boy, let's start out with, well, big election day yesterday. But before we get into that, primary. But by the way, in New York, Republicans aren't used to primaries. So this was a new thing. Turnout was pretty shitty actually for the Republican side. Democrats halfway decent. I was asking stuff on my list when I'm like, how in the world are the Republicans going to overcome this? It's like not a big deal. They're just not used to voting. And it's June..
Bloomberg Radio New York
"roe v wade" Discussed on Bloomberg Radio New York
"Business week with Carol matter and Bloomberg quick takes Tim steno V on Bloomberg radio That's what it is It's okay Ask the questions No exactly but I mean in terms of the outlook I mean I think there's uncertainty once again back in the morning We'll get some more certainty on Friday with that jobs report We will indeed All right let's get to where the national news and Nancy lions Thanks geralt A case of the COVID-19 on Macron variant has been detected in the U.S. Doctor Anthony Fauci the nation's top infectious disease expert says a traveler who returned to San Francisco from South Africa tested positive The individual is self quarantining and all close contacts have been contacted and all close contacts thus far have tested negative Fauci says the traveler was fully vaccinated but he does not believe the individual had a booster shot We will not hear a decision until next June but the Supreme Court today heard arguments centering around a Mississippi law banning abortions after 15 weeks Mississippi contends the ruling in roe V wade was wrong and that state should be the ones deciding Julie Rickman at the center for reproductive rights told the justices that she disagrees The individual is self quarantining Mississippi's ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent Mississippi asks of the court to dismantle this precedent and allow states to force women to remain pregnant and give birth against their will The court should refuse to do so Recommend says nothing has changed to justify reversing the decision Chief justice John Roberts wanted to know why 15 weeks is not enough time for a woman to make a decision concerning her pregnancy A 15 year old suspect in yesterday's deadly high school shooting in Michigan is being charged as an adult Ethan crumbly is accused of killing four students now officials confirmed today a.
The Stuttering John Podcast
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Stuttering John Podcast
"Legal, there's some people believe that even those trying to destroy row, though this, but what they want to do is just leave it more pre row up to the states and they'll be a number of states that allow it and the number of states that don't, but I don't think it's going to go that far. I think we're going to have to hold on tight and create for scotus to actually rule on this. But I think it's going to get there's so much wrong with it. Your deputizing the general population to go out and click bounties for avoided babies. Right there, they're not how to do that. It's a civil civil cause of action that gives enforcement powers to civilians and you really did right there. Usurping power of the state to dispense justice. So there's that argument. There's a number of other arguments which in my opinion render this law on constitutional. Because aren't thinking about to hear another case involving abortion that they're saying is even scarier that could overturn roe V wade is that like is that out of Tennessee or something? So yes, there's a note case that's coming up beginning in December that the court's going to hear. Regarding that. Listen, I'm a positive guy. I keep things, you know, I always look, you know, you know, cry for the silver lining so to speak. I honestly in my heart don't feel so good. This is gonna work well. I just don't. Everyone is the same doom and gloom on this. I don't believe it. And also there's a lot of misconception out there. You know, the Trump judges that he's a piece appointed, have not been the nightmare that we all worry..
Fresh Air
"roe v wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"The shifting amoeba like shapes of these relationships in her distinctive expository prose style. That reads like a late capitalist oman to hemingway for instance two sentences here detail how eileen removes and disposes of the cling film on her microwave dinner but in this ambitious novel of sentiment and ideas which is so up to the minute in its global concerns rooney ironically reaches back to one of the oldest forms of the novel the epistolary or letter for him to tell her story long emails and texts mostly between allison. Eileen contemplate not only their muddled romantic relationships but also likened the general systems collapse of the late bronze age to the political and climate disasters of the present at one point. Alice rights to eileen about her terrific crush on felix and wraps up by saying so of course in the midst of everything the state of the world being what it is humanity on the cusp of extinction. Here i am writing another email about sex and friendship. What else is there to live four. It's striking that in this rooney's toughest and most sweeping novel today. Eight that what's tentatively affirmed at the end are exactly the things alice's mentioned in that letter sex and friendship personal bonds between human beings yet. The frequently unb beautiful world beckons demands characters. Engagement even as they flinch from it. Rooney's novel like all great. Fiction is open ended is given to an ambivalence that runs from the author through her narrative to us. Readers are we really as schiller rights left only with word deprived of soul. Rooney's ensure instead. She entices us into her own dark. Uncertainty where remarkably we enjoy spending time marine. Corrigan teaches literature at georgetown university. She reviewed sally. Rooney's new novel beautiful world. Where are you.
Fresh Air
"roe v wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"This age of pandemic and climate change it's a testament to rooney's curious cerebral gifts as a writer that she not only draws her readers into tolerating long stretches of such ruminations but makes them so entertaining. We feel. we're in good company with our own end time anxieties. Rooney's plaintive title beautiful world. Where are you from a late. Eighteenth century poem suffused with grim nostalgia yet desperate hope by the german. Romantic writer friedrich schiller. It's a question that her character's figuratively keep asking themselves beautiful world. Where are you as a normal people. Her twenty eighteen novel that was made into a hulu. tv series. Rooney focuses on romance. Sex work in its dissatisfactions and the vast chasms of opportunity that divide different social but because the characters here are a bit older and the world even in the space of three short years. Since rooney's last novel has become much more frightening there's also a cosmic dimension to her title question in other words. Will there be a beautiful world left for any of us when we first meet her. Alice thinks not. She's waiting at a hotel bar in the west of ireland for a man. She's connected with on tinder but having recently suffered a nervous breakdown. Alice is emotionally tamped down to the point where her expectations are minimal. The other thing to know about alice is that she's an internationally. Best selling twenty nine year old novelist who loathes her own celebrity reflecting on interviews. She's given alice says. I keep encountering this person who is myself and i hate her with all my energy. I hate her appearance. And i hate her opinions about everything and yet when other people read about her. They believe that she is me though. I know i'm falling into a trap. Rooney has set for the critically unsophisticated. I must point out that. Alice sounds an awful lot like rooney herself. Who's talked in interviews about her own discomfort with fame the personalities waiting for turns out to be an angry young man named felix who works in a warehouse. You must think you're very special sneers felix early in their relationship. His resentment fuels fair amount of hostile sex one of rooney's other signatures as a novelist. The quartet is rounded out by alice's best friend from college. Eileen who's the least guarded and most psychologically astute of the group she toils as an editor for a small literary magazine. And then there's simon a charming political functionary simon and eileen are childhood friends who've been intermittently sexually involved but they keep each other at a distance to preserve their friendship rooney vividly traces..
Fresh Air
"roe v wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"This is fresh air. this message comes from. Npr sponsor tele doc tele doc offers access to licensed therapists by phone or video for help with depression anxiety stress and more. You're able to choose the right therapist or psychiatrist for your needs and schedule a visit seven days a week from wherever you feel comfortable ninety. Two percent of people who have used Saw an improvement in their mental health. Download the app or visit. Tell the doc dot com slash fresh air today to get started. This message comes from. Npr sponsor total wireless. Which helps you stay connected and turn your experiences from good to amazing with the best devices network and savings. When you move to total wireless you can get an unlimited plan. Starting at twenty five dollars a month that includes five g. available in twenty seven hundred plus cities capable device and sim required terms and conditions at total wireless dot com when our book critic maureen. Corrigan reviewed irish writer. Sally rooney's second novel. Normal people in two thousand nineteen. She said that. Even if rooney were to write a novel about bath mats it would be worth reading. Fortunately rooney's latest novel called beautiful world. Where are you is about much more. Here's marines review sally. Rooney's breathlessly anticipated. New novel called beautiful world. Where are you features four characters who among other things ruminate over whether there's any value to breathlessly anticipated new novels.
Fresh Air
"roe v wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"That voting rights is perhaps like the most important issue. We face now And we've just seen too restrictive voting laws in texas and in georgia. What do you think voting rights is like the most important challenge facing right. Now i mean everything flows from the right to vote. You know if you don't have the ability to pick your leaders you have nothing because any right you have can be taken away from you if you don't have the ability to to pick your lawmakers. The thing that keeps me up at night is the supreme court's approached voting rights. So first of all. They've been very hostile to the voting rights act and the voting rights. Act the most sacred document that can exist in a secular society it is a covenant between our nation and the people that we enslaved vis is the wall that prevents us from doing the things. That happened in america's pass. It prevents jim crop. It prevents the end of reconstruction. What the supreme court has done is it hasn't just dismantle much of the voting rights act. It is completely divorced. America's voting rights jurisprudence from the taxed of the wall itself so there was just a case recently called burn of where the supreme court invented a bunch of new restrictions on voting rights plaintiffs said that if you sue under the voting rights act and the lawyer challenging is ostensibly intended to prevent fraud. There's a presumption that that lol is is is valid. They said that if the law is similar to laws that existed in one thousand nine hundred eighty two. There's a presumption that that law is. Is that state laws valid. Nothing in the text of the voting rights act says anything about voter fraud or nineteen eighty two. These are things that the supreme court made up. And when you have judges who don't feel bound by the text of the wall. I don't trust that this court is going to protect the right to vote. I don't trust it. Because the only thing that limits judicial discretion that limits. The power of judges is that they have to follow the text of law. There's a written texts that they are bound by when they divorced themselves from that written taxed. I i don't know what they are going to do with the future voting rights. They've already chipped away a great deal out at it and they just aren't constrained because they don't seem to feel like the textile all matters anymore. Congress has been very polarized and dysfunctional. And you say basically that the courts have taken over you know law make. They've basically taken over the function that used to be the function of congress. Can you elaborate on that. Sure so like when. I started writing my book. This was right before we went into lockdown and it was the end of kind of a lost decade in congress so from two thousand eleven when republicans took over the house and basically prevented president obama from having a legislative agenda until the pandemic head and congressional action in action became untenable congress really pass new major legislation except for the the the the tax bill that president trump signed you'll congress was inactive for most of that decade and in that same period the supreme court dismantled campaign finance law. It hobbled the voting rights act it weakened the ban on sexual harassment..
The Politics Guys
"roe v wade" Discussed on The Politics Guys
"Donald trump or ever chart it. I see what you're saying that there's again that there's absolutely that political advantage. And i i think if i'm the republicans and i'm talking about donald trump. I'm losing right. I'm that that is. That's way helps o'hare that i'm not able to push on on some other agenda and i'm not saying i'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that. Recognize that the part of this is a game right. Yeah know yeah absolutely. I don't disagree with you on that. Yeah absolutely absolutely all right. Well jay. Let's just get one one was so so you're a big steelers fan right. I remember back. When i was in my late twenties and i began to notice the first signs of hair loss. It really surprised me indefinitely. Not in a good way. Almost nobody is hoping to go ball but the fact is that two out of three guys will experience. Some form of male pattern baldness by the time. They're just three five and the best time to take action is before your hairline. Looks like some sort of sad little peninsula in a bear in scalps gape thankfully. Now there's keeps the simple and easy way to keep your hair with keeps. You can visit a doctor online and get hair. Loss medication delivered right to your home. They make it easy and deliver your medication. Every three months you can say goodbye to pharmacy checkout lines. An awkward doctor visits keeps offers generic versions of the only two. Fda approved hair loss products there. And while you may have tried them before probably never for this price so find out why keeps has more five star reviews than any of its competitors and more than one hundred thousand men. Keep for the hair loss. Prevention medication keeps treatment. Started just ten dollars a month. Plus for a limited time. You can get your first month free. So if you're ready to take action and prevent hair loss go to keep dot com slash politics guys to receive your first month of treatment for free that's k. Eps dot com slash politics guys and and this is jay trying to trying to torpedo my ohio. Us senate campaign. Exactly yeah. That's going to do it right there. listen so in the past ben. Roethlisberger has been credibly accused of rape. If if you were at a steelers boosters party right and you're there and someone keeps keeps calling and demanding on you mike. How your president of the last Cincinnati steelers boosters club and people. Keep demanding of you. Mike is the president of club. We demand that you come out and were announced. Ben rothlisberger has a rapist. Well i would say you know he. He has a presumption of innocence and he has not been his not actually convicted rapist. So i get what you're saying. jason understand. the the is not not to to do anything. That really has anything to do with rothlisberger. The point to you. I don't i don't i get what you're saying and so i don i don't disagree with you. I just feel that the scope of what donald trump the wrongness that he injected into. This is just so great that you know and sure that sounds like it's very convenient for me as a democrat to say and it is. I'll admit that so Yeah yeah all right Let's just take one more quick break and then we'll be back and talking about another os just not at all contentious issue the possible end of roe versus wade who just in time for the twenty twenty two midterms as well okay. So are the story today. The supreme court announced this week that it would hear dobbs versus jackson women's health organization challenge to mississippi's law that would well with limited exceptions ban abortions after the fifteen th week of pregnancy now after mississippi passed this law and twenty eighteen jackson women's health organization. Which is the only licensed abortion provider industry challenge as you would expect against. The wall was a very straightforward violation of supreme court precedent of not allowing abortion bans of four fetal viability. Which usually it's right around twenty four weeks. Both the federal district and appeals court struck down the law. Now the issue that the supreme court will be ruling on his weather. All pre viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional and the case will be heard and twenty twenty one twenty two term which begins in october of this year and it's typical for major rulings to be announced at the end of the term which would be somewhat time around june or so of twenty twenty two. Which is you know pretty in the run up to the twenty twenty two midterm elections. So gee i thought. I want to get your sense of why you think the court might have taken this case and any sense of how you think it might rule or if we can tell at this point. Well they need for take it and i think he just got Amy coney barrett I i think that's that's part of it. You can also listen to the court. Hasn't taken a major abortion case in quite a while there have been these these here and there ones that that were typically went to some some extraneous Whether produce undue burden on the woman as opposed to going at the core of is a constitutional right or not And and so yeah. I think i think it's it's big That said i'm i'm still not sure you're going to get a complete overturn or you might get a roe versus wade overturned But but yet modified for example. I think there's a good argument to say that. Casey in fact know really overturn roe versus wade So i don't know. I'm always i'm always. I hate to hazard a guess again especially at this point where the court said it would take the case share last week. It's hard not. I think it's not going to get something into it right saying that. Well why this case which is such a clear violation. I mean it's the specifically or that and you got to feel that at least if they were if they just wanted to. Let the precedent stan. They would have not taken the case. But as you pointed out only takes four justices to decide to hear a case so that to me suggests that at least four justices are ready to make some modifications to that so the pre viability divinely and i think. I think you probably agree with me here. I think that's really important. Because if the court modifies in any way that kind of fetal viability line if you will what is the limiting principle and at what point then those states interest in preserving life or potential life become greater than a woman's right to control her own body. And i think at that point you really grasp at any kind of real limiting principle except for well life begins at conception and so therefore the states interest again. You see them saying here. Why i think i think. The limiting principle then is whatever. The state legislatures are going to create. Got it okay. Right which suggest there'd be nothing to say that you know the the court could rule you do not have a constitutional right to ability abortion Of course your state may provide it right so what you would be saying. There is that essentially that there is no constitutionally protected right or woman to terminate an.
Republic Keeper - with Brian O'Kelly
"roe v wade" Discussed on Republic Keeper - with Brian O'Kelly
"You're a liar. You take this you let me down this path. You didn't want them. She posted idiot. A leak got holly put on their side. This is a conspiracy. Today by. Bobby killed me on a girl in texas caller jane. You found the right brandon girl and lawyers. We could control you. See a kid. Out of law. School to argue to the highest court in texas. We went to rally behind the women's movement to get the tv media. What is trying to say. Is i am the first negro woman to graduate. Harvard medical got respect for his law. Jewish join us. I promise you'd have more freedom. We will jewish so insane and then they came after the mentally deficient but we wouldn't proficient so he did nothing now. They're coming after the bowl. So you're going to do nothing scott's duty to forgive it's hours to rule the law you're changing your vote because your family tana for or was it the meeting if we don't sort this out for will fly today you were trying to control his war. Nobody that is completely unethical. In the matter of roe v wade. I want the case. So you want to enslave. I gotta go before i blow a gasket. Got the majority. We're gonna win. This is beyond the authority of the supreme court. The law of the land. These girls should not be put through the and should be entitled to an abortion to silent art. Who speaking for these children we will hear. I'm speaking for them. I hope you are too that scene there. I better calm down for a blow gaskets. One thing they'll get me wound up these attacks on short. Just you're listening to republic keeper and now republic keeper with brian. Kelly welcome back and for those of you knew and prop up at many new people lately because we're in kind of transition moving from one place to another so those are not new especially please share a on the new patients especially shared this thing because they wouldn't let a shared on the other one rose one person to another. They trust you more..
WJR Programming
Roe, Wade and Supreme Court discussed on WJR Programming
"President Trump's US supreme court nominee faces his. First confirmation hearing tomorrow Brit Kevin. All has, been going through mock hearings with White House, lawyers hitting him with tough questions eight say including. His views on the road versus Wade nineteen Seventy-three ruling establishing a right to choose abortion cavenaugh will certainly, deflect. Direct, questions about row on CNN state. Of the union judiciary committee member, Senator Lindsey Graham well here's what I hope he'll do if there's a case before him that challenges are Roe v. Wade that he, would listen to both sides. Of, the story apply. Attest to overturn precedent Preston is important but it's not in. Ballot abortion opponents have hoped Cavanaugh will, provide the needed. Vote to overturn Roe while choice advocates are sounding the
"News
Is Roe v. Wade Is Hanging by a Thread?
"To transform the rule of law and our country during the campaign trump promised to only pick a prolife judges i am putting prolife justices on the court itchy abortion activists are calling it a pivotal moment while abortion rights defenders are saying they are in dire immediate danger the senate should reject on a bipartisan basis any justice who would overturn roe v wade or undermine key healthcare protections democrats insist there should be no confirmation vote at all until after the midterm elections they point to the fact that republicans blocked brock obama's last pick for ten months before the two thousand sixteen presidential election but republican leader mitch mcconnell says there must be no delay republicans are dealing with a razor thin one vote majority in the senate that means they can afford to lose only one that's why you can expect republicans to put intense pressure on three democrats three democrats who voted for neal gorsuch his choice last time around and who are now this year up for reelection it states that trump won big george stephanopoulos and cecilia vega spoke with abc's chief legal analyst dan abrahams san abc supreme court contributor kate shaw looking to answer the question so many are asking after justice kennedy's resignation why now robie wade that's where all the early energy is going to be that's right but let's be clear there's no question that roe v wade could be in jeopardy but that doesn't mean it's going to get overturned everyone's talking about overturned overturned as a practical matter justices liked to show deference to previous opinions meeting it's unusual to say we're simply going to overturn a decision because we now disagree with if it happens on occasion but it's very rare more likely what you see is an opinion effectively get gutted meaning states that want to restrict abortion will increasingly make laws that are more restrictive and more restrictive and then have those laws challenged in the hope that those laws are able to move forward and ineffective would mean that it becomes nearly impossible for women in a number of states to get and you can be sure that whoever president trump nominates is going to do his or her best not to show their hand on roe wade during the confirmation you don't want to admit you know what your position is on any case in the confirmation process the rule is when you're asked about a particular case you say this could come in front of me and as a result i'm night i'd have to see what the facts of the case were but you've got to believe that the president is going to know a lot about any candidate that he considers justice kennedy didn't make from the bench where you surprise you were there we all knew it was a possibility but i don't think anyone in that building really believed he was going to do impart because you know he seemed to send a message with his travel ban separate writing that he had some concerns about some of president trump's conduct and rhetoric he wrote separately to sort of say you need to acting ways that respect constitutional values like equality but in the end you know i think he did want to be replaced by republican president and this was the surest way to see that.