19 Burst results for "Roe V. Wade"
"roe v. wade" Discussed on COVID-19: What You Need to Know
"And the balance that existed is for Congress to restore the protections of roe V wade as federal law. Aaron, the president is saying, this is now on Congress that Congress needs to codify the protections that roe V wade had for the right to an abortion. But the problem is they don't have the numbers in Congress to do that. They've tried to do that in recent weeks after that draft decision had leaked, but it wasn't doable. So the president today was saying that Americans now need to get out, make their voices heard and in November and in subsequent elections, need to elect more lawmakers who will do just that. Not even just at the federal level, but do it at the state level as well in order to try and restore those protections that roe had made the law of the land. And it wasn't just abortion that he said was at stake. No, the president back when that draft decision had been leaked in early May had expressed significant concerns about what this would mean for a variety of rights that Americans now take for granted, and he reiterated that again today. He said row recognize the right to privacy that this is ingrained in the fabric of this country right now. That Americans have the ability to make the best decisions for their own health in terms of birth control. Also, the ability to decide who you want to marry. And he explicitly called out justice clarence Thomas, who, in his writing on this decision, called for the reconsideration of marriage equality and the right to contraception, President Biden says this is extreme and says it is a dangerous path that this Supreme Court is taking the nation.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on COVID-19: What You Need to Know
"Tonight as we come on the air with you, there are protests in cities across the country. After the United States Supreme Court toppled a constitutional protection that had stood for 50 years, the right of women to choose abortion. In a 6 to three decision, the court sided with Mississippi, which will now ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a slightly smaller 5 to four majority went further and throughout roe versus wade, the landmark 1973 opinion that established a federal right to legal abortion. This morning, the radical Supreme Court is eviscerating Americans, rights, and endangering their health and safety. The ruling does not make abortion illegal, but it will lead to all but total bans on the procedure in more than half the states, a final triumph in a generational crusade by anti abortion rights activists and their political allies. The court affirmed today that every life is worth living. My hope, my prayer is that America will reclaim our identity as a nation whose God given rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is an ABC News special, the end of roe V wade. From ABC News headquarters, here is correspondent Aaron koterski. Good evening, the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the constitutional right to an abortion in a ruling that said roe versus wade was egregiously wrong from the start. It's reasoning was exceptionally weak the opinion said and the decision has had damage in consequences. So we're going to begin tonight with ABC's Devin dwyer who covers the Supreme Court for us..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on CNN Political Briefing
"Know in politics for Friday, may 6th. A brand new CNN poll after that bombshell leak out of the Supreme Court tells us just how the roe versus wade decision could impact 2022 politics. Given how long, nearly half a century, the battle over roe versus wade has been happening in the United States, it may not surprise you that in our brand new exclusive CNN poll conducted by SSRS, we find public opinion overall on the issue of whether or not roe should be overturned, has not changed all that much since that bombshell leak of a draft opinion written by justice Alito and apparently having the support of a majority of the Supreme Court Justices, which would entirely overturn roe versus wade. As we knew, it was a 70 30 issue or something in that range and in this brand new poll conducted from May 3rd to May 5th, so entirely after the news emerged about the leak, it is pretty much right there. Two thirds of Americans in this poll, 66% say they do not want to see the Supreme Court overturn roe versus wade 34%, about a third, say they do. So this again is a Supreme Court poised to possibly issue a decision that is wildly unpopular with the American people broadly. But of course, that's not the whole story. We know that this issue enlivens passions on both the right and the left politically. Listen to former vice president Mike Pence. He was in South Carolina yesterday, he was speaking to a crowd at a church and he leaned very hard into hoping that this draft opinion mirrors what the court ultimately decides. Here he is, courtesy of WBTV. My hope and frankly, my prayer. Is that those 5 justices on the Supreme Court that the courage of their convictions? And will give us a fresh start on life in America. Of course, as you might expect, there's a big partisan split in how people respond to whether or not they want to see roe V wade overturned. 88% of Democrats in this new poll say they prefer that the Supreme Court not overturn roe. 71% of independents. They don't want to see roe overturned. Those are enormous majorities of those groups. But it's just 37% of Republicans who don't want to see roe overturned. That's why Mike Pence speaks the way you just heard him speak because he understands he's where the base of his party is as he's thinking about a potential future presidential run. This is also been an issue at the very heart of Mike Pence's political identity for decades. So what might a post row world look like? Well, as you know, Democrats on Capitol Hill are eager to try and pass legislation that codifies roe into law. And that would be broadly popular in the United States, according to our latest poll 59% of Americans strongly or somewhat support Congress establishing a nationwide right to abortion. That's broad public support. You know where that support doesn't exist in the United States Senate. There are not the votes to actually pass that kind of legislation that would codify row into law. But that's not going to stop Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer from trying to do so. This is about a woman's right to choose, fully. We are not looking to compromise something as vital as this. People should show where they stand. This has been American law for 50 years. And this idea that, oh, do a little of this a little of that. Forget it. And by the way, what Schumer may put forth on the floor doesn't seem to have the support of the two female Republican senators who support abortion rights. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. And that's despite Susan Collins coming under some intense pressure for her role in the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch because she expressly said that what they told her in her office, what she heard them say at their confirmation hearings suggested to her that they would not be in favor of a complete and total overhaul overturning of roe V wade. Now, we've heard from Democrats all week long, how they are going to lean into this issue that they see it as a real potential opportunity to take what has been a sort of unenthusiastic Democratic Party out there in this midterm election year. And enliven them, awaken them. Light a fire underneath them with this issue that can bring real passion with it. As an example, listen to vice president Kamala Harris, addressing an Emily's list event that's the group dedicated to electing pro choice democratic women earlier this week. It has never been more clear.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on The Brown Girls Guide to Politics
"It does not. We will continue to get abortions. And then I think there's a parallel strategy. So that's in the immediate aftermath of row being overturned, which again they've explicitly said they will do. And then the long term, we need to have a long game. Like, what is our long game? We never have a long game. We're like, oh no, oh no, this guy is falling. The sky is falling. No, we need to have a long game. And as we have said, so many times. The long game is changing the wording of the constitution. What we are losing is unenumerated rights, not just the right to privacy, which covers abortion, but we're losing the they want to take explicitly. In the decision, they call into question Lawrence, be Texas, which legalizes same sex relationships. The Alito specifically and explicitly calls in to question obergefell, legalizing same sex marriage. So these things are on the chopping block, we are losing unenumerated rights. And so we need to enumerate them. We need to enumerate equality in the constitution. Are there other examples it feels to me like the other examples of the court overturning a major decision like this in such a scathing way or just generally overturning such an established decision, the only examples I can think of are in favor of progress. How do we sort of, I guess some of this goes to what you're saying of needing to fall out of love with the Supreme Court. But how do you are there other examples you can think of of the other way around or how do we sort of think about this in the broader perspective of the history of the Supreme Court? So one thing that I was talking about with a friend who is more moderate than I am on these things and has a lot of angst about people who voted third party was this issue of the Electoral College. You know, I've been hearing a lot from some folks that, oh, well, we wouldn't have been here if people had elected Hillary. And my viewpoint is that one, people did elect Hillary. The popular vote elected Hillary. The system is what is flawed. The Electoral College emerged out of slavery politics and policies, that benefit white male landowners, just like roe V wade benefits, cis het white male landowners, and they are using a document created in 1776 with all of the cultural and political conditions they had then.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on The Doug Collins Podcast
"Roe V wade? Here's also a start of the I need to tell you. If you listened many times to the conversations that go on around the court's picks and the president's picks on the court over the last 50 years, they have determined that roe V wade is the ultimate litmus test. It was not as bad necessarily in the 80s and 90s. It was still there, but it has grown tremendously in the last 25 years. Here's the interesting fact for you. The court takes up maybe, maybe Supreme Court. One to two cases every ten years in abortion. Maybe. It's so important, however, that people put all of their determination on who should be a Supreme Court Justice on how they actually interpret roe V wade and would they be willing to overturn it. I think in many ways, this has become a disservice to the court. I think it is something with the court that deals with all areas of our life, not just this one, which is so vitally important, which I believe they got wrong to start with, and I'm freely cite that in this podcast. I think when you deal with it, it is made the court impose its judicial activist will own a nation that was already dealing with this in the political realm. If you take this out away from the people, if you take this away and say that the court is going to imply this, especially in this instance, when you were actually moving forward, this is what is called. Now you can agree or disagree, but you can't disagree with the facts. This states and we name them all from 1967 home through 1970 other for continuing it, even up until the passage of the court decision roe V wade were adding to abortion rights in this country. Much of the Sagan of those in the pro life movement at the time, which was when nacy and which were really nonexistent because he'd never been a need to at this point, but as they were making progress in legislatures, they chose to take it and hopper speed it up into the courts, courts made it applicable to the country. Then you have the problem in which we face today in which everything surrounding the United States Supreme Court typically starts and ends with what is the justices view on abortion. And this is really where we come. Now, since roe V wade, there was a couple of cases that began to roll back some of roe V wade strengthen it in some ways also take away from it. Casey Planned Parenthood case, this was instituted what will be known as the undue burden test. And that is, if a state could number one state could begin to put restrictions on the access to abortions, whether that be through access to clinics, access to hospitals, access to ultrasounds. I mean, you start building on this progression, parental consent, all of this that would be weighed into this. The question was after Casey, Casey uphill the tenants of roe V wade, but then said that if anything was to affect any of these parts in any of this time of the pregnancy, so to speak, the viability issued these other things that it hadn't made the undue undue burden test. Was it an undue burden on the person, the female to enact her right to terminate a pregnancy? Now, over time, you also had court cases that ruled that the father right or was they had no rise in the choice of abortion and others. Now, before though, I do need to get back a twin decision that also opened this up a great deal on roe V wade with dovey Bolton dough was the same day. It doesn't get the attention that roe does, but it's very important because it defined health of a mother is including all aspects of health psychological mental physical spiritual all aspects. So that basically opens it up for anyone when you say that you can have an abortion based on mental health or anything else, this is where dough comes in and says, look, that's a valid reason to restrict it because that you then run up later in the Casey case, the Casey Planned Parenthood case has to undo burn and how does that affect how someone would get an abortion now when you understand that for those this becomes a semantics exercise on how you actually define life of a mother? Is it health of a mother or life of a mother? Those are two distinctions. Dough made it very clear that health of a mother, it would include anything. Even if they just basically were depressed and wanted to get an abortion, that was a valid grounds of health of a mother. Life of a mother being a different story. So I needed to go back and pick that piece up.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on The Brown Girls Guide to Politics
"It is true that there were real shortcomings to grow. As is true with pretty much any judicial decision. So for example, even under row even under that strict scrutiny. Two groups lost out and lost at quite quickly after the road decision. One was minors. Second low income folks lost out very quickly after row, the Supreme Court held that states, and the federal government may exclude abortion from the otherwise comprehensive healthcare coverage provided in Medicaid. Perhaps the most emblematically excluded in the road decision was bro herself. As we know, pregnancies are time sensitive endeavors. The law, on the other hand, is not particularly fast moving. Years passed between the first lawsuit and the final Supreme Court decision. I always need to take a deep breath when I think of the weight of this. But Norma mccorvey did not receive the abortion she sought. When the 1973 decision was handed down, Sarah weddington called Norma to share the good news, exclaiming we want. Norma replied, no, you won. Why would I be excited? I had a baby. The fact that the suit was a class action lawsuit on behalf of all pregnant women, made it so that circumstances of the case did not hinge on Norma's pregnancy alone. While that was a savvy legal move, it left Norma's immediate need for relief behind, and service of the greater good. The movement around roe V wade was not particularly kind to Norma overall. Here's Gloria allred, the famed women's rights attorney. She represented Norma for a time after the road decision. I met Norman mccorvey, also known as Jane Rowe of roe V wade. Many, many decades ago, had a big rally, a pro choice rally in Washington, D.C.. And I think she came up to me. And she said, I'm Jane Rowe, and I said, oh, are you one of the speakers today at the pro choice rally? Which I thought she would be and should be one of the speakers. She said, no, they won't allow me to speak. And they didn't invite me to speak. I said, really, I'm so surprised about that. And in any event, after that, she stayed in touch with me, and she wanted to speak. So I helped her start speaking out because I think it's important for people to hear more about pro choice. And she wanted to speak about it felt. She had a right to speak about it. That went on for some years. So the woman whose case won us all the right to access legal abortion, didn't get any relief herself. And she was excluded from the pro choice movement in a sort of mean girls way. Given that context, one of the biggest scandals to rock the post row world was when Norma became an ally of the anti choice movement. She's likely to trade at her status as a symbol of one side of the abortion debate to that of an icon of the other. And both sides want as Jane Rowe, Norma mccorvey is a different story. This was paraded around as a big win for the anti choice movement. I mean, turning the row of roe V wade into an anti choice advocate was quite the scoop. And there's nothing they love more than a redemption narrative. But the story wasn't that simple. Here's Gloria again. And then one day, I suddenly received the news and also Norma let me know. That she'd gone over to the anti choice side. Now my feeling always was that she was pro choice. And because that was their attorney, I'll never say what she said to me or what I said to her because that's confidential. But I always had the feeling that she was pro choice. And had done it because, you know, the anti choice side would perhaps pay her for speaking or help her with some form of economic support. She needed that. She didn't have sufficient funds. To live and the pro choice side was not doing that. They weren't having her speak, and they weren't helping to support her in any way. We always had a very cordial relationship because my job is to support women who choose to have abortion and then support those who are against abortion because it's about choice. And they have the right to choose and she chose to go over to the anti choice side. Of course, I would like her to have stayed on the pro choice side, but I completely understood her circumstances. So it was not for me to say what she should do. Norma had sacrificed her body and years of her life for a movement that hadn't wanted her to represent much more than a pseudonym on a piece of paper. She was extremely poor and without many resources. The anti abortion side used her two. One of the conditions of the bribe they gave her took away one of the most meaningful parts of Norma's life. Her longtime partner Connie Gonzalez. Here's amani the people who became so entangled in her life in her post row life were basically using her. She was very vulnerable. She had no money, she was poor. She wasn't particularly educated, and they came to her and said, hey, we'll give you all this money. If you just sort of switch sides, and she said, okay, I'll do that. And sort of this tragedy that attends that decision was the fact that she was in a lesbian relationship. She was in a relationship with another woman, a very serious relationship for years and years and years. And before these anti choice campaigners, these terrorists essentially would even give her the money that they promised to give her if she switched sides, they forced her to give up this relationship that was really important to her. In the winter of 2017, Norma passed away from her deathbed, she spoke to her experience with the reproductive rights movement. Did they use you as a trophy? Of course. I was the big fish. Do you think they would say they'd use them? Well, I think it was unusual fine. You know, I checked their money and then put me out in front of the cameras and tell me what to say. That's what I'd say. Women have been having abortions for thousands of years. If it's just the woman's choice, then, and she chooses to have an abortion, then it should be safe. Roe versus why it helps save women's lives. Here's Gloria allred again. And then, of course, in a way she made a deathbed confession on a documentary. She knew it was getting to be the end of her life. And she confessed that she was really pro choice all along, which I'm sure was very disturbing to the anti choice side because they appeared many of them to enjoy having her as in a way, a poster child for the anti choice movement. Kind of, and Jane Rowe was anti choice. But I guess she managed to wipe the smiles off.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on The Brown Girls Guide to Politics
"26 weeks, something like that, right? So once the Supreme Court made that decision, abortion bans fell all over the country, including in Texas, which is where the case originated. The Supreme Court did articulate the right using a lot of language about the prerogative of the medical provider, whom the opinion assumes to be male, right? So you have this odd gender dynamic where the person exercising the right always appears as a female in the opinion and the person providing the care always appears as male, and is that male character who gets the a lot of the difference. The gender dynamics of the decision are made even wilder by the fact that the court's decision didn't include any input from women. At the time, 9 male justices sat on the court. When I asked one of the clerks who worked for justice Blackmon, the author of the opinion, if any women had been consulted in the drafting of the opinion, he said, no, it hadn't really come up. The framework of the decision left open two important points of tension. One, what it means for a fetus to be viable. Two, how the state could legally weigh in at distinct points in the pregnancy. Here's imani Gandhi. So in row, they set up this trimester framework, right? So in the first trimester, you know, they say, brushing is safer than birth. And so we're just going to let pregnant people decide whether to get an abortion or not. Just free of any interference in the first trimester. Then in the second trimester, we're going to say states have some interest in protecting the mother to protecting mother's health. Can implement regulations if they are there to protect the health of the pregnant person. Then in the third trimester, all bets are off. The pregnant person has basically no say, and the states can really regulate abortion, however they want. As long as there's a health exception. There's always got to be a health exception. As the roe V wade lawyers prepared their briefs for the Supreme Court, they debated whether some facts were too obvious to even include. But one footnote number 96 became one of the most important parts of the case. It reads. The Fourteenth Amendment refers to quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States. This footnote continues to be relevant today as we argue the meaning of viability. The lawyers per row argued, for example, that property rights were contingent on being born alive. That definition continues to come into question. The case is also open to challenge based on the idea of privacy as part of our substantive due process. Conservative legal scholars continue to argue that abortion is not a, quote, constitutional right, because nowhere in the constitution does it say the word abortion. Imani has thoughts on that. The constitution says nothing about abortion because no one cared about abortion. Just like the constitution doesn't say anything about gay marriage because no one cared about same sex marriage at the time. But it is a substantive due process, right? The Supreme Court has found that substantive due process rights are fundamental rights in the constitution, the right to privacy is a fundamental right in the constitution. And just as a sidebar, there's this thing called the Ninth Amendment and the Ninth Amendment essentially is like this catch all amendment that says, yeah, we wrote down a bunch of shit that are enumerated rights, free speech, freedom, press, blah, blah, blah, blah blah. We did not write down all of the fundamental rights that could possibly exist because we don't know what those rights are. And so whatever those rights are, those rights are retained by the people. So if a court in the future, as the court, this court did says abortion is a fundamental right. That right is the right retained by the people. That right is protected by the Ninth Amendment. So we don't even really need to get into the Fourteenth Amendment or the Fifth Amendment and due process and substantive due process. We don't even need to talk about all that because the right to abortion is an unenumerated right, protected by the Ninth Amendment. And that's really the end of the goddamn discussion as far as I'm concerned. But nevertheless, we must have these conversations about penumbras and right to privacy and win those rights attached and do those rights attach at birth and yada yada yada blah, blah. It's also important to note that the road decision was not entirely inclusive. Here's talcott camp on that. Because.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on The Charlie Kirk Show
"So overturning roe versus wade wouldn't say that it would outlaw abortion. It would say that states don't have to make abortion legal. Is that correct? Well, yeah, that's right. That states are allowed to prohibit abortion. It would not itself prove abortion. It's merely the original roe V wade was overturning a state law that had prohibited abortion. Right. So that's the question. And again, I mean, that gets to kind of a central question of our federal assistant, which is and also our democratic system, one that courts generally don't insert themselves in those policy issues that outside of a narrow set of defined rights that are not subject to democratic debate, things like free speech. Other things in that are left up to legislatures and to the states. And that's ultimately what the end result of this would be. That to be able to return to the states. Now, that also could lead to it would make abortion. It wouldn't reduce the political saliency of abortion. That would be a very, very politically salient issue in the world where roe versus wade was overturned because suddenly, you know, we go from the world where legislators are sort of impotent and can't do anything to the world where it is on legislators to determine whether abortion is legal in their state. And more accountable to the people. In Mississippi, it's a popular position to try and put limitations and try to outlaw abortion in New York, obviously it isn't. Now my goal would be to obviously have the federal court eventually step in and say no abortion is unconstitutional. But this is a pretty good step in the right. This is a pretty substantial step in the right direction. One minute we'll talk about how and I want to pick this up in the next segment. How much we've moved on this issue in the last 20 years, 20 years ago, if you would have said that a debate like this was happening, people would have said you were nuts. Yeah, I mean, one you have a court really moving to the right decidedly thanks to president Trump and his confirmations. I also think unlike many other major social issues where I think there's been major advances from the left, they haven't really made nature advances if anything they've lost ground this issue. And that would be different from something like gay marriage, for instance, which went from being completely illegal and unpopular to the law of the land. So I think that's really a mark where the social conservative movement has had a great deal of success ultimately. And I think we're about to see the culmination of it as I said. I think rose about to be overturned in this decision. The real estate market is extremely hot right now. People are taking advantage of low interest rates and economic uncertainty by investing in real assets. Whether you are first time buyer or just looking to make a change, the key is to get in the property you want is being pre qualified and having cash in hand. That's why you guys, all of us myself included I had to stop doing this. I had to stop using the big banks. I used a big bank for a loan previously. It was a disaster. It took forever, not to mention, I go look at their score on second vote dot com. Like, wow, my loan helped fund.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on TIME's Top Stories
"She notes that the Casey decision opens with the line. Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt. In other words, the more imprecise the constitutional standard, she says, the more that opens the door for chaos, and thus, no refuge, no safety, no guarantee of liberty. Always another road to go down. Texas's recent ultra strict abortion law represents a cautionary tale for the abortion rights movement. The law not only bans most abortions, but also deputizes private citizens to enforce the ban and gives them a bounty to do so. Some clinics in the state have stopped offering abortion services altogether, while the law has forced other abortion providers into tough legal corners. In the weeks since the law passed, Texans have flooded surrounding states in search of abortions. Texas has given us a preview of what we could see on a much bigger scale in many states around the country. If row is overturned, Ripley says. She knows that her ability to argue effectively before the Supreme Court in December comes with huge stakes. Women still make up only a fraction of advocates before the Supreme Court often less than 20%. And now Rickman will be appearing again in a case that could have historic implications for the future of how women are able to live in the U.S.. She and her co lead council, Hillary schneller, often work 13 or 14 hour days preparing for oral arguments. By the time December 1st comes, their team will have spent thousands of hours on the case. The arguments themselves will look very different from the past. Due to the ongoing pandemic, only the main lawyers from each side and press will be allowed inside. Everyone else, including northup, will have to wait outside. Rickman isn't even sure her husband will make it this time as the family has been careful about traveling since their younger daughter isn't yet eligible for the COVID-19 vaccine. Rickman plans to listen to music. Maybe some U2 to steady herself before the arguments and meditate on the extraordinary work that our clients do to keep their clinics open. She and northup are realistic about the outlook for their cause. The Supreme Court already allowed the Texas law to go into effect earlier this fall and despite the justices recently professing that they want to remain apolitical, the conservative justices have all expressed clear opposition to abortion over the course of their careers. I have never been as concerned about the constitutional protections for abortion rights. As I am today northup says, but she adds she remains optimistic about the fight for abortion access going forward. There's always another road to go down northup says if the Supreme Court slams the door reverses roe V wade, we have the U.S. Congress. We have fighting state by state. We have mobilizing people, like perhaps had not been necessary before. There is always an opportunity to fight on a different front. She adds.
"roe v. wade" 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..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on BrainStuff
"Of iheartradio. Hey brain stuff lauren. Bogo bomb here nearly fifty years ago the. Us supreme court made one of its most controversial rulings with its landmark decision in roe v wade. The ruling declared that states criminalizing. Abortion violates a woman's right to due process meaning a woman has the right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy with limited government restrictions. Until that point. Nearly all fifty states outlawed abortion except in cases to save a woman's life or health or in situations such as rape incest or fetal anomaly in the years since that landmark decision state legislators have made numerous attempts to chip away at abortion rights through ballot measures and legislative moves and together have passed more than one thousand three hundred restrictions on abortion. Dozens more are currently making their way through state legislatures but the president set by roe. V wade and its progeny case planned parenthood v. casey remain intact however a mississippi case set to be reviewed. This fall by the supreme court holds the potential to shake the very foundation. Upon which these cases stand the aftershocks. Of which will either strengthen or reshape the future of abortion rights in america it began on january twenty second of nineteen seventy-three when by vote of seven to to. The supreme court legalized abortion in the us. Under roe v wade. The court's judgment was based on the decision that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy fell under the freedom of personal choice and family matters protected by the fourteenth amendment to the us constitution. The case created the trimester system. Which says states cannot impose any restrictions on women choosing to terminate their pregnancies during the first trimester. Though it does allow some government limits in the second trimester states can restrict or ban abortions in the last trimester once the fetus becomes able to live outside the womb however roe v wade also established that in the final trimester. A woman could obtain an abortion if doctors certified that is necessary to save the life or health of the woman in nineteen ninety two. The supreme court made another landmark decision in planned parenthood v. Casey in that case the court upheld a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion established by row but also applied the undue burden standard for abortion restrictions establishing that no laws should be too burdensome or restrictive of one's fundamental rights. There have been numerous challenges to roe. And casey through the years that the supreme court has struck down including a ban after six weeks in north dakota and ban after twelve weeks in arkansas. The court also struck down two thousand sixteen texas law that impeded clinics abilities to perform abortions earlier this year however texas lawmakers found a way to get around the supreme court at least for now at midnight on september. First of twenty twenty one. The nation's strictest abortion law went into effect in the state known as the fetal heartbeat bill or sp eight the law bans abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. That is six weeks after a person's last menstrual cycle which is before most people know they're pregnant and far earlier than legally provided by roe v. Wade what makes texas's law different from others is that it's enforceable only through private civil action. Essentially that means that the law empowers citizens to sue abortion providers or anyone who helps another person get an abortion or even intends to assist someone after a so called fetal heartbeat has been detected a which the bill defines as cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the station sack. Although biologically the hardest we know it has not developed by six weeks so it's not really a heartbeat but rather the just coordinating effects of a small group of cardiac cells. The person suing does not have to be connected to the person considering the abortion or to a provider or even live in the state of texas if the accuser wins their case the person or entity being sued would have to pay the accuser or accusers. At least ten thousand dollars as well as costs for attorney's fees according to the law an independent abortion provider in texas called whole women's health then challenged the law in an emergency application to the supreme court on the grounds at the six week ban was unconstitutional. The supreme court remained mute on the subject until hours before the law went into effect. Issuing an unsigned opinion consisting of a single long paragraph that stated the abortion providers failed to make their case. Though chief justice. John roberts who was appointed by republican president. George w bush and left leaning justices steven briar elena. Kagan 'em sonia. Sotomayor dissented a for the article. This episode is based on. How stuff works. Spoke with stephanie lindquist. A foundation professor of law and political science at arizona state university and the recognized expert on the supreme court and she explained that the texas law was able to skirt a supreme court review at this juncture quote because it relies on private actors to enforce the law as opposed to state officials. And no one yet has enforced. It accords are very reluctant to resolve cases that have not yet reached a concrete dispute however the us department of justice has a different source of standing. She explains on september ninth of twenty twenty one. The department of justice sued texas on behalf of us citizens on the grounds that texas's abortion law is a violation of federal law attorney. General merrick garland said during a news conference quote. The act is clearly unconstitutional under longstanding. Supreme court precedent the justice department filed the lawsuit in the western district of texas and seeks permanent injunction. But the case will likely eventually make its way to the supreme court when roh went into effect in nineteen seventy three the majority of the court comprised republican appointed justices. Even justice harry blackmun. Who wrote the roe. V wade opinion had been appointed by republican president richard nixon. Since then linquist said the ideological orientation toward abortion has changed. The republican party is now firmly entrenched as the party that opposes abortion before president. Donald trump took office in two thousand seventeen. He vowed to appoint justices to the supreme court to overturn roe. V wade justice anthony. Kennedy's retirement in two thousand eighteen and ruth bader ginsburg's death in september twenty twenty allowed trump to do so with conservative pittsburgh. Cavanaugh and amy coney baratz the supreme court now has a six to three conservative majority with all six having taken hostile positions against abortion at one point or another since roe was decided. Legislators in conservative states have pressed to impose additional restrictions on abortion. But linquist says they now see a window of opportunity with the personnel changes at the supreme court quote a with the majority of justices being catholic and most of them being appointed by republican presidents. The assumption is that now is the time strike while the iron is hot. Legislation can finally get the supreme court. Where roh could be challenged and struck down another such opportunity to entice the supreme court to revisit roe. V wade presented itself in dobbs v jackson women's health organization. This case stems from a law passed by the mississippi legislature in two thousand eighteen that banned abortions after the fifteen th week of pregnancy jackson women's health organization the only licensed abortion provider in mississippi challenged the law's constitutionality after a us district court and the us district court of appeals for the fifth circuit sided with the clinic. Mississippi took the case to the supreme court on may seventeenth of thousand twenty one. The supreme court announced it would review the case. This fall the outcome of which could impact the precedents set by.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"For creating this law But of course it. It went to the supreme court. The supreme court refused to block it. Can you just walk us through the reasoning that the justices that were in the minority in the majority. Excuse me used to come up with a decision. Yes so how it started. Essentially the some abortion providers in texas sued and they argued. The law was unconstitutional. Which pretty clearly. The substance of the laws unconstitutional because advance abortion two weeks after ms period which is not what roe v wade says roe v. Wade says you have a right to choose abortion until ability which is like around the twenty four th week so they had to figure out who to sue though right because you can't you can't see the state and listen official is enforcing the law. So they just decided they were going to sue lots of judges. Lots of people. They thought were going to bring lawsuits just sort of trying to cover all their bases and the supreme court looked at it and said well. We don't really know if any of these people are going to enforce the law at this point and texas has said none of the state officials are going to enforce the law. And you haven't really proven that that's not true so you don't have a right to be in federal court even if this laws unconstitutional. You still need to be able to sue the right person to prove it and you haven't shown that you can do that and that's why the law got to go into effect now. It may be a game changer. If someone in texas actually violates the law and get sued because if they do that they're going to be in a specific court with a specific judge and it's gonna to be pretty clear that that judges holding a trial and making them painting. That's so at that point. It'll be clear who's doing the enforcing but this early on it wasn't really clear era. At least that's what the supreme court said and so our as the court said. Whoa this is such a crazy law..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"Republican candidates have been telling me for as long as i can remember that they want to overrule roe v. Wade they want to appoint justices who will overrule roe. V wade on. There are six justices on the supreme court right now who have said in their own writings in one form or another that that they disagree with current abortion press president some of them said explicitly. They want to overrule roe. V wade but there are six justices who have said in their precedents that they think that cases like and casey were wrongly decided. And i believe that you know i believe donald trump when. He told me that his justices would vote to overrule roe v wade. I believe the justices who've been saying in dissenting opinions for many years that they would overrule roe v wade. I believe that when justice barrett signed a letter while she was still a law professor attacking abortion rights. And you know and saying that you she she should work to get rid of abortions that she was telling the truth. You know the only thing that i'm doing here and again like i could be surprised. I shouldn't speak with absolute certainty. But i am taking them at their word. My guest is ian mill heiser. Who covers the supreme court for. Vox this afternoon. After we recorded the interview the justice department announced it's filing a lawsuit to challenge texas's restrictive abortion law. We'll hear more of my interview with ian millhauser after a break. I'm terry gross. And this is fresh air. Let's get back to my interview with ian mill. Heiser who has been writing about the recent supreme court order allowing restrictive texas abortion law to go into effect. He's also been writing about the courts. Voting rights decisions the increasing use of the shadow docket and the courts. Larger moved to the right in his new book. The agenda how a republican supreme court is reshaping america. He writes that while congress has become increasingly polarized and dysfunctional. The supreme court has become the locus of policy making in the us and the policies are largely conservative. Three of the six conservative justices were appointed by president. Trump millhauser says some of the courts least understood and most arcane decisions are fundamentally reshaping our nation. He's a senior for. Vox where he focuses on the supreme court the constitution and threats to liberal democracy in the us. Millhauser is a lawyer and clerked for judge of the. Us court of appeals for the sixth circuit. So if the supreme court either.
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"But how what we're seeing now is basically a shift in strategy to try to limit or overrule Abortion rights and that the strategy has shifted from looking at restrictions to looking at actually overturning roe and if not literally overturning roe functionally overturning role. Can you talk about that straight that change in strategy. Sure so a lot of this goes back to justice. Kennedy who retired under president trump on anthony kennedy was very still alive. He still very conservative But he wasn't willing to overrule roe. V wade altogether. He was willing to uphold a lot of restrictions on the abortion rights and so antiabortion advocates realize. Well it's so long as kennedy's the key vote we can ask the court dover over. We will lose that. Kennedy's always said we already said we've used that case. But we can enact more and more rigid restrictions on the right with the goal of making it so difficult to get an abortion to operate an abortion clinic that the right essentially ceases to exist on the point in this and like this is something. I really struggle with as a journalist because there will be a moment where the supreme court hands down a decision. That effectively cuts off the right to an abortion. That opinion may not use the words roe. V wade is overruled and so one thing. I struggle with his journalist is at one point. Do i tell my readers and you know the people listen to on the radio and elsewhere that the abortion right is dead. Even though the court may not have used the words roe v wade is overruled. I'll give you a quick example There was a case a few years ago. Just as kennedy actually ruled voted to strike down this law but there was a texas law that imposed a very difficult credentialing process on doctors who want to perform abortions and impose very expensive architectural requirements on abortion. Clinic bohol's had to be a certain with. They had to have a full operating suite even though many abortion clinics don't do surgeries at all. They only provide medication abortions. That are induced by pills on these very expensive architectural requirements and the concern that abortion advocates had. Was that if these laws were upheld. If the supreme if states are allowed to say just impose really expensive architectural requirements on abortion clinics. Why can't a a state say. Oh yeah you could perform abortions abortions are legal but the clinic has to be made of solid gold. You know you can imagine the sort of a restrictions that would be so expensive that there would be impossible to comply with. It would mean that the right to abortion has ceased to exist so you said there will be a time when the supreme court out and out overrules row or casey or give states such broad powers to add that are becomes functionally impossible in many states to get an abortion. You sounded so certain when you said there will be a time. Are you that certain that the supreme court will rule against row or casey or rule in favor of such restrictions. I mean. I guess i shouldn't speak with absolute confidence. I'm very highly confident that this court is going to end the constitutional right to an abortion. Now you a lot could happen you. You know maybe justice thomas decides to go pursue his dreams on broadway. You know maybe justice gorsuch and justice alito or lost at sea. I mean the membership of the court could change you. There are things that could happen. But i think that so. Long as the six to three panel sets with six conservative justices appointed by republican presidents. I i mean..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Fresh Air
"The court is kind of unconstitutional. So we're going to not allow us law to stamp the absolutely. They could have done that the your they could've you know like just suggested they could have said we did. Sue a state official. Who enforces the law. You sued a state judge. But yes i mean the ultimate point here is exactly what you said. This law was drafted in order to frustrate judicial review. It was drafted in order to prevent anyone from being able to suit a block. It and that's a really frightening prospect. I mean imagine if the texas governor had passed a law saying that anyone who criticizes me can be me. The texas governor can be sued obvious violation of the first amendment. I can't imagine a court would tolerate a law like that. So i think at least part of the story here. Is that the reason why. The supreme court was willing to tolerate this weird rube goldberg method of getting around the way that courts normally function is. Because there's now majority on the supreme court that opposes abortion rights. And they wanted to see this antiabortion law go into effect. So what would a challenge to this restrictive. Texas law look like who could challenge it. Under what circumstances so the way that things work now. After the supreme court's order is that someone has to wait until after they are sued and then once they are sued under the law. They can then go to court as the defendant and say your honor my defense to this lawless. That it's unconstitutional It's not lawful to ban abortion under roe v. Wade therefore this lawsuit should be thrown out there several problems to that approach. I mean one is like i said i think there's a very high likelihood that the supreme court is about to overrule roe v wade and if that happens. That defense doesn't work anymore. The other problem with it is that this law authorizes any person except for texas employees literally any person you don't have to be a texan. You don't have to be in any you don't have to know the person you're subic. Any person can sue an abortion provider. And so if someone violates the law in order to set up a test case where they can then go to court and say your honor. This laws unconstitutional. You should throw this lawsuit out. The probably not going to be sued one time they might be sued by thousands or tens of thousands of people. Because again anyone can file a lawsuit and to defend against those lawsuits. You need hire lawyers. Lawyers are expensive. You need to go to every single court in which you are sued and that could be courts all throughout taxes and that's extraordinarily expensive. The mere prospect of having to defend against this law could wind bankrupting and abortion clinic. So the person being sued has to pay a lot in court fees. Meanwhile the person suing them might get ten thousand dollars for their effort. So it's yeah Yeah exactly like the i mean. The person who is bringing the lawsuit will have some fees presumably will hire their own lawyer. You know they have to file a filing fee. It's not like you can bring a lawsuit for free. But the person being sued might be sued thousands of times you know there might be seven thousand lawsuits against them..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"I mean i guess not out of nowhere but like you say broke late even for this supreme court i was surprised and and i'm about to explain it all right. So let's get this right to be opening arguments levels of clear here. The supreme court did not overturn roe. V wade because it did not issue a ruling on the merits. They did not rule on the merits of anything. This is what we call shadow docket. What they did was allow a blatantly unconstitutional law to go into effect before overturning roe v wade which is something they were probably going to do around april or may of next year and as far as i can tell and i spent the better part of the morning looking for counter examples. This is what happened. Today is literally unprecedented in the history of this country. So let me let me give you an example of how this never happens. And let's suppose it's nineteen sixty two. And i'm a poor person in prison. I did not have a lawyer appointed from the time the law the land was case called bets versus brady. Which said yeah. You know you get a court appointed lawyer if it's a capital case or if there are issues with competence sore in know certain extenuating circumstances but just because you're to portable afford a lawyer you don't get one. There was no right to court appointed counsel as mike teach at. Lowe's buy mind every time. Yeah so let's imagine then. I file a habeas petition to the supreme court. And i say yeah. I know betsy brady. But you're about to hear you've already got pending on your docket. Abs petition. From my buddy clarence gideon and you know you guys on the supreme court pretty. It's nineteen sixty two. You're pretty liberal bunch. Some pretty sure you're gonna ruling gideon's favor and you're going to overturn that betts v brady case You're gonna say that everybody gets a right to a lawyer. That's gonna freebie eventually so why not. Just let me out right right right and you know. What did they do. Give gideon v wade. Right right came out in nineteen sixty three and it was nine. Oh right like not. Controversial unanimous overturned. Betsy brady did exactly but yeah this hypothetical petition and by the way there were actual petitions and not to this hypothetical petition. The supreme court would that same super. Liberal supreme court would not have granted relief at that time right. They have granted anticipatory challenges. Still lie yet. They would've said maybe we'll change the law but until then we live in a country with the rule of law and the law says you're not entitled to it. Sorry this is going to be an episode for. We have covered almost every component of this on multiple previous episodes of the show. So episodes twenty. Seven and twenty eight are when we covered the planned parenthood versus casey decision. If you haven't listened to those if you came in like it stormy at stormy daniels maybe come back and listen to twenty seven twenty pretty good and the shadow docket late much later on obviously but the shadow docket with And recital right yup shadow docket. We talked about on episode five seven up. Yeah so all of the components here are things you can search the away website for it. We have covered an in depth. Even if only get this far. what they're doing. It's not just which is already bad enough. It's not just that they're obviously overturning roe. that's already bad. it's that the this is completely unprecedented. I'm so sick of republicans getting to feel like and call themselves. They're just calling balls and strikes balls and strikes they're just constitutional umpires over there and they're doing this a field goal in the middle of a baseball game. I'm not getting so let me break down exactly what happened. Because i think i can make this clear even to uncle frank exactly how radical this is so point number one. Texas passed a law. And we're going to talk about all the provisions of this has. Wow is it a doozy. It's sb eight. That bans abortion after six weeks. Guy point to existing constitutional law is super duper to the ends of the earth. Clear that you cannot do that. Yeah and i am going to quote from planned. Parenthood versus casey five zero five eight thirty three at eight forty five. To forty six quote we are led to conclude this the essential holding of roe. V wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed. It must be stated at the outset and with clarity. This is the supreme court talking that rose essential holding the holding. We reaffirm has three parts and again if you listen to our episodes. They're actually missed. They're actually changing roe. V wade a little bit here but nevertheless this is the law of the land. Good law right now. The central holding of roe v wade as reaffirmed by planned parenthood versus. Casey has three parts. I is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and obtain it without undue inference without undue interference from the state continuing just in case that's not clear enough before viability. The state's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect a procedure. So that's the law. The law says if it's pre viability you cannot ban abortion. The state's interest is not strong enough. Now if you've listened to the show you know. I don't think viability is a crate. Archea you know. I prefer the original restaurant. But doesn't matter what i think it matter did should matter what the law is right. So the law states cannot prohibit abortion before viability. Sp prohibits abortion before viability. Six weeks way way way before him here go. Oh god. States can't prohibit abortion at six weeks so what happened. what happened. Was what what i expected to happen. Whole women's health and abortion provider in texas. They went to a us district court. Judge ticket the in joint which happened. Because it's obvious because the reason. I said it's obviously in custody show. So then texas appealed to the fifth circuit and the fifth circuit as we have documented at great length hates abortion. It is stacked with antiabortion activists who have bent over backwards to misconstrue laws whenever it comes to upholding the conservative result of that law right and we talked about that at length. And the whole woman's health versus heller steph opinion so fifth circuit hates abortion and they reversed the district court. I wasn't surprised by that either. Then whole women's health appealed to the supreme court and the supreme court then did to fix i is. They did nothing they just sat on the application and let sba go into effect and then belatedly a day later at around midnight last night as of our recording midnight on wednesday they released an opinion that i will read to you in full because that opinion citations included is four hundred eleven words so two thirds of a page about the length that you might expect from a reasonably bright fifth graders book report and so when we explained the shadow docket episode five. But this is what we mean. We mean with no explanation with no analysis without committing to anything imprint. This opinion allowed a blatantly unconstitutional law to go into effect. So there is no discussion of the case. On the merits there was no analysis espy. Eight there is no analysis of row. It does not faked a row. It does not say to casey. It is just procedural but that procedural means that the texas law goes into effect until it is briefed. Argued litigated at the district. Level appealed to the fifth circuit on the merits briefed argues coast to oral argument..
"roe v. wade" Discussed on Opening Arguments
"Is the lowest day in our democracy since one six and And maybe worse than that it is. Everyone knows what we're here to talk about The supreme court overruling roe v wade. Now that is not legally accurate. But that is how you should be describing and we will be describing it that way but it's It's worse than that but that's a level of outrage that you should have. oh boy. yeah this is this is a. This is a bad feeling enter. This feels like back during the previous administration. We'd record a lotta these where it's like all right now really in the mood for funding games like let's let's get to the horror but we haven't had have one of those since as you say i i was gonna reach all the way back in my mind to january of the same year. Yeah so not that long ago but still like it had been nice to not. Have you know complete crumbling of democracy every several days in under the previous administration. But this feels like that. Same feeling. And i i hate it. It's the right feeling and look if you're new to this show. This is not an alarmist show right. We're we're a left-wing show. We were very critical of the trump administration. We were very hopeful about A lot of things in the biden administration. I don't say this lightly and i. I also want to emphasize that the harm that i worry about in terms of the coverage of what the supreme court did is in some ways. A harm that. I cost jeez so well attenuated but five years ago when we started the show. If you look at those first hundred episodes oftentimes the the lead story would be something like the press would say supreme court blocks trump's muslim bam right and we would have to get on to say. Look that's not exactly. What the supreme court did. They didn't rule on the merits of the muslim ban. And as we sadly predicted for you eventually when they figure this out and get it right and correct procedural defects. This supreme court is going to rule. That trump has the power to dim. The thing you were right right. So i see news outlets reporting this. Npr story that is infuriating. That says supreme court allows texas abortion law to stand comma for now. And you're like what are you. What are you oh yes at. Some point did the next year. And a half on the merits amy. Conybeare it is going to change her mind off of the belief. She's been indoctrinated instance. Birth that abortion is murder toubon. Eds my belief notwithstanding the fact that this misstates the law that every newspaper in america should lead with the headline supreme court overturns. Yeah not because. That's that's not true. They have not yet done that but what they've actually done is so much worse and let me explain what that is in briefest possible terms. They have allowed a law that blatantly. Contradicts is prohibited by both ravi. Wait and planned. Parenthood versus casey in texas. That is sba which we will break down They've allowed that to go into effect. So you know. In what sense. Can you say there is a constitutional protection for the right to an abortion if a law that contrary ends those protections is allowed to go into effect. Yeah it's like if a state passed a law that was like no talking and then the court was like all right We see no problem with that and then allow it. Is there still a first amendment. Then you're for now. They're allowing a lot like you would say right. Do they seem hotline on the first amendment. Essentially yeah that is right. Those headlines would say okay. Well you know. They're still they've yet to hear the merits of the like what we understand. What an injunction and break all that down a couple of things. I want to say preliminary. And i again every time. We do an abortion episode. I want to be very very clear about this guy. Trans men are men and they can and do get pregnant. They can end do have abortion so we strive to be very gender inclusive in our language on the show. Our trans friends are trans listeners. Trains people generally are taking it on the chin right. Now are the major target of the republican culture. So our hearts go out to you. We try to be allies. Sp and the accompanying opinions use the word women. So when i'm quoting from the law. When i'm quoting from the opinions i am going to use the word women because i'm quoting from those opinion and i think there's a larger point that i struggle with a little bit and that is many of the religious impulses to control abortion and birth control are meant to control women. They're not meant to effect. Meant right. So i really do struggle with us. So if you're trans listener. Right in via patriotic or open arguments at g mail dot com. I struggle with this. Because i want to talk about the republican war on women. Yeah i do not want to contribute to trans male erasure in society. And i'm trying to do the best. I see what you're saying. Is we want to be able to talk about the republican women. There's also a republican war on trans people but it's a different war. You know what i mean like. It's two different wars happening. And this is more about the war on women. I don't know how. I think making clear what you're going for. Hopefully that that will keep people into what you mean. All i can say is we value. We try and listen to those voices. Please continue sharing them with us and we will continue to do the best. We can the second thing. I want to say related voices. We will have women's voices on our show on this issue. This story broke at midnight last night. And we record at one o'clock the next day and so it just is not technologically schedule-wise feasible for us to bring on different voices. We have reached out. That is important us and i guess my third sort of preliminary thought is rich. White women are going to be okay. they're gonna. They're gonna continue to do what they did before roe v wade which is travel out of state or out of the country to to get abortions to get medical care is poor people who will suffer the burdens. One of my questions for not just you but anybody. Listening is like 'cause lydia. Her first impulse was like okay. How do we sponsor people. You know like count. How do we. How do we help. So that's going to be one of the questions. I mean there's gotta be. I assume organizations that are going to try to handle that. I would think so. I do not know. I think listeners can yeah prep yes. Listeners can shoot us some links or anything about which organizations might be the most helpful. Yeah you're right. We're kind of scrambling this. Yes it is out of..
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
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.