1
00:00:01,900 --> 00:00:11,100
I can't keep quiet. 
I can't keep quiet. 

2
00:00:26,000 --> 00:00:29,000
This is Rumble with Michael 
Moore and I am Michael Moore. 

3
00:00:29,400 --> 00:00:32,200
Thank you, everybody for tuning.
Hang in here today to my 

4
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:34,600
podcasts. 
I'm going to do something on 

5
00:00:34,600 --> 00:00:38,500
today's podcast that I've ever 
done before I listen to a lot of

6
00:00:38,508 --> 00:00:40,800
podcasts. 
I don't think I've heard anybody

7
00:00:41,700 --> 00:00:42,800
do this. 
It's not. 

8
00:00:42,800 --> 00:00:49,100
Usually, I'll pack has a role. 
But today, as I'm recording this

9
00:00:49,100 --> 00:00:55,000
here on Wednesday evening, 
December 1st, Rosa Parks day, 66

10
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:59,000
years to the day. 
When she was arrested, For not 

11
00:00:59,000 --> 00:01:01,500
giving up her seat to a white 
man on a bus in Montgomery, 

12
00:01:01,500 --> 00:01:05,400
Alabama. 
I always like to remember her on

13
00:01:05,400 --> 00:01:10,400
this day and I'm probably more 
so, on this particular day 

14
00:01:10,500 --> 00:01:15,200
because the Supreme Court today,
Listen to the arguments as to 

15
00:01:15,200 --> 00:01:19,200
whether or not women in this 
country are second-class 

16
00:01:19,200 --> 00:01:25,600
citizens and it was clear that 
the majority of this court is 

17
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:31,000
licking their chops. 
And excited eager to be able to 

18
00:01:31,000 --> 00:01:36,200
roll that they they the law 
Justice. 

19
00:01:37,000 --> 00:01:42,600
The government has a right to 
put its grubby paws on the 

20
00:01:42,600 --> 00:01:47,600
reproductive, organs of half, 
more than half of the population

21
00:01:47,600 --> 00:01:53,900
of this country and it was it 
was such a profound day and, and

22
00:01:53,900 --> 00:01:57,300
we've only been able to listen 
live to the Supreme Court. 

23
00:01:57,300 --> 00:02:00,600
Aw, you only know picture, but 
we've only been listen able to 

24
00:02:00,600 --> 00:02:02,400
listen live for a couple of 
months. 

25
00:02:02,400 --> 00:02:07,300
Now, it's a brand new thing, you
know, and to listen to the 

26
00:02:07,300 --> 00:02:10,199
arguments today from the state 
of Mississippi as they were 

27
00:02:10,199 --> 00:02:13,400
essentially, trying to overturn 
Roe versus Wade. 

28
00:02:13,700 --> 00:02:19,100
But also the attorney for the by
demonstration, trying to stop 

29
00:02:19,100 --> 00:02:22,300
this from happening and then 
listening to the nine justices, 

30
00:02:22,300 --> 00:02:24,900
oh my God, let me just get to 
take care of some of her 

31
00:02:24,900 --> 00:02:28,700
housekeeping here first because 
I'm Do something here today that

32
00:02:28,700 --> 00:02:32,500
said again that we not done this
before, but I think this was 

33
00:02:32,500 --> 00:02:35,900
such a historic day in his one. 
Commentator said today, probably

34
00:02:35,900 --> 00:02:41,400
no day, no Day since wherever 
the last vote was in the late 

35
00:02:41,600 --> 00:02:46,700
1800s. 
Early, 1900s, that forbid, women

36
00:02:46,700 --> 00:02:49,600
from voting the last time that 
happened before. 

37
00:02:49,600 --> 00:02:51,500
It finally became an amendment 
to the Constitution. 

38
00:02:52,700 --> 00:02:57,000
That was the worst day for women
until today, in this will go 

39
00:02:57,000 --> 00:02:58,500
down in history. 
History today. 

40
00:02:59,700 --> 00:03:06,700
And I've been very upset. 
Since this morning, and we were 

41
00:03:06,700 --> 00:03:09,500
going to do something else today
on Rumble. 

42
00:03:09,700 --> 00:03:14,200
I wanted to talk about the 
shooting of the students in the 

43
00:03:14,200 --> 00:03:19,800
high school in Michigan, high 
school 20. 25 miles from where I

44
00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:24,100
went to high school and I have 
some things I want to say about 

45
00:03:24,100 --> 00:03:26,700
that. 
So, at some point here in the 

46
00:03:26,700 --> 00:03:30,400
next days or weeks, I hopefully 
will be able to do that to 

47
00:03:30,400 --> 00:03:31,700
there's so much going on, I 
know. 

48
00:03:32,300 --> 00:03:35,500
But we decided that this was a 
Most importance. 

49
00:03:35,500 --> 00:03:40,700
So, hang on for just a couple of
minutes here while I just take 

50
00:03:40,700 --> 00:03:41,800
care of some business here with 
you. 

51
00:03:42,400 --> 00:03:46,400
First of all, I want to thank 
everybody who sent me a comment 

52
00:03:46,400 --> 00:03:51,300
or a response from my last 
piece, my last online column 

53
00:03:51,300 --> 00:03:54,000
that I wrote on my sub stack 
site. 

54
00:03:54,000 --> 00:03:55,600
Michael more.com. 
That's all you got to go to 

55
00:03:55,600 --> 00:03:58,100
Michael more.com. 
If you want to read this, I 

56
00:03:58,100 --> 00:04:02,900
right, usually, one a week and 
this was called stop watching 

57
00:04:03,100 --> 00:04:10,400
and reading. the pundit, Boo 
Berry and in this piece that I 

58
00:04:10,408 --> 00:04:17,500
posted on Sunday, I attempted to
up in Some of the current myths 

59
00:04:17,500 --> 00:04:21,100
and half-truths that are 
currently in our national 

60
00:04:21,100 --> 00:04:25,600
discussion, about the economy 
and our politics, you know, when

61
00:04:25,600 --> 00:04:28,500
you've just watched too much 
television, or you have looked 

62
00:04:28,500 --> 00:04:32,700
too many items or things on the 
screen, where you're not just 

63
00:04:32,700 --> 00:04:35,800
air coming out of your ears, but
Steam, and not just steam, but I

64
00:04:35,808 --> 00:04:38,500
mean, your heads exploding, 
frankly, you can't take it 

65
00:04:38,500 --> 00:04:41,600
anymore. 
That's the impetus of what I 

66
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:43,600
wrote on Sunday, I'd love for 
you to read it if you hadn't 

67
00:04:43,600 --> 00:04:46,900
even read it. 
And these Islands are free every

68
00:04:46,900 --> 00:04:50,400
week. 
You just sign up by going to 

69
00:04:50,400 --> 00:04:53,300
Michael more.com, you can get 
all my writings and you can read

70
00:04:53,300 --> 00:04:56,200
this. 
This this thing about the 

71
00:04:56,200 --> 00:04:58,900
pundits. 
And also, I just want to let you

72
00:04:58,900 --> 00:05:02,300
know, for those of you who are 
thinking of getting some of our 

73
00:05:02,300 --> 00:05:06,700
gear for friends or family for 
the holidays, that December 11th

74
00:05:07,000 --> 00:05:10,700
is the last day to order, so 
that you have a guaranteed 

75
00:05:10,700 --> 00:05:13,600
Postal Service First Class 
delivery by Christmas Eve. 

76
00:05:13,900 --> 00:05:16,300
So if you want this for 
yourself, You want to give it to

77
00:05:16,300 --> 00:05:19,600
somebody, whatever? 
You've got a couple weeks left, 

78
00:05:19,900 --> 00:05:25,000
not even a couple weeks really. 
So, I encourage you to go to 

79
00:05:25,000 --> 00:05:28,800
what we call, the more store, 
the address is stored on Michael

80
00:05:28,800 --> 00:05:32,400
more.com and you can get a whole
bunch of great Rumble and 

81
00:05:32,400 --> 00:05:36,300
dog-eat-dog films gear there and
whatever. 

82
00:05:36,300 --> 00:05:39,700
It's a, it's a thing. 
We started part of it is to 

83
00:05:39,700 --> 00:05:43,300
raise money for the things, I 
support Progressive causes and 

84
00:05:43,300 --> 00:05:49,500
movements and also the To return
arts and Civics to our Public 

85
00:05:49,500 --> 00:05:51,400
Schools. 
So, if you'd like to be 

86
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:55,500
supportive of that and walk 
around with a rumble ball Kappa,

87
00:05:56,400 --> 00:05:59,400
go to the store that Michael 
Moore it.com. 

88
00:06:00,000 --> 00:06:03,300
I've been asked to do this for 
30 years by those of you who are

89
00:06:03,300 --> 00:06:06,600
fans since my first film and 
whatever and I've never done 

90
00:06:06,600 --> 00:06:10,000
this. 
And so now I'm doing it and and 

91
00:06:10,000 --> 00:06:12,600
I think you'll enjoy it. 
I'm having a little fun with it.

92
00:06:12,600 --> 00:06:15,400
So thank you for that stored up 
Michael more.com. 

93
00:06:16,500 --> 00:06:20,300
Also, for those of you who are 
members of my sub stack, who are

94
00:06:20,300 --> 00:06:25,400
members of this, who pay the, 
five bucks a month, whatever. 

95
00:06:25,400 --> 00:06:27,900
We have some, you know, special 
things that we do for you, but 

96
00:06:29,000 --> 00:06:33,200
but you don't get any extra 
podcast, you don't get an extra 

97
00:06:33,500 --> 00:06:35,300
column or whatever. 
Everything I write, or 

98
00:06:35,308 --> 00:06:38,400
everything I do on this 
microphone is free to everybody,

99
00:06:38,700 --> 00:06:41,600
but if you do want to support 
our work and we're raising money

100
00:06:41,600 --> 00:06:42,700
for the next film and 
everything. 

101
00:06:42,700 --> 00:06:46,300
Right now, I encourage you to 
become a member of Michael 

102
00:06:46,300 --> 00:06:48,500
more.com. 
And one of the things that we do

103
00:06:48,500 --> 00:06:52,200
for members is you get to ask me
questions in a live stream. 

104
00:06:52,300 --> 00:06:56,800
So we're next member livestream 
Q&A, is going to be on Sunday, 

105
00:06:57,500 --> 00:06:59,600
December 12th. 
That's a week from this coming 

106
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:05,200
Sunday, Sunday, December 12th at
2 p.m. eastern time, all right? 

107
00:07:05,500 --> 00:07:08,200
And if you remember you can 
participate in that and ask me 

108
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:10,600
whatever you want. 
It'll be the second time I'm 

109
00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:12,900
doing this. 
I we did one of these month or 

110
00:07:12,900 --> 00:07:15,500
two ago and we had a great time 
with it. 

111
00:07:15,700 --> 00:07:17,000
It. 
And those of you who are paid 

112
00:07:17,000 --> 00:07:19,500
members participated and it's 
really great. 

113
00:07:19,500 --> 00:07:21,500
Now people are now. 
If you're not happy memorable 

114
00:07:21,500 --> 00:07:25,000
all come I can, we've done a 
couple things here to keep the 

115
00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:28,700
trolls out of the out of the 
discussion, the Heat and the 

116
00:07:28,707 --> 00:07:31,800
spewing of, I just none of us 
want this anymore. 

117
00:07:31,800 --> 00:07:35,000
And the only way we figured out 
how to do this is if you want to

118
00:07:35,000 --> 00:07:40,800
make a comment on my page or if 
you want to participate in 

119
00:07:40,800 --> 00:07:44,800
things like the livestream 
q&a's, or we did one of these 

120
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:46,000
already. 
We're going to do another One 

121
00:07:46,000 --> 00:07:49,800
called Mike's movie night where 
you and I will watch a movie 

122
00:07:49,800 --> 00:07:52,100
together, all of you and then 
we'll have a discussion 

123
00:07:52,100 --> 00:07:54,200
afterwards about the movie 
Sometimes will have on the 

124
00:07:55,100 --> 00:07:57,400
director or one of the stars of 
the film or whatever. 

125
00:07:57,800 --> 00:08:01,400
That's another thing you get, if
you are paid member. 

126
00:08:01,800 --> 00:08:03,800
And so what we're going to be 
announcing the next Mike's movie

127
00:08:03,800 --> 00:08:05,900
night coming up here in the next
little bit. 

128
00:08:05,900 --> 00:08:09,600
But right now the next Q&A is 
Sunday December 12th 2 p.m. 

129
00:08:10,000 --> 00:08:12,900
members only for that. 
We look forward to talking to 

130
00:08:13,700 --> 00:08:17,000
all of you out there who are 
supporting our work now. 

131
00:08:17,100 --> 00:08:21,200
So before we get to supreme 
court today, I just want to 

132
00:08:22,000 --> 00:08:25,300
thank our Underwriters for 
supporting our voice here. 

133
00:08:25,600 --> 00:08:29,300
So, first of all, shout out to 
one of our longtime Underwriters

134
00:08:29,300 --> 00:08:33,299
Amazon Studios, and their 
documentary film, my name is 

135
00:08:33,299 --> 00:08:36,600
Paul E or E. 
Amazon Studios has been backing 

136
00:08:36,600 --> 00:08:39,799
some wonderful films and 
filmmakers, especially 

137
00:08:39,799 --> 00:08:43,100
nonfiction films. 
They've put a lot of good 

138
00:08:43,100 --> 00:08:47,500
support and money into Helping 
documentary filmmakers, 

139
00:08:47,500 --> 00:08:50,400
especially a lot of first-timers
are getting their film scene. 

140
00:08:50,400 --> 00:08:54,400
Thanks to Amazon Studios and 
they've done this once again 

141
00:08:54,400 --> 00:08:56,600
with this wonderful documentary 
called. 

142
00:08:56,600 --> 00:09:00,400
My name is Paulie. 
Marie, it was directed by Betsy 

143
00:09:00,400 --> 00:09:04,000
West and Julie Cohen who you may
remember made the documentary 

144
00:09:04,000 --> 00:09:07,900
RBG about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 
that was nominated for an Oscar 

145
00:09:07,900 --> 00:09:12,300
back in 2019. 
And in this new film, these two 

146
00:09:12,300 --> 00:09:15,100
women is filmmakers. 
They are telling the story of 

147
00:09:15,100 --> 00:09:18,900
someone who is often overlooked 
as many people are in our 

148
00:09:18,900 --> 00:09:22,900
history, Paulie Marie. 
She was a Trailblazer in the 

149
00:09:22,900 --> 00:09:26,500
legal world, she played an 
important role in The Civil 

150
00:09:26,500 --> 00:09:28,500
Rights. 
Struggle in the women's 

151
00:09:28,500 --> 00:09:32,300
movement, her ideas influenced 
rbg's fight for gender, 

152
00:09:32,300 --> 00:09:35,000
equality, and Thurgood, 
Marshall's, civil rights 

153
00:09:35,000 --> 00:09:37,900
arguments. 
She was a lawyer or a writer, a 

154
00:09:37,900 --> 00:09:41,000
priest, a poet. 
And I come, we've never heard of

155
00:09:41,000 --> 00:09:43,700
her, right. 
This is the beauty of 

156
00:09:44,000 --> 00:09:45,500
documentary filmmakers that make
these films. 

157
00:09:46,300 --> 00:09:48,800
Tell us things that we think we 
know everything. 

158
00:09:48,800 --> 00:09:51,900
We know only maybe half of it if
that. 

159
00:09:52,200 --> 00:09:57,100
Well Paulie Marie, her story is 
finally being told this film was

160
00:09:57,100 --> 00:10:00,800
an official selection at 
Sundance, the AFI Fest and it 

161
00:10:00,800 --> 00:10:04,100
won the audience award at the 
Aspen film festival and Gloria, 

162
00:10:04,100 --> 00:10:06,400
Steinem the great Gloria 
Steinem. 

163
00:10:06,900 --> 00:10:09,000
Said of this film. 
My name is Paulie Marie. 

164
00:10:09,500 --> 00:10:14,100
It is a beautiful film that 
vividly captures this pioneering

165
00:10:14,100 --> 00:10:17,600
attorney. 
Honest and dedicated memoirist. 

166
00:10:18,200 --> 00:10:21,700
So there you have it. 
My friends watch my name is Paul

167
00:10:21,700 --> 00:10:24,900
EPA Uli. 
My name is Paulie Marie. 

168
00:10:25,100 --> 00:10:27,400
I'm Prime. 
Watch it on Prime, I'll have a 

169
00:10:27,408 --> 00:10:29,900
link to the film right here, on 
the description page of this 

170
00:10:29,900 --> 00:10:32,000
episode. 
And again, I think Amazon 

171
00:10:32,000 --> 00:10:36,400
Studios for supporting this 
podcast, supporting my voice and

172
00:10:36,400 --> 00:10:39,300
supporting the outstanding 
nonfiction films that I've seen 

173
00:10:39,500 --> 00:10:43,500
this year. 
Like, my name is Paulie Marie. 

174
00:10:44,800 --> 00:10:47,900
I also want to give a Out to a 
brand-new underwriter and they 

175
00:10:47,900 --> 00:10:51,300
make something that I think many
of you will find to be a great 

176
00:10:51,300 --> 00:10:54,800
holiday gift. 
They're called Aura frames. 

177
00:10:55,500 --> 00:10:57,600
Maybe you've heard of them. 
They make these beautiful 

178
00:10:57,600 --> 00:11:00,600
digital photo frames that are 
easy to set up. 

179
00:11:00,600 --> 00:11:03,900
You can put them on the table, 
you can put them on the wall and

180
00:11:04,000 --> 00:11:07,400
it's a great way to connect to 
show family, friends, to have 

181
00:11:07,400 --> 00:11:11,600
your loved ones, who may live, 
thousands of miles away there on

182
00:11:11,600 --> 00:11:15,200
the table, on the living room 
wall, especially in this age of 

183
00:11:15,200 --> 00:11:18,300
social Distancing where a lot of
us have not seen family and 

184
00:11:18,300 --> 00:11:21,600
friends for sometime, in 
addition to uploading photos to 

185
00:11:21,600 --> 00:11:26,600
your aura frame, you can now 
upload video as well and there's

186
00:11:26,600 --> 00:11:30,900
a free unlimited storage for 
both photos and Video in these 

187
00:11:30,900 --> 00:11:32,500
frames. 
It's so cool. 

188
00:11:32,500 --> 00:11:35,900
I'm sure you've seen these right
people and I was at somebody's 

189
00:11:35,900 --> 00:11:38,800
place. 
You're so going there was on the

190
00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:40,500
wall I thought. 
Oh, this is so cool. 

191
00:11:40,800 --> 00:11:43,800
So it was a home movies of their
of their kids back when they 

192
00:11:43,800 --> 00:11:48,400
were kids and a longer kids. 
But So it's a very cool thing to

193
00:11:48,400 --> 00:11:52,200
have in the house and these 
frames or frames are one of the 

194
00:11:52,200 --> 00:11:55,800
most popular gifts. 
Now for Christmas birthdays 

195
00:11:55,800 --> 00:12:00,100
Mother's Day, anniversaries for 
anyone in the family actually 

196
00:12:00,100 --> 00:12:02,600
last year, when they did this, 
they completely sold out on 

197
00:12:02,600 --> 00:12:05,500
Christmas and Valentine's Day. 
There are offering now a 

198
00:12:05,500 --> 00:12:08,000
discount this year, for rumble 
listeners. 

199
00:12:08,700 --> 00:12:13,300
So visit Aura frames on a spell 
that for you or a you are a 

200
00:12:13,500 --> 00:12:20,400
frames.com Yeah, or a frames.com
and use the code Rumble to take 

201
00:12:20,400 --> 00:12:25,500
$30 off or as best selling 
digital picture frames that's or

202
00:12:25,500 --> 00:12:30,600
a you are a frames.com, thank 
you or for joining us here on 

203
00:12:30,600 --> 00:12:34,900
Rumble and supporting our voice 
and supporting what, I hope is 

204
00:12:34,900 --> 00:12:37,600
the good work that we're trying 
to do to create a better country

205
00:12:37,600 --> 00:12:41,200
and a better Planet much 
appreciation from all of us. 

206
00:12:50,000 --> 00:12:54,700
Don't say welcome back to rumble
with Michael Moore. 

207
00:12:55,700 --> 00:13:00,400
As I'm recording this just hours
after the Supreme Court heard 

208
00:13:00,400 --> 00:13:04,500
arguments as to, whether or not 
to remove a woman's right to 

209
00:13:04,500 --> 00:13:11,200
choose from one of the rights 
that we have in our democracy, I

210
00:13:11,200 --> 00:13:14,900
thought of doing something 
different here today. 

211
00:13:15,200 --> 00:13:21,800
And, and the idea hit me, has I,
as I listened to Justice 

212
00:13:22,800 --> 00:13:26,500
Sotomayor. 
Ask this question. 

213
00:13:27,900 --> 00:13:30,900
To the Mississippi attorney 
general, and to the world. 

214
00:13:32,200 --> 00:13:34,800
About what they're in the 
process of doing. 

215
00:13:36,000 --> 00:13:38,400
She's in the minority on the 
court obviously. 

216
00:13:38,900 --> 00:13:42,800
So you got the nine up there 
six, conservatives that three 

217
00:13:42,800 --> 00:13:46,900
liberals and of the six 
conservatives three appointed by

218
00:13:46,900 --> 00:13:51,000
Trump and two of them, two of 
the Trump point. 

219
00:13:51,000 --> 00:13:54,600
He's also worked for George w-- 
Bush to convince the Supreme 

220
00:13:54,600 --> 00:13:57,400
Court to stop the counting of 
the votes back in 2000 and just 

221
00:13:57,400 --> 00:14:00,800
put him in the White House. 
Even though he is essentially 

222
00:14:00,900 --> 00:14:04,500
lost the election, They were 
part of that and the currents 

223
00:14:04,500 --> 00:14:10,900
Thomas was you know Bush V Gore.
That was the case was a five to 

224
00:14:10,900 --> 00:14:13,400
four vote. 
One vote, one vote. 

225
00:14:13,400 --> 00:14:14,500
They're here. 
They're here and they're he's 

226
00:14:14,500 --> 00:14:15,600
sitting there today. 
Clarence. 

227
00:14:15,600 --> 00:14:18,400
Thomas, one of the five made up 
the majority. 

228
00:14:18,900 --> 00:14:21,700
They gave us George w-- Bush and
everything that came with him. 

229
00:14:22,200 --> 00:14:27,500
So now today at the podium 
arguing the case in front of the

230
00:14:27,500 --> 00:14:32,500
Supreme Court are two women, one
who represents the Center for 

231
00:14:32,500 --> 00:14:36,200
Reproductive Rights and the 
abortion clinic. 

232
00:14:36,300 --> 00:14:39,000
The Women's Health Center in 
Jackson, Mississippi. 

233
00:14:39,400 --> 00:14:43,300
And her name was a Julie 
riggleman and along with her 

234
00:14:44,600 --> 00:14:49,600
President Biden's solicitor 
general, Elizabeth be prologue 

235
00:14:49,600 --> 00:14:52,700
are. 
So they're arguing in favor of 

236
00:14:52,700 --> 00:14:58,300
women's rights, a woman's right 
to choose and then arguing 

237
00:14:58,300 --> 00:15:01,500
against that was the solicitor 
general of the state of 

238
00:15:01,500 --> 00:15:06,000
Mississippi. 
P Scott, Stuart Scott, Stewart, 

239
00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:11,700
of course, his name was Scott 
Stewart and so for about 100 

240
00:15:11,700 --> 00:15:15,500
minutes of the case was made to 
the Supreme Court as to why the 

241
00:15:15,500 --> 00:15:20,000
Mississippi law that forbids. 
Any abortion from taking place 

242
00:15:20,400 --> 00:15:23,600
after the fetus is more than 15 
weeks old. 

243
00:15:25,000 --> 00:15:29,100
Right now, the law of the land 
row v Wade allows an abortion up

244
00:15:29,100 --> 00:15:34,900
to 24 weeks of pregnancy. 
Let's six months in Mississippi.

245
00:15:34,900 --> 00:15:40,100
Brought it down from six months 
to 15 weeks and if you've ever 

246
00:15:40,100 --> 00:15:43,400
been pregnant or known anybody 
who's pregnant, you know, 

247
00:15:43,400 --> 00:15:48,300
sometimes you don't go and find 
out, you don't know, or you do 

248
00:15:48,300 --> 00:15:51,300
know and you want some time to 
think about it in the law has 

249
00:15:51,300 --> 00:15:54,900
given you six months, To think 
about it. 

250
00:15:56,100 --> 00:15:59,600
It's big decision, right? 
So that's how it was set up that

251
00:15:59,600 --> 00:16:05,200
way, back in 1973, the vote at 
that time, was a 72 to vote in 

252
00:16:05,200 --> 00:16:09,500
favor of a woman's right to 
choose and of those seven votes 

253
00:16:10,200 --> 00:16:15,100
were for Republicans. 
Three appointed by Richard Nixon

254
00:16:15,200 --> 00:16:19,300
justice blackmun, justice Powell
and Justice Burger. 

255
00:16:19,300 --> 00:16:22,300
Chief justice Burger voted for 
Roe v-- Wade. 

256
00:16:23,000 --> 00:16:25,100
Well, we have a different 
situation now today. 

257
00:16:26,000 --> 00:16:31,200
And as I listen to the Supreme 
Court, the arguments pro and con

258
00:16:31,900 --> 00:16:36,200
by the attorneys, and the 
questions that they were asked 

259
00:16:36,800 --> 00:16:41,200
by these nine justices. 
I just could not believe what I 

260
00:16:41,200 --> 00:16:46,000
was hearing and you can see very
clearly. 

261
00:16:47,000 --> 00:16:50,800
The times is already written a 
piece about this is sort of a, 

262
00:16:50,800 --> 00:16:52,700
almost a done deal at this 
point. 

263
00:16:54,700 --> 00:16:57,200
But I never like to feel that 
way, especially when it's about 

264
00:16:57,200 --> 00:16:59,200
evil. 
And I like to think that maybe 

265
00:16:59,200 --> 00:17:02,200
Good Will triumph over it and 
that there's enough of us work. 

266
00:17:02,200 --> 00:17:06,400
Good. 
And who will fight for the good?

267
00:17:07,900 --> 00:17:10,200
I have not given up on that. 
After all these years I have 

268
00:17:10,200 --> 00:17:12,400
plenty of evidence as to why I 
should. 

269
00:17:12,900 --> 00:17:15,800
But I don't I don't because I 
have too much too much other 

270
00:17:15,800 --> 00:17:20,900
evidence to show how far we've 
come how far we can get if we 

271
00:17:20,900 --> 00:17:25,700
just rise up. 
And today as I was listening to 

272
00:17:25,700 --> 00:17:27,800
this and some of you are 
listening to this hour on 

273
00:17:27,800 --> 00:17:31,800
Thursday or Friday here this 
week, but let me read you what 

274
00:17:31,800 --> 00:17:34,900
Justice Sotomayor said. 
So I'm listening to this end, 

275
00:17:35,400 --> 00:17:38,000
all of a sudden Justice 
Sotomayor. 

276
00:17:39,000 --> 00:17:44,400
One of the three liberals on the
court frustrated exhausted. 

277
00:17:45,100 --> 00:17:48,600
Decided to ask the existential 
question of the day. 

278
00:17:49,100 --> 00:17:52,800
That question that went beyond 
how we're going to vote. 

279
00:17:53,100 --> 00:17:58,300
On this abortion issue, but to 
the larger, the issue, a larger 

280
00:17:58,300 --> 00:18:02,000
issue of our democracy, and this
is what she said. 

281
00:18:03,300 --> 00:18:09,500
She asked this question, will 
this institution survived the 

282
00:18:09,500 --> 00:18:13,800
stench that this creates in the 
public perception? 

283
00:18:14,000 --> 00:18:20,500
That the constitution And it's 
reading are just political Acts.

284
00:18:22,100 --> 00:18:28,600
I don't see how it is possible. 
How it is possible to how this 

285
00:18:28,600 --> 00:18:30,300
is going to play out in any 
other way. 

286
00:18:32,400 --> 00:18:34,600
Wow, that just hit me like a 
lightning bolt. 

287
00:18:35,900 --> 00:18:38,500
We are creating a stench in this
room. 

288
00:18:38,500 --> 00:18:45,200
She says, And I thought, you 
know what? 

289
00:18:45,700 --> 00:18:51,700
This is the podcast today. 
Not me complaining about this 

290
00:18:52,600 --> 00:18:53,900
fighting this and doing 
everything. 

291
00:18:53,900 --> 00:19:02,200
I wanted to scream bloody murder
about this but I decided to turn

292
00:19:02,200 --> 00:19:04,600
this episode over to the United 
States. 

293
00:19:04,600 --> 00:19:09,700
Supreme Court, I want you to 
hear live what they said and 

294
00:19:09,700 --> 00:19:12,600
what they did, I want you to 
hear the arguments from the 

295
00:19:12,600 --> 00:19:16,600
attorneys. 
I think all of us as citizens of

296
00:19:16,600 --> 00:19:21,700
this democracy must Listen to 
these words that were spoken 

297
00:19:22,200 --> 00:19:26,900
inside the Supreme Court today 
because your head I'm telling 

298
00:19:26,900 --> 00:19:31,500
you my head was just going back 
and forth, they are doing this, 

299
00:19:32,200 --> 00:19:36,800
they're actually going to do 
this, they're in the process of 

300
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:40,300
in their questions and in there 
and thinking out loud. 

301
00:19:41,000 --> 00:19:46,700
It's not so much of whether they
are going to Overturn Roe, v-- 

302
00:19:46,700 --> 00:19:51,200
Wade, they're trying to work out
the how, how can we do this? 

303
00:19:51,800 --> 00:19:56,300
Can we get away with this? 
How do we make women 

304
00:19:56,600 --> 00:20:01,100
second-class, citizens? 
There's nothing more. 

305
00:20:01,100 --> 00:20:04,600
I can say, there's no guests. 
I could have on today that would

306
00:20:04,600 --> 00:20:10,600
be more powerful. in giving you 
the true sense of a historic 

307
00:20:10,600 --> 00:20:16,500
moment, where the majority 
gender is about to be nullified,

308
00:20:16,700 --> 00:20:20,200
where the majority gender is 
about, to be placed into 

309
00:20:20,200 --> 00:20:26,100
second-class citizenship, And 
what we do about it, what we're 

310
00:20:26,100 --> 00:20:27,900
all going to have to do about 
it. 

311
00:20:28,900 --> 00:20:32,500
In the coming months. 
I'm going to save that for part 

312
00:20:32,500 --> 00:20:34,900
two in another week or two or 
whatever. 

313
00:20:34,900 --> 00:20:40,000
Will I want you to think and 
hear what was said in your 

314
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:46,400
Supreme Court this week. by your
justices of the Supreme Court, 

315
00:20:47,900 --> 00:20:52,200
in the Valiant effort of these 
two women attorneys who tried to

316
00:20:52,200 --> 00:20:58,400
argue And plead with the court 
to not reduce the majority 

317
00:20:58,400 --> 00:21:01,900
gender. 
The second-class status. 

318
00:21:03,900 --> 00:21:08,300
They think they can do it. 
They think they could do this to

319
00:21:08,300 --> 00:21:15,500
women with God on their side. 
So make yourselves comfortable. 

320
00:21:17,300 --> 00:21:19,900
I'm going to play this in its 
entirety. 

321
00:21:20,200 --> 00:21:22,800
It goes for only about 100 
minutes little more than 100 

322
00:21:22,800 --> 00:21:26,100
minutes and listen to as much of
it, as you can. 

323
00:21:26,100 --> 00:21:29,700
Now, listen to the rest later. 
But please listen to the the 

324
00:21:29,700 --> 00:21:32,500
whole thing because it is a 
civics lesson that we don't 

325
00:21:32,500 --> 00:21:35,700
usually get, we're only in the 
second or third month of them 

326
00:21:35,700 --> 00:21:39,700
actually letting us listen live 
to the Supreme Court. 

327
00:21:40,300 --> 00:21:44,000
You know, before we act in the 
coming weeks and months, we need

328
00:21:44,000 --> 00:21:46,800
to educate ourselves and we need
the knowledge. 

329
00:21:47,200 --> 00:21:51,100
Of what was taking place in our 
name in this court. 

330
00:21:51,800 --> 00:21:56,800
Today, I'm going to now turn 
this over to our United States 

331
00:21:57,300 --> 00:21:59,900
Supreme Court. 
And I'll come back with a 

332
00:21:59,908 --> 00:22:02,900
closing word. 
At the end, we will hear 

333
00:22:02,900 --> 00:22:07,800
argument this morning in case 
19, 1392 Dobbs versus Jackson 

334
00:22:07,800 --> 00:22:11,900
Women's Health Organization. 
General Stuart mr. 

335
00:22:11,900 --> 00:22:13,900
Chief justice, and may it, 
please the court. 

336
00:22:14,500 --> 00:22:17,400
Roe versus Wade and Planned 
Parenthood versus KC, haunt our 

337
00:22:17,400 --> 00:22:19,500
country. 
They have no basis in the 

338
00:22:19,500 --> 00:22:21,800
Constitution. 
They have no home in our history

339
00:22:21,800 --> 00:22:24,200
or Traditions. 
They've damaged the Democratic 

340
00:22:24,200 --> 00:22:26,300
process. 
They poison the law. 

341
00:22:26,500 --> 00:22:29,200
They've choked off compromise 
for 50 years. 

342
00:22:29,200 --> 00:22:31,900
That kept this court at the 
center of a political battle 

343
00:22:32,100 --> 00:22:35,200
that it can never resolved and 
fifty years on, they stand 

344
00:22:35,200 --> 00:22:37,200
alone. 
Nowhere else does this court 

345
00:22:37,200 --> 00:22:39,800
recognized a right to end a 
human life? 

346
00:22:40,900 --> 00:22:43,900
Consider this case the 
Mississippi Law here, prohibits 

347
00:22:43,900 --> 00:22:47,600
abortions, after 15 weeks, the 
law includes robust exceptions 

348
00:22:47,600 --> 00:22:50,800
for a woman's life and health. 
It leaves months to obtain an 

349
00:22:50,800 --> 00:22:54,800
abortion yet, the courts below 
struck the law down, it didn't 

350
00:22:54,800 --> 00:22:57,400
matter that the law applies that
the law applies. 

351
00:22:57,400 --> 00:23:00,800
When an unborn child is 
undeniably human, when risks to 

352
00:23:00,800 --> 00:23:04,500
women Surge and when the common 
abortion procedure is brutal. 

353
00:23:05,100 --> 00:23:07,900
The lower Court's held that 
because the law prohibits 

354
00:23:07,900 --> 00:23:10,600
abortions before viability, it 
is unconstitutional. 

355
00:23:10,700 --> 00:23:14,300
Optional, no matter what row in 
Casey's core holding, according 

356
00:23:14,300 --> 00:23:17,200
to those courts, is it? 
The people can protect an unborn

357
00:23:17,200 --> 00:23:20,600
Girl's Life when she just barely
can survive outside the womb but

358
00:23:20,600 --> 00:23:24,500
not any earlier when she needs a
little more help, that is the 

359
00:23:24,500 --> 00:23:27,500
world under Roe and Casey that 
is not the world. 

360
00:23:27,500 --> 00:23:31,000
The Constitution promises, the 
Constitution places, its trust 

361
00:23:31,000 --> 00:23:34,100
in the people on hard issue 
after heart issue. 

362
00:23:34,100 --> 00:23:38,300
The people make this country 
work, abortion is a hard issue, 

363
00:23:38,900 --> 00:23:40,700
it demands the best, from all of
us. 

364
00:23:41,000 --> 00:23:44,800
Not a judgment by just a few of 
us when an issue affects 

365
00:23:44,800 --> 00:23:46,400
everyone. 
And when the Constitution does 

366
00:23:46,400 --> 00:23:51,300
not take sides on it, it belongs
to the people, Roe and Casey 

367
00:23:51,300 --> 00:23:55,700
have failed, but the people, if 
given the chance will succeed, 

368
00:23:56,200 --> 00:23:58,900
this court should overrule Roe 
and Casey and uphold the state's

369
00:23:58,900 --> 00:24:01,800
law, I welcome the courts 
questions General. 

370
00:24:01,800 --> 00:24:10,300
Stuart you focus on the right to
abortion but our jurisprudence 

371
00:24:10,600 --> 00:24:20,100
Seems to seem to focus on in 
Casey autonomy in row privacy. 

372
00:24:21,500 --> 00:24:26,600
Does it make a difference that 
we focus on privacy or autonomy 

373
00:24:26,600 --> 00:24:29,500
or more specifically on 
abortion? 

374
00:24:31,400 --> 00:24:34,500
I think whichever one of those 
you're focusing on your honor 

375
00:24:34,500 --> 00:24:38,300
particularly if you're focusing 
on the right to abortion, each 

376
00:24:38,300 --> 00:24:41,400
of those starts to become a step
removed for what's provided in 

377
00:24:41,408 --> 00:24:42,500
the Constitution. 
Yes. 

378
00:24:42,500 --> 00:24:45,700
The Constitution does provide 
certain protect certain aspects 

379
00:24:45,700 --> 00:24:49,300
and privacy of autonomy and the 
like, but as this court said in 

380
00:24:49,300 --> 00:24:54,400
glucksberg, going directly from 
general concepts of autonomy of 

381
00:24:54,400 --> 00:24:58,600
privacy of bodily Integrity to a
right, is not how we 

382
00:24:58,600 --> 00:25:01,100
traditionally this court 
traditionally does Process 

383
00:25:01,100 --> 00:25:02,800
analysis. 
So I think it just confirms 

384
00:25:02,800 --> 00:25:05,300
whichever one of those. 
You look at your honor, a right 

385
00:25:05,300 --> 00:25:08,300
to abortion is not grounded in 
the text and it's grounded on 

386
00:25:08,900 --> 00:25:12,200
abstract Concepts that this 
court has rejected. 

387
00:25:12,300 --> 00:25:14,500
In other context is supplying a 
substantively. 

388
00:25:14,500 --> 00:25:20,100
You say that this is the only 
constitutional, right? 

389
00:25:20,100 --> 00:25:22,100
That involves the taking of a 
life. 

390
00:25:22,200 --> 00:25:24,500
What difference does that make 
in your analysis? 

391
00:25:24,800 --> 00:25:28,100
Sure, your honor. 
I think it makes a number of 

392
00:25:28,100 --> 00:25:30,600
differences one. 
I mentioned two in particular. 

393
00:25:30,700 --> 00:25:36,800
Euler one is it really does Mark
out the unbelievably profound 

394
00:25:36,800 --> 00:25:41,200
ramifications of this area? 
Which in many other areas. 

395
00:25:41,200 --> 00:25:44,000
Assisted suicide a whole host of
important areas that are 

396
00:25:44,008 --> 00:25:47,300
important to dignity, autonomy, 
freedom and and important of 

397
00:25:47,500 --> 00:25:50,600
matters of conscience, it marks 
it out as one of the unique 

398
00:25:50,600 --> 00:25:53,000
areas where this court has taken
that important issue to the 

399
00:25:53,000 --> 00:25:57,600
people, and it's something that 
implicates life and it just I 

400
00:25:57,600 --> 00:26:01,300
think marks off Justice, Thomas 
how problematic Usual and how 

401
00:26:01,300 --> 00:26:03,400
much of a break, the courts of 
birth. 

402
00:26:03,400 --> 00:26:05,800
Abortion jurisprudence is from 
those other cases. 

403
00:26:05,800 --> 00:26:08,800
If we don't overrule Casey or 
row? 

404
00:26:09,400 --> 00:26:12,800
Do you have a standard you 
propose other than the viability

405
00:26:12,800 --> 00:26:14,700
stand? 
It would be your honor. 

406
00:26:15,000 --> 00:26:17,700
A clarified version of the undue
burden standard. 

407
00:26:18,500 --> 00:26:22,700
I would emphasize, I think, is 
your honors alluding to that no 

408
00:26:22,700 --> 00:26:26,000
standard other than the rational
basis review that applies to all

409
00:26:26,000 --> 00:26:28,700
laws will promote an 
administrable workable 

410
00:26:29,000 --> 00:26:33,200
practicable That jurisprudence 
that puts matters back with the 

411
00:26:33,200 --> 00:26:34,600
people. 
I think anything heightened here

412
00:26:34,600 --> 00:26:38,300
is going to be problematic, but 
I would say, if the court were 

413
00:26:38,300 --> 00:26:42,100
not inclined to to overrule 
Casey the the choice would be 

414
00:26:42,100 --> 00:26:45,400
undue, burden standard 
untethered from any bright line 

415
00:26:45,400 --> 00:26:53,300
viability rule. 
I'd like you to a different 

416
00:26:53,300 --> 00:26:55,900
topic. 
Back to Casey, assume you've 

417
00:26:55,900 --> 00:27:00,100
read Casey pretty thoroughly. 
Yes, your honor and there are 

418
00:27:00,108 --> 00:27:05,000
two parts. 
One is, I reaffirm row put that 

419
00:27:05,000 --> 00:27:08,300
to the side. 
The second is an opinion for the

420
00:27:08,300 --> 00:27:13,400
court, not for three people, but
for the court, and that second 

421
00:27:13,400 --> 00:27:19,400
part is about what Starry 
decisis principles should be 

422
00:27:19,400 --> 00:27:23,200
used to overrule. 
Okay, Sly Crow. 

423
00:27:24,500 --> 00:27:30,000
And they say, Rose special. but 
special about it, they say it's 

424
00:27:30,000 --> 00:27:35,400
rare, he call it a watershed 
Why? 

425
00:27:36,300 --> 00:27:40,800
Because the country is divided 
because feelings Run High. 

426
00:27:42,100 --> 00:27:46,800
And yet the Country For Better 
or For Worse, decided to resolve

427
00:27:46,800 --> 00:27:52,200
their differences. 
By this court laying down, a 

428
00:27:52,200 --> 00:27:55,300
constitutional principle in this
case, woman's choice. 

429
00:27:55,400 --> 00:27:58,300
But that was what makes it rare.
That's not what I'm asking you 

430
00:27:58,300 --> 00:28:01,300
about. 
I want your reaction to what 

431
00:28:01,300 --> 00:28:05,600
they said, follows from that. 
What the court said follows from

432
00:28:05,600 --> 00:28:12,700
that is that it should be more 
unwilling to overrule a prior, 

433
00:28:12,700 --> 00:28:17,000
case Farm or unwilling, we 
should be whether that case is 

434
00:28:17,000 --> 00:28:20,300
right or wrong. 
Then the ordinary case. 

435
00:28:21,400 --> 00:28:23,900
And why? 
Well, they have a lot of words 

436
00:28:23,900 --> 00:28:26,100
there, but I'll give you about 
10 or 20. 

437
00:28:28,000 --> 00:28:30,500
There will be inevitable efforts
to overturn it. 

438
00:28:31,200 --> 00:28:36,000
Of course, there will feelings 
Run High and it is particularly 

439
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:41,900
important to show we do. 
In overturning a case is 

440
00:28:41,900 --> 00:28:47,700
grounded in principle and not 
social pressure, not political 

441
00:28:47,700 --> 00:28:53,000
pressure only quote, the most 
convincing justification can 

442
00:28:53,000 --> 00:28:55,400
show that a later. 
Decision overruling. 

443
00:28:55,400 --> 00:28:58,500
If that's what we did was 
anything, but a surrender to 

444
00:28:58,500 --> 00:29:02,500
political pressures or new 
members and that is an 

445
00:29:02,500 --> 00:29:06,800
unjustified repudiation. 
Of principles on which the 

446
00:29:06,800 --> 00:29:10,200
courts takes its Authority. 
And then, there are two 

447
00:29:10,200 --> 00:29:12,100
sentences. 
I'd like to reach as they say, 

448
00:29:12,100 --> 00:29:15,800
they really mean this, the 
court, not just three. 

449
00:29:17,100 --> 00:29:22,200
To overrule Under Fire in the 
absence of the most compelling, 

450
00:29:22,200 --> 00:29:28,700
reason to re-examine a watershed
decision would subvert, the 

451
00:29:28,700 --> 00:29:33,400
courts legitimacy Beyond any 
serious question. 

452
00:29:34,800 --> 00:29:38,600
And the last sentence after they
quote Potter Stewart on the same

453
00:29:38,600 --> 00:29:43,400
point, they say overruling 
unnecessarily and Under Pressure

454
00:29:43,800 --> 00:29:48,500
would lead to condemnation. 
The courts loss of confidence in

455
00:29:48,500 --> 00:29:52,400
the Judiciary. 
The ability of the court to 

456
00:29:52,400 --> 00:29:57,900
exercise the judicial power, and
to function as the Supreme Court

457
00:29:57,900 --> 00:30:04,600
of a Nation dedicated to the 
rule of law, that's the opinion 

458
00:30:04,600 --> 00:30:07,900
of the Court. 
Right? 

459
00:30:08,500 --> 00:30:11,500
And it's about Starry decisis 
and how we approach it and I 

460
00:30:11,508 --> 00:30:16,400
hope everybody reads this. 
It's at 5:05, u.s. 854 2869. 

461
00:30:17,400 --> 00:30:20,100
All right what do you say to 
that? 

462
00:30:20,800 --> 00:30:24,700
Sure you're sure Justice Breyer 
I would say a couple things I 

463
00:30:24,700 --> 00:30:30,600
would say we have very closely 
gone through the factors that 

464
00:30:30,600 --> 00:30:33,200
the Casey court itself went 
through and Starry decisis more 

465
00:30:33,200 --> 00:30:35,200
than half of our brief is 
devoted to sorry decisis. 

466
00:30:35,400 --> 00:30:38,700
We now have 30 years in the wake
of Casey to see what Casey has 

467
00:30:38,700 --> 00:30:43,100
done and what it hasn't done, 
it's called some bad things in 

468
00:30:43,100 --> 00:30:46,200
the eyes of some people and some
good things in the eyes of some 

469
00:30:46,200 --> 00:30:47,700
people, your honor. 
All right? 

470
00:30:47,700 --> 00:30:49,100
All right, go ahead. 
You I'm sorry, your honor. 

471
00:30:49,900 --> 00:30:53,000
What I'd emphasize your honor is
that to the extent that that 

472
00:30:53,000 --> 00:30:56,500
the, I would not say it was the 
people that called this court to

473
00:30:56,500 --> 00:31:00,000
end the controversy. 
The people, you know, many, many

474
00:31:00,000 --> 00:31:03,000
people vocally, really just 
wanted to have the matter 

475
00:31:03,000 --> 00:31:05,400
returned to them so that they 
could decide it decide it 

476
00:31:05,400 --> 00:31:08,300
locally deal with it the way. 
Thought best and at least have a

477
00:31:08,300 --> 00:31:11,600
fighting chance to have their 
view Prevail, which was not 

478
00:31:11,600 --> 00:31:14,500
given to them under row. 
And then as a result under Casey

479
00:31:14,700 --> 00:31:17,500
and I'd also emphasize your 
honor that on on stare decisis, 

480
00:31:17,500 --> 00:31:19,400
just as I said, the last 30 
years. 

481
00:31:19,700 --> 00:31:24,000
Workability developments in the 
law factual development since 

482
00:31:24,000 --> 00:31:26,600
states can account for the 
workability. 

483
00:31:26,600 --> 00:31:30,200
The undue burden standard alone.
Many problems on all the metrics

484
00:31:30,200 --> 00:31:32,500
that Casey was describing our 
the vast bulk of them. 

485
00:31:32,900 --> 00:31:34,800
Casey fails and I'd also have 
sighs. 

486
00:31:35,200 --> 00:31:42,200
This is well Justice, Breyer 
that Casey was not was not a 

487
00:31:42,200 --> 00:31:46,400
great example of Simply letting 
president stand, it re Castro's 

488
00:31:46,400 --> 00:31:48,000
reasoning it overruled to of the
courts. 

489
00:31:48,000 --> 00:31:52,000
Most important abortion 
decisions, it's jettison the 

490
00:31:52,000 --> 00:31:55,100
trimester framework of rho 
itself and adopted a new 

491
00:31:55,100 --> 00:31:57,200
standard unknown to other parts 
of the law. 

492
00:31:57,200 --> 00:32:00,300
Those are not the Hallmarks of 
precedent and they failed under 

493
00:32:00,300 --> 00:32:01,800
this Court's star. 
Who can I take it? 

494
00:32:01,800 --> 00:32:08,000
That your answer is yes. 
You accept the the way the 

495
00:32:08,000 --> 00:32:14,800
Special Rule, the rule for the 
rare Watershed, The Starry 

496
00:32:14,800 --> 00:32:19,900
decisis principles for deciding 
whether to overturn such a case 

497
00:32:20,000 --> 00:32:25,900
as row, you accept that and you 
think it's met I would I would 

498
00:32:25,900 --> 00:32:29,400
say yes in part your Justice 
Breyer. 

499
00:32:29,400 --> 00:32:32,600
And here's what I'd emphasize is
that I do think particularly 

500
00:32:33,200 --> 00:32:36,600
when Casey looked outward and 
look to what it seeks always 

501
00:32:36,600 --> 00:32:38,100
pressure. 
There were pressure on all 

502
00:32:38,100 --> 00:32:40,800
sides, as your honor, know that 
this is a hot difficult issue 

503
00:32:40,800 --> 00:32:42,700
for everyone. 
It's that's why it belongs to 

504
00:32:42,700 --> 00:32:44,800
the people. 
And I think the conclusion, the 

505
00:32:44,808 --> 00:32:47,600
court, Drew from that, that it 
couldn't provide a good enough 

506
00:32:47,600 --> 00:32:49,100
example that it would look on 
principle. 

507
00:32:49,300 --> 00:32:52,900
Those conclusions were with 
respect Justice, Breyer mistaken

508
00:32:52,900 --> 00:32:56,300
and the last the years has not 
seen any calming of that. 

509
00:32:56,400 --> 00:32:58,200
It's been very different than 
some of the others. 

510
00:32:58,500 --> 00:33:01,300
The courts other controversial 
decisions that have seen much 

511
00:33:01,300 --> 00:33:05,600
more calm. 
What hasn't been at issue in the

512
00:33:05,600 --> 00:33:10,900
last 30 years is the line that 
Casey drew a viability. 

513
00:33:11,900 --> 00:33:18,100
There has been some difference 
of opinion with respect to undue

514
00:33:18,100 --> 00:33:26,500
burden but the right of a woman 
to choose the right of to 

515
00:33:26,500 --> 00:33:33,500
control her own body has been 
clearly set for since Casey and 

516
00:33:33,500 --> 00:33:38,900
never challenge. 
You want us to reject that line 

517
00:33:38,900 --> 00:33:47,700
of viability and adopt something
different. 15, justices over 50 

518
00:33:47,700 --> 00:33:52,000
years. 
Have or I should say 30 since 

519
00:33:52,000 --> 00:33:56,600
Casey. 
Have reaffirmed that basic 

520
00:33:56,600 --> 00:34:00,600
viability line. 
Four have said, no. 

521
00:34:01,700 --> 00:34:06,200
Two of them members of this 
court, but 15 justices have 

522
00:34:06,200 --> 00:34:09,800
said, yes, of varying political 
backgrounds. 

523
00:34:11,300 --> 00:34:16,900
Now the sponsors of this bill, 
the house bill in Mississippi 

524
00:34:17,400 --> 00:34:20,400
said we're doing it because we 
have new justices. 

525
00:34:21,600 --> 00:34:25,199
The newest man that Mississippi 
has put in place the six-week 

526
00:34:25,199 --> 00:34:29,500
ban, the Senate sponsor said 
we're doing it because we have 

527
00:34:29,500 --> 00:34:31,699
new justices on the Supreme 
Court. 

528
00:34:33,300 --> 00:34:41,199
Will this institution survived 
the stench that this creates In 

529
00:34:41,199 --> 00:34:48,199
the public perception. 
That the Constitution and it's 

530
00:34:48,199 --> 00:34:53,000
reading are just political acts 
II. 

531
00:34:53,000 --> 00:34:57,800
Don't see how it is possible. 
It's what Casey talked about 

532
00:34:57,800 --> 00:35:03,300
when it talked about Watershed 
decisions, some of them Brown 

533
00:35:03,300 --> 00:35:07,600
versus Board of Education. 
It mention And this one. 

534
00:35:09,600 --> 00:35:17,600
I have such an entrenched. 
Set of expectations in our 

535
00:35:17,600 --> 00:35:20,300
society that this is what the 
court decided. 

536
00:35:20,300 --> 00:35:24,100
This is what we will follow 
that. 

537
00:35:24,100 --> 00:35:26,800
The that we won't be able to 
survive. 

538
00:35:27,100 --> 00:35:32,100
If people believe that 
everything including New York 

539
00:35:32,100 --> 00:35:36,300
versus Sullivan, I could name 
any other set of Rights 

540
00:35:36,300 --> 00:35:39,700
including the second amendment. 
By the way, there are many 

541
00:35:39,700 --> 00:35:46,200
political people who believe the
court erred In seeing this as a 

542
00:35:46,207 --> 00:35:49,400
personal writers, as opposed to 
a militia, right? 

543
00:35:50,100 --> 00:35:52,900
If people actually believe that,
it's all political. 

544
00:35:53,500 --> 00:35:56,000
How will we survive? 
How will it Court survive, 

545
00:35:57,400 --> 00:36:00,600
Justice Sotomayor, I think the 
concern about appearing 

546
00:36:00,600 --> 00:36:03,100
political makes it absolutely 
imperative. 

547
00:36:03,100 --> 00:36:05,600
That the court reach a decision,
well grounded, in the 

548
00:36:05,600 --> 00:36:08,400
constitution, in text structure,
history and tradition. 

549
00:36:08,700 --> 00:36:11,400
And that carefully goes through 
the starry, decisive factors 

550
00:36:11,600 --> 00:36:13,300
case, we play Down. 
No. 

551
00:36:13,300 --> 00:36:15,600
Didn't Casey went through every 
one of them. 

552
00:36:15,600 --> 00:36:21,100
You think you're did it wrong? 
That's your belief, but Casey 

553
00:36:21,100 --> 00:36:25,600
did that, well, your idea have 
an atom much to the discussion 

554
00:36:25,600 --> 00:36:31,300
in your papers as too. 
The errors that Casey May other 

555
00:36:31,300 --> 00:36:33,300
than I disagree with them, 
Casey. 

556
00:36:36,800 --> 00:36:40,500
Just somewhere, maybe I can. 
I can highlight to Casey gave 

557
00:36:40,500 --> 00:36:42,600
one paragraph to the workability
of row. 

558
00:36:43,000 --> 00:36:45,100
It then adopted the undue burden
standard, which is perhaps the 

559
00:36:45,107 --> 00:36:47,100
most unworkable standard in 
American law. 

560
00:36:47,400 --> 00:36:50,700
It gave about three paragraphs 
of memory serves to Reliance, 

561
00:36:50,700 --> 00:36:53,800
which doesn't account for the 
last 30 years in the changes 

562
00:36:53,800 --> 00:36:57,400
that have occurred. 
Since Casey, it did, it gave a 

563
00:36:57,400 --> 00:36:59,900
brief factual view, two things 
that have changed since Roe. 

564
00:37:00,200 --> 00:37:03,900
Those of course are not going to
take account of the last 30 

565
00:37:03,900 --> 00:37:06,500
years of advancements in Listen 
science, all of those things. 

566
00:37:06,500 --> 00:37:08,200
What are the advancements in 
medicine? 

567
00:37:09,400 --> 00:37:13,700
I think it's an advancement in 
knowledge and concern about such

568
00:37:13,700 --> 00:37:18,200
things as fetal pain, what? 
We know the child is doing and 

569
00:37:18,200 --> 00:37:23,000
looks like and is fully human 
are very early entry in regular 

570
00:37:23,000 --> 00:37:27,600
cases courts, decide whether 
science fits the daubert 

571
00:37:27,600 --> 00:37:34,200
standard. 
Obviously that under the daubert

572
00:37:34,200 --> 00:37:38,800
standard. 
The minority of people gross. 

573
00:37:38,800 --> 00:37:45,000
Minority of doctors who believe 
fetal pain exists before 24 25 

574
00:37:45,000 --> 00:37:48,400
weeks. 
So huge minority and one not, 

575
00:37:48,400 --> 00:37:55,700
well founded in science at all. 
So I don't see how that really 

576
00:37:56,300 --> 00:38:00,900
adds anything to the discussion 
at a small Fringe of doctors 

577
00:38:01,700 --> 00:38:04,900
believe that pain could be 
experience between of before 

578
00:38:04,900 --> 00:38:10,000
cortex is formed. 
What's it mean that there's been

579
00:38:10,000 --> 00:38:13,500
that much of a difference? 
Since Casey, we pointed out as 

580
00:38:13,500 --> 00:38:17,300
an example, your honor of where 
Roe and Casey improperly 

581
00:38:17,300 --> 00:38:19,800
preclude States from taking 
account for these things, and 

582
00:38:19,800 --> 00:38:22,600
they should be able to be 
concerned about the about a fact

583
00:38:22,600 --> 00:38:26,800
of an unborn life being poked 
and then recoiling is. 

584
00:38:26,800 --> 00:38:32,000
And the way one of us are where 
the general does was, I know 

585
00:38:32,000 --> 00:38:36,600
what it said about viability in 
row, but was viability an issue 

586
00:38:36,600 --> 00:38:40,000
in the case, Yes, I know it 
wasn't briefed or argued. 

587
00:38:40,700 --> 00:38:45,100
It was It was not issues in 
issue. 

588
00:38:45,100 --> 00:38:48,200
Certainly, the way it is in 
issue here, your honor, I think 

589
00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:54,000
It was to the extent that the 
court had to over had to 

590
00:38:54,500 --> 00:38:57,800
reaffirm Row. 
The way to read that is 

591
00:38:58,000 --> 00:38:59,600
something other than dicta would
be done. 

592
00:38:59,600 --> 00:39:01,300
I'm sorry. 
Got I don't know what I said. 

593
00:39:01,300 --> 00:39:03,900
Was it an issue in row? 
0 in row? 

594
00:39:03,900 --> 00:39:04,800
Yeah, I'm sorry. 
Your honor. 

595
00:39:05,600 --> 00:39:07,400
My understanding is no in the 
law. 

596
00:39:07,400 --> 00:39:10,200
There was didn't have a 
viability tag that was inserted 

597
00:39:10,200 --> 00:39:15,100
by in fact, if I remember 
correctly and I It's an 

598
00:39:15,100 --> 00:39:18,900
unfortunate Source but it's 
there in his papers Justice 

599
00:39:18,900 --> 00:39:25,000
blackmun said that the viability
line was actually was dicta and 

600
00:39:25,000 --> 00:39:29,000
presumably he had some insight 
on the question I think and I'd 

601
00:39:29,000 --> 00:39:32,100
add your honor Justice blackmun 
and I think as well as papers 

602
00:39:32,100 --> 00:39:34,900
pointed out the arbitrary nature
of it and and the line-drawing 

603
00:39:34,900 --> 00:39:38,300
problems in there too. 
And then in Casey, Casey said 

604
00:39:38,300 --> 00:39:40,500
that, that was the core 
principle or the central 

605
00:39:40,500 --> 00:39:45,000
principle in Road viability. 
It said that after Tossing out 

606
00:39:45,000 --> 00:39:48,800
the trimester formula which many
people thought was the core core

607
00:39:48,800 --> 00:39:51,900
principle but was viability at 
issue in KC. 

608
00:39:54,900 --> 00:39:57,800
I don't think it was squarely an
issue, your honor again. 

609
00:39:57,800 --> 00:40:02,000
It's it's a little hard not to 
take the court at its word when 

610
00:40:02,000 --> 00:40:06,100
it emphasized that viability the
Vie viability is the central 

611
00:40:06,100 --> 00:40:09,100
part of Rose holding and saying 
that it is reaffirming that. 

612
00:40:09,100 --> 00:40:11,200
So we kind of take that as its 
as it stands. 

613
00:40:11,200 --> 00:40:14,700
But the court has not. 
It did not face a law like this 

614
00:40:14,700 --> 00:40:19,300
certainly mr. 
Chief justice, may I finish my 

615
00:40:19,300 --> 00:40:21,600
inquiry, of course, Justice 
Sotomayor. 

616
00:40:22,400 --> 00:40:26,500
Virtually every state defines a 
brain death as death. 

617
00:40:27,600 --> 00:40:32,300
Yet the literature is filled 
with episodes of people who are 

618
00:40:32,300 --> 00:40:36,600
completely and utterly playing 
shredded responding to stimuli. 

619
00:40:39,200 --> 00:40:43,900
it, there's about 40 percent of 
dead people who if your touch 

620
00:40:43,900 --> 00:40:50,100
their feet the foot will recoil 
There are spontaneous x-bike 

621
00:40:50,100 --> 00:40:55,400
that bring people. 
So I don't think that a 

622
00:40:55,400 --> 00:41:01,400
response. 
To buy a fetus necessarily 

623
00:41:01,400 --> 00:41:06,600
proves that there's a sensation 
pain or that there's 

624
00:41:06,600 --> 00:41:11,900
consciousness. 
So I go back to my question of 

625
00:41:12,700 --> 00:41:20,000
what has changed in science. 
To show that the viability line 

626
00:41:20,300 --> 00:41:24,800
is not. 
A real line that a fetus cannot 

627
00:41:24,800 --> 00:41:28,600
survive, and I think that's what
both courts below said. 

628
00:41:29,400 --> 00:41:36,500
That you had no experts say that
there is any viability before 23

629
00:41:36,500 --> 00:41:40,000
to 24 months. 
And what I'd say is this Justice

630
00:41:40,000 --> 00:41:41,500
Sotomayor is that the 
fundamental problem with 

631
00:41:41,500 --> 00:41:43,900
viability. 
It's not really something that 

632
00:41:43,900 --> 00:41:47,200
rests on science so much. 
It's that if I ability is not 

633
00:41:47,200 --> 00:41:50,500
Tethered to anything in the 
constitution in history or 

634
00:41:50,500 --> 00:41:52,400
tradition. 
It's a quintessentially 

635
00:41:52,400 --> 00:41:55,300
legislative line. 
A legislature could think that 

636
00:41:55,300 --> 00:41:57,800
viability makes sense as place 
to draw the line. 

637
00:41:57,800 --> 00:42:00,600
But it's quite reasonable for a 
Slater to draw them something 

638
00:42:00,600 --> 00:42:03,000
else so much. 
That's not in the Constitution 

639
00:42:03,800 --> 00:42:08,100
including the fact that we have 
the last word Marbury versus 

640
00:42:08,100 --> 00:42:11,000
Madison. 
There is not anything in the 

641
00:42:11,000 --> 00:42:16,000
Constitution that says that the 
court, the Supreme Court is the 

642
00:42:16,000 --> 00:42:19,800
last word on what the 
Constitution means, it's totally

643
00:42:19,800 --> 00:42:25,100
novel at that time. 
And yet what the court did was 

644
00:42:25,100 --> 00:42:29,500
reason from the structure of the
Constitution that that's what 

645
00:42:29,500 --> 00:42:35,400
was intended and here in KC. 
And in Rome, the court said, 

646
00:42:36,100 --> 00:42:42,200
there is inherent in our 
structure that there are certain

647
00:42:42,200 --> 00:42:47,400
personal decisions That belong 
to individuals in the state's, 

648
00:42:47,400 --> 00:42:51,800
can't intrude on them. 
We've recognized them in terms 

649
00:42:51,800 --> 00:42:53,900
of the religion. 
Parents will teach their 

650
00:42:53,900 --> 00:42:59,500
children. 
We've recognized it in in their 

651
00:42:59,500 --> 00:43:02,300
ability to educate at home. 
If they choose, they just have 

652
00:43:02,300 --> 00:43:07,000
to educate them. 
We have recognized that sense of

653
00:43:07,000 --> 00:43:10,400
privacy in people's choices 
about whether to use 

654
00:43:10,400 --> 00:43:16,400
contraception or not. 
We recognize the in their right 

655
00:43:16,400 --> 00:43:18,100
to choose who they are going to 
marry. 

656
00:43:18,700 --> 00:43:20,800
I fear. 
None of those things are written

657
00:43:20,800 --> 00:43:24,300
in the Constitution. 
They have all like Marbury 

658
00:43:24,300 --> 00:43:29,100
versus Madison being discerned 
from the structure of the 

659
00:43:29,100 --> 00:43:34,300
Constitution. 
Why do we now say? 

660
00:43:35,600 --> 00:43:41,100
That somehow Roe versus case C 
is Roe and Casey are so unusual 

661
00:43:41,100 --> 00:43:44,800
that they must be overturned. 
Well, your Justice Sotomayor I 

662
00:43:44,800 --> 00:43:48,300
would I would emphasize two 
things when you're going beyond 

663
00:43:48,300 --> 00:43:50,900
the Constitution. 
This court has looked closely to

664
00:43:51,000 --> 00:43:54,100
what I'm saying is they didn't 
go beyond the Constitution, your

665
00:43:54,100 --> 00:43:56,100
honor, they did not deduce those
from the structure of the 

666
00:43:56,100 --> 00:43:58,900
Constitution, they pointed to 
the Fourteenth Amendment and, 

667
00:43:58,900 --> 00:44:03,700
and reasoned that privacy in row
live, autonomy, and similar 

668
00:44:03,700 --> 00:44:06,800
values and Casey led to a right,
Portion, that's not how this 

669
00:44:06,800 --> 00:44:09,400
court, traditionally does 
things, including in the vast, 

670
00:44:09,400 --> 00:44:11,500
run of cases, that you're on a 
ran through the court, looks to 

671
00:44:11,500 --> 00:44:14,800
history and tradition and hear 
those decisively reject. 

672
00:44:14,800 --> 00:44:17,900
The proposition that states 
cannot legislate comprehensively

673
00:44:17,900 --> 00:44:21,700
on abortion before after 
viability and all throughout. 

674
00:44:21,700 --> 00:44:24,700
So its history and tradition, 
your honor and I would also add 

675
00:44:24,700 --> 00:44:28,600
your honor that those those 
decisions, a great, many of them

676
00:44:28,600 --> 00:44:31,700
draw you know not just draw from
texting text history and 

677
00:44:31,700 --> 00:44:35,000
tradition but they draw off and 
clear lines very workable. 

678
00:44:35,800 --> 00:44:38,100
Have not led to the many 
negative story. 

679
00:44:38,100 --> 00:44:41,100
Decisive factors that we 
identify here, General wood. 

680
00:44:44,800 --> 00:44:48,600
That is what decision in your 
favor? 

681
00:44:48,600 --> 00:44:51,200
Call any of the questions, any 
of the cases? 

682
00:44:51,200 --> 00:44:54,300
Sorry that Justice Sotomayor is 
identifying into question. 

683
00:44:55,200 --> 00:44:59,400
No, your honor I think for a 
couple reasons, first of all, I 

684
00:44:59,400 --> 00:45:02,500
think the best friend of those 
cases and some mentioned from 

685
00:45:02,500 --> 00:45:04,700
time to time or think Griswold 
Lawrence. 

686
00:45:04,800 --> 00:45:06,600
Oh Berger Feld. 
These are these are cases that 

687
00:45:06,600 --> 00:45:09,300
draw. 
Clear rules, Can't Ban 

688
00:45:09,300 --> 00:45:11,300
contraception. 
Can't Ban intimate romantic 

689
00:45:11,300 --> 00:45:12,700
relationships between consenting
adults. 

690
00:45:12,700 --> 00:45:15,900
Can't Ban marriage. 
People of the same sex, clear 

691
00:45:15,900 --> 00:45:19,000
rules that have engendered a 
strong Reliance interests? 

692
00:45:19,500 --> 00:45:21,800
And that have not produced 
negative consequences. 

693
00:45:21,800 --> 00:45:25,000
They're all the many other - 
story, decisive considerations, 

694
00:45:25,000 --> 00:45:29,100
we pointed out your honor also. 
I had none of them involved the 

695
00:45:29,100 --> 00:45:30,800
purposeful termination of a 
human life. 

696
00:45:30,800 --> 00:45:35,200
So those two, those two features
story decisis and termination of

697
00:45:35,207 --> 00:45:37,800
a human life. 
Your honor puts all of those 

698
00:45:37,800 --> 00:45:40,000
safely Out Of Reach of the Court
overrules here. 

699
00:45:40,700 --> 00:45:43,300
Okay so we I'm sorry to 
interrupt again but we meeting 

700
00:45:43,300 --> 00:45:44,600
might be making progress. 
Egress. 

701
00:45:45,100 --> 00:45:49,800
I mean in the part that I read, 
you know, apiaceae? 

702
00:45:50,200 --> 00:45:52,700
Yes, your honor, I think they 
think go back 150 years. 

703
00:45:52,700 --> 00:45:56,200
Maybe now we can go back 200. 
They think they've only been two

704
00:45:56,200 --> 00:45:59,200
cases. 
Which will what they call the 

705
00:45:59,200 --> 00:46:03,400
Watershed and wear these special
tough overruling rules, apply. 

706
00:46:05,200 --> 00:46:08,800
You want this to be the third or
do you think they were more? 

707
00:46:09,200 --> 00:46:13,100
And if so what were they? 
Well, your honor. 

708
00:46:13,100 --> 00:46:15,600
I think there's quite a bit of 
difference. 

709
00:46:15,700 --> 00:46:18,800
I think the question is never, 
is it bad to overrule, period, 

710
00:46:18,800 --> 00:46:21,300
you know, surely story. 
I'm asking you to think, think 

711
00:46:21,300 --> 00:46:26,100
in their terms there were two, 
they mentioned say but and they 

712
00:46:26,100 --> 00:46:29,000
don't want Casey to, they don't 
want road to be the third and 

713
00:46:29,000 --> 00:46:33,600
now in your opinion you just 
answered Justice parrot or hey, 

714
00:46:33,600 --> 00:46:35,600
all these are not rising to 
Level. 

715
00:46:36,000 --> 00:46:38,800
Okay, right. 
You are there any the do rise to

716
00:46:38,808 --> 00:46:42,000
the level? 
In your opinion, I think. 

717
00:46:43,100 --> 00:46:45,200
And I'm not sure that I 
necessarily agree with the 

718
00:46:45,200 --> 00:46:47,800
Watershed characterization, your
honor, what I'd say though, I 

719
00:46:47,800 --> 00:46:50,600
can't think of another that kind
of hits the radar, but I'd 

720
00:46:50,600 --> 00:46:54,900
emphasize that the problem here 
is we're dealing with a right 

721
00:46:54,900 --> 00:46:57,400
that doesn't have a basis in 
constitutional text. 

722
00:46:57,400 --> 00:47:00,400
And again, very much in conflict
with those with those values 

723
00:47:00,400 --> 00:47:04,400
Justice Breyer. 
I'm not sure how your answer 

724
00:47:04,600 --> 00:47:05,800
makes sense. 
Any sense? 

725
00:47:06,400 --> 00:47:09,700
All of those other cases 
Griswold Lawrence. 

726
00:47:09,700 --> 00:47:13,800
Oh Berger Feld? 
They all rely on substantive due

727
00:47:13,800 --> 00:47:16,200
process. 
You're saying there's no 

728
00:47:16,200 --> 00:47:20,100
substantive due process in the 
Constitution so they're just as 

729
00:47:20,100 --> 00:47:23,400
wrong according to your theater,
no, your honor. 

730
00:47:23,400 --> 00:47:26,300
We're quite comfortable with 
washing versus glucksberg and 

731
00:47:26,300 --> 00:47:29,000
how it analyzes substantive due 
process and it looks to text 

732
00:47:29,000 --> 00:47:31,400
history, it looks to history and
tradition to discipline the 

733
00:47:31,400 --> 00:47:34,800
inquiry to make sure I mean 
weirder filled there was no. 

734
00:47:35,000 --> 00:47:40,500
History of same-sex marriage and
I think the court the court 

735
00:47:40,500 --> 00:47:44,100
pointed out look when we when we
were facing loving versus 

736
00:47:44,100 --> 00:47:46,100
Virginia. 
I'm not trying to argue that we 

737
00:47:46,100 --> 00:47:49,200
should overturn those cases. 
I just think you're just 

738
00:47:49,200 --> 00:47:54,200
simulating when you say that any
ruling here of wouldn't have an 

739
00:47:54,200 --> 00:47:59,000
effect on those respectfully. 
I that's that's your thinking 

740
00:47:59,000 --> 00:48:03,900
know that no state is going to 
think otherwise that know. 

741
00:48:04,800 --> 00:48:10,300
People in the population are the
channel challenge those cases in

742
00:48:10,300 --> 00:48:12,800
court. 
I mean, your honor will always 

743
00:48:12,800 --> 00:48:15,100
have a diversity of views but I 
think that's the point. 

744
00:48:15,100 --> 00:48:19,800
I think that's what I think that
the point that there's a 

745
00:48:19,808 --> 00:48:22,200
diversity of views and people 
can vigorously debate and make 

746
00:48:22,200 --> 00:48:25,400
exactly, oh, that's still doing 
and that's what we're doing 

747
00:48:25,400 --> 00:48:28,400
under undue burden but we 
haven't been doing it on the 

748
00:48:28,400 --> 00:48:32,300
viability line and neither one 
has worked well, the viability 

749
00:48:32,300 --> 00:48:34,500
line discounts and disregard 
State interest. 

750
00:48:34,600 --> 00:48:37,500
It's and the undue burden 
standard has all of the problems

751
00:48:37,500 --> 00:48:41,400
of a interest. 
Anything, but a religious View. 

752
00:48:42,700 --> 00:48:47,300
Issue of when life begins has 
been hotly debated by 

753
00:48:47,300 --> 00:48:51,100
philosophers. 
Since the beginning of time, 

754
00:48:52,100 --> 00:48:59,700
it's still debated in religions.
So when you say this is the only

755
00:48:59,700 --> 00:49:05,300
right that takes away from the 
state, the ability to protect 

756
00:49:05,300 --> 00:49:08,500
the life. 
That's a religious view, isn't 

757
00:49:08,500 --> 00:49:13,400
it because it assumes that a 
fetus is life. 

758
00:49:14,500 --> 00:49:20,500
At when you're not drawing gear,
when do you suggest we begin 

759
00:49:20,500 --> 00:49:22,200
that way? 
Your honor. 

760
00:49:23,200 --> 00:49:28,000
Aside from putting it, aside 
from religion, I'll try to. 

761
00:49:28,000 --> 00:49:30,300
I think there might be more than
one question and I'll do my very

762
00:49:30,300 --> 00:49:33,700
best Justice Sotomayor. 
I think this court in Gonzales 

763
00:49:33,700 --> 00:49:35,900
pretty clearly recognized it 
before viability. 

764
00:49:35,900 --> 00:49:40,200
We are talking with unborn life 
with a human organism and I 

765
00:49:40,200 --> 00:49:42,300
think the philosophical 
questions, your honor mentioned,

766
00:49:42,400 --> 00:49:45,000
all those reasons that they're 
hard, they've been Abated there,

767
00:49:45,000 --> 00:49:46,300
there. 
Important. 

768
00:49:46,300 --> 00:49:49,200
Those are all reasons to return 
this to the people because the 

769
00:49:49,200 --> 00:49:52,200
people should get to debate 
these heart issues and this 

770
00:49:52,200 --> 00:49:54,800
court does not in that kind of a
circumstance. 

771
00:49:55,000 --> 00:50:00,000
When does the life of a woman 
and putting her at risk? 

772
00:50:01,100 --> 00:50:06,700
And to the calculus meaning, 
right now, forcing women who are

773
00:50:06,700 --> 00:50:12,400
poor, and that 75% of the 
population and much higher 

774
00:50:12,400 --> 00:50:17,600
percentage of those women in 
Mississippi, who elect abortions

775
00:50:17,600 --> 00:50:24,600
before viability They are put at
a tremendously greater risk of 

776
00:50:24,600 --> 00:50:30,000
medical complications and ending
their life 14 times greater to 

777
00:50:30,000 --> 00:50:35,700
give birth to a child full term 
than it is to have an abortion 

778
00:50:35,700 --> 00:50:40,500
before viability. 
And now, the state is saying to 

779
00:50:40,500 --> 00:50:47,000
these women, we can choose. 
Not only to physically, 

780
00:50:47,000 --> 00:50:51,800
complicate your existence, 
quote, you at Medical risk. 

781
00:50:52,300 --> 00:51:00,800
Make you poorer by the choice. 
Because we believe what that? 

782
00:51:02,900 --> 00:51:05,800
Sure, your honor I think to 
answer I think the the question 

783
00:51:05,800 --> 00:51:09,400
I think you led with and then I 
think it expanded on, but it's 

784
00:51:09,400 --> 00:51:14,100
still on the same issue is as to
wind is a woman's interest enter

785
00:51:14,100 --> 00:51:16,700
as far as we're concerned. 
It's there the entire time our 

786
00:51:16,700 --> 00:51:18,800
point is that all of the 
interests are there, the entire 

787
00:51:18,800 --> 00:51:21,500
time and Roe and Casey 
improperly prevent States from 

788
00:51:21,500 --> 00:51:23,600
taking account and weighing 
those interest, however, they 

789
00:51:23,600 --> 00:51:26,700
think best we're not General, 
are there are there secular 

790
00:51:26,700 --> 00:51:33,600
philosophers and bioethicists 
who take the position that The 

791
00:51:33,600 --> 00:51:38,800
rights of personhood, begin at 
conception, or at some point 

792
00:51:38,800 --> 00:51:42,200
other than viability. 
I believe so. 

793
00:51:42,200 --> 00:51:43,300
I mean, I think there's a wide 
array. 

794
00:51:43,300 --> 00:51:47,100
I mean, of people of kind of all
different views and of no faith 

795
00:51:47,100 --> 00:51:49,300
views, who would reasonably have
that view your honor. 

796
00:51:49,300 --> 00:51:52,800
It's not tied to a religious 
View and I don't think we're at 

797
00:51:52,800 --> 00:51:54,800
otherwise. 
This Court's jurisprudence would

798
00:51:54,900 --> 00:51:58,100
on this issue with run right 
into some of its religious 

799
00:51:58,100 --> 00:52:03,600
exercise jurisprudence and 
Justice Breyer started with 

800
00:52:04,300 --> 00:52:07,500
Starry decisis an important 
principle. 

801
00:52:08,500 --> 00:52:13,300
In any case and here for the 
reasons that Casey mentioned 

802
00:52:13,900 --> 00:52:19,700
especially so, to prevent people
from thinking that this court is

803
00:52:19,900 --> 00:52:24,700
a political institution that 
will go back and forth depending

804
00:52:25,200 --> 00:52:29,900
on what part of the public yells
loudest. 

805
00:52:30,300 --> 00:52:34,400
And and, and preventing people 
from thinking that, the court 

806
00:52:34,400 --> 00:52:37,800
will go back and forth depending
on changes to the courts. 

807
00:52:38,200 --> 00:52:42,800
Bishop and what strikes me about
this case. 

808
00:52:44,900 --> 00:52:50,000
And and you come here very 
honestly saying you know we want

809
00:52:50,000 --> 00:52:56,500
you to discard the entire setup 
and then even if you don't do 

810
00:52:56,500 --> 00:52:59,900
that, we want to discard the 
viability line which you've 

811
00:52:59,900 --> 00:53:04,600
acknowledged again. 
Today, Casey says is the heart, 

812
00:53:04,600 --> 00:53:11,200
the central principle of row. 
And so usually there has to be a

813
00:53:11,207 --> 00:53:14,900
justification, a strong 
justification, in a case like 

814
00:53:14,900 --> 00:53:18,000
this beyond the fact that you 
think the case is wrong. 

815
00:53:18,800 --> 00:53:21,900
And I guess what, strikes me 
when I look at this case, is 

816
00:53:21,900 --> 00:53:27,700
that You know, not much has 
changed since Roe and Casey that

817
00:53:27,700 --> 00:53:30,700
people think it's right or wrong
based on the things that they 

818
00:53:30,700 --> 00:53:33,300
have, always thought it was 
right and wrong for. 

819
00:53:33,300 --> 00:53:40,500
So the, the, the, the rationale 
behind those cases has something

820
00:53:40,500 --> 00:53:45,200
to do with the autonomy and the 
freedom and the Dignity of women

821
00:53:45,200 --> 00:53:50,000
to pursue their lives, as they 
wish to protect their bodily 

822
00:53:50,000 --> 00:53:53,600
Integrity to make the decisions 
that are made. 

823
00:53:53,600 --> 00:54:00,800
Most fundamental to the course 
of their lives and an always in 

824
00:54:00,800 --> 00:54:04,000
those cases, there was an 
understanding that there were 

825
00:54:04,000 --> 00:54:08,000
important interests on the other
side in protecting life or 

826
00:54:08,000 --> 00:54:12,400
protecting the potential for 
life whether people saw it one 

827
00:54:12,400 --> 00:54:15,300
way or the other way. 
And that there was a difficult 

828
00:54:15,300 --> 00:54:20,000
question here and a balance to 
be made and I mean it strikes me

829
00:54:20,000 --> 00:54:23,500
that people some people think 
those decisions made the right. 

830
00:54:23,700 --> 00:54:26,100
Lance and some people thought 
they made the wrong balance. 

831
00:54:26,400 --> 00:54:30,600
But in the end, we are in the 
same exact place as we were 

832
00:54:30,600 --> 00:54:35,300
then. 
Except that we're not because 

833
00:54:35,300 --> 00:54:38,800
there's been 50 years of water 
under the bridge 50 years of 

834
00:54:38,800 --> 00:54:42,600
decisions saying that this is 
part of our law that this is 

835
00:54:43,000 --> 00:54:49,300
part of the fabric of women's 
existence in this country and 

836
00:54:49,300 --> 00:54:53,600
that that places Us in an 
entirely different situation 

837
00:54:54,200 --> 00:54:58,300
than if you had come in 50 years
ago and made the same arguments.

838
00:54:59,000 --> 00:55:01,900
So I guess I just wanted to hear
you react to that. 

839
00:55:02,000 --> 00:55:03,700
And of course, Justice Kagan. 
Thank you. 

840
00:55:04,800 --> 00:55:06,600
I would emphasize a couple 
things your honor. 

841
00:55:10,500 --> 00:55:12,300
The fact that so much time has 
passed. 

842
00:55:12,300 --> 00:55:16,200
Let's say nothing had changed. 
That's not a point in row in 

843
00:55:16,200 --> 00:55:18,700
Casey's favor. 
They have no basis in the 

844
00:55:18,700 --> 00:55:22,600
Constitution, they adopt a right
that purposefully leads to the 

845
00:55:22,600 --> 00:55:24,800
termination of. 
Now, millions of human lives. 

846
00:55:25,500 --> 00:55:27,900
The if nothing had changed 
they'd be just as bad as they 

847
00:55:27,900 --> 00:55:32,100
were 30 years ago, 50 years ago 
and now we just have Decades of 

848
00:55:32,107 --> 00:55:35,100
damage and we have a situation 
where nearly 30 years after 

849
00:55:35,100 --> 00:55:38,200
Casey the court. 
Unfortunately, divides over, 

850
00:55:38,200 --> 00:55:42,400
what Casey, the lead case on in 
the abortion area, even means 

851
00:55:42,600 --> 00:55:46,200
the lower courts are left. 
Not knowing what to do is I 

852
00:55:46,200 --> 00:55:48,800
think and I think kind of a 
fundamental problem here is I 

853
00:55:48,808 --> 00:55:53,000
think it's just as Gorsuch 
mentioned emphasized in his, his

854
00:55:53,400 --> 00:55:56,300
opinion in June medical. 
That the problem for lower court

855
00:55:56,300 --> 00:55:58,700
judges is the Constitution. 
Doesn't give them an answer to 

856
00:55:58,700 --> 00:56:00,500
this. 
There's no neutral rule of law. 

857
00:56:00,500 --> 00:56:03,000
So judges unfortunately have to 
look within themselves and 

858
00:56:03,000 --> 00:56:05,100
that's just never going to solve
this issue. 

859
00:56:05,100 --> 00:56:07,900
But if the Matter's returned to 
the people, the people can deal 

860
00:56:07,900 --> 00:56:09,000
with it. 
They can work, they can 

861
00:56:09,000 --> 00:56:12,000
compromise and reach different 
solutions but if we don't do 

862
00:56:12,000 --> 00:56:14,400
that, we're just going to have 
all this sort of damage. 

863
00:56:14,700 --> 00:56:17,300
And at some point, it's 
appropriate for the court to say

864
00:56:17,300 --> 00:56:21,500
enough as it has in some of its 
the great over rulings in brown.

865
00:56:21,500 --> 00:56:24,000
And in other cases where it said
this is just enough Justice 

866
00:56:24,000 --> 00:56:28,200
Harlan had it right in dissent 
in Plessy when he recognized 

867
00:56:28,200 --> 00:56:32,600
that that that you know all our 
all are equal and he similarly 

868
00:56:32,600 --> 00:56:33,900
here, the state should be able 
to recognize. 

869
00:56:33,900 --> 00:56:35,600
Hey there are real values on 
both sides here. 

870
00:56:35,600 --> 00:56:38,600
We think that this one slightly 
out ways that we think that this

871
00:56:38,600 --> 00:56:40,700
one's slightly at ways where we 
think there's some balance to be

872
00:56:40,700 --> 00:56:43,100
drawn here. 
But if the court doesn't do that

873
00:56:43,100 --> 00:56:46,700
Justice Kagan it's just going to
be Continued damage and the 

874
00:56:46,707 --> 00:56:48,700
court will continue to plunge in
this political issue. 

875
00:56:48,700 --> 00:56:49,700
I apologize. 
Mr. Chief justice. 

876
00:56:49,700 --> 00:56:51,100
I've gone over. 
No, that's all right. 

877
00:56:51,100 --> 00:56:53,700
I have just a few little, well, 
not little. 

878
00:56:53,700 --> 00:56:58,700
I hope questions. 
And first gets back to the issue

879
00:56:58,700 --> 00:57:03,600
of viability, you know, in your 
petition for cert your first 

880
00:57:03,600 --> 00:57:05,400
question. 
And the only one on which we 

881
00:57:05,400 --> 00:57:10,800
granted review was whether all 
pre-viability prohibitions on 

882
00:57:10,800 --> 00:57:13,000
elective, abortions are 
unconstitutional. 

883
00:57:13,400 --> 00:57:15,600
And then I think it's fair to 
say, Say that when you got to 

884
00:57:15,600 --> 00:57:19,800
the brief on the merits, your 
kind of shifted gears and talk a

885
00:57:19,808 --> 00:57:22,900
lot more about whether or not 
Roe and Casey should be 

886
00:57:23,700 --> 00:57:26,000
overruled. 
And I wanted to give you a 

887
00:57:26,000 --> 00:57:28,100
chance to explain that sure your
honor. 

888
00:57:28,600 --> 00:57:31,800
So a couple points, you know, at
the petition stage we were of 

889
00:57:31,800 --> 00:57:33,700
course identified, we'd 
identified for the court, three 

890
00:57:33,700 --> 00:57:36,700
questions we emphasize as you do
at the cert stage hate, this is 

891
00:57:36,700 --> 00:57:38,800
important only. 
This court can resolve it. 

892
00:57:39,300 --> 00:57:41,700
We emphasize, I believe was five
times at the court was at the 

893
00:57:41,707 --> 00:57:43,200
least. 
Going need to going to need to 

894
00:57:43,200 --> 00:57:46,800
reconsider revisit or Evaluate 
its precedents and we asked the 

895
00:57:46,808 --> 00:57:49,800
court to, at least get rid of a 
viability line or any suggestion

896
00:57:49,800 --> 00:57:53,700
of a viability line. 
So we added, however, and we had

897
00:57:53,700 --> 00:57:57,200
to take account of the reality 
that this argument has not fared

898
00:57:57,200 --> 00:58:00,400
well in the lower Court's, it's 
lost in every court of appeals. 

899
00:58:01,000 --> 00:58:03,700
So you know, we raised the issue
in addition. 

900
00:58:03,700 --> 00:58:06,700
But once the court, granted 
only, the first question we 

901
00:58:06,700 --> 00:58:11,300
presented every argument as we 
signaled, we would present the 

902
00:58:11,500 --> 00:58:14,500
full-blown constitutional merits
argument with that fundamental 

903
00:58:14,600 --> 00:58:16,200
Question. 
So, I'd emphasize that your 

904
00:58:16,200 --> 00:58:18,800
honor was kind of the shift. 
You go from cert stage to merits

905
00:58:18,800 --> 00:58:21,200
stage, the court granted. 
One question that question 

906
00:58:21,700 --> 00:58:24,900
fairly includes, what is the 
correct way to fairly includes 

907
00:58:24,900 --> 00:58:27,800
the broader arguments? 
You raised I'm not suggesting 

908
00:58:27,800 --> 00:58:30,700
that but on the other hand, 
presumably included the 

909
00:58:30,700 --> 00:58:33,200
viability question as well. 
Because that's what you talked 

910
00:58:33,200 --> 00:58:37,200
about in that one sentence and 
and we've addressed that as 

911
00:58:37,200 --> 00:58:39,000
well. 
Your honor what I'd emphasize 

912
00:58:39,000 --> 00:58:41,800
here is that the merits 
arguments of, you know, the 

913
00:58:41,800 --> 00:58:44,400
validity of Roe and Casey is an 
original matter. 

914
00:58:44,700 --> 00:58:47,200
Their viability rule based in 
the Constitution. 

915
00:58:47,400 --> 00:58:50,500
Those are not that complicated 
or lengthy. 

916
00:58:50,500 --> 00:58:54,300
The harder questions are, you 
know, should the court overrule 

917
00:58:54,300 --> 00:58:57,700
and take that momentous step? 
And that's why we devote a lot 

918
00:58:57,700 --> 00:58:59,900
of space to that very important 
issue. 

919
00:58:59,900 --> 00:59:02,900
We respect Starry decisis and if
walk through all those points 

920
00:59:02,900 --> 00:59:06,100
but again focusing on the 
question presented in arguing 

921
00:59:06,100 --> 00:59:07,400
presenting our best Arguments 
for that. 

922
00:59:07,400 --> 00:59:10,700
That's that's what we've done is
received on a starry decisis. 

923
00:59:10,700 --> 00:59:13,600
I think the first issue you look
at is whether or not the 

924
00:59:13,600 --> 00:59:18,200
decision, Ian at issue was 
wrongly decided, I've actually 

925
00:59:18,200 --> 00:59:21,000
never quite understood how you 
evaluate that? 

926
00:59:21,000 --> 00:59:24,800
Is it wrongly decided, based on 
the legal principles and 

927
00:59:24,800 --> 00:59:28,800
Doctrine when it was decided or 
or in retrospect. 

928
00:59:28,800 --> 00:59:31,600
Because row, I mean, there are a
lot of cases around the time of 

929
00:59:31,600 --> 00:59:33,700
Roe. 
Not the that magnitude, but the 

930
00:59:33,700 --> 00:59:38,800
same type of analysis that that 
went through exactly. 

931
00:59:38,800 --> 00:59:41,400
The sorts of things. 
We today, would say we 

932
00:59:41,400 --> 00:59:44,900
erroneous, but do we look at it 
from today's, if we look From 

933
00:59:44,900 --> 00:59:47,800
today, today's expected it's 
going to be a long list of cases

934
00:59:48,100 --> 00:59:51,100
that we're going to say or 
wrongly decided. 

935
00:59:51,300 --> 00:59:55,600
Well I'd say I'd say mr. 
Chief justice, that you look but

936
00:59:55,600 --> 00:59:57,900
you can look both. 
Was it wrong at the time has it 

937
00:59:57,900 --> 01:00:01,200
been unmasked as Wrong by by new
understandings? 

938
01:00:01,200 --> 01:00:04,900
New knowledge, any developments?
But I don't think as I think the

939
01:00:04,900 --> 01:00:08,200
colloquy my colloquy with 
Justice, Barrett indicated, the 

940
01:00:08,200 --> 01:00:12,200
court won't have to be looking 
at much other many other areas 

941
01:00:12,200 --> 01:00:14,500
because this is an area that has
a uniquely. 

942
01:00:14,600 --> 01:00:17,400
Problematic set of Starry 
decisis considerations, a lot of

943
01:00:17,400 --> 01:00:20,300
other controversial areas or 
once controversial areas are 

944
01:00:20,300 --> 01:00:23,300
quite settled, clear rules, and 
don't have those considerations 

945
01:00:23,300 --> 01:00:26,900
against them. 
So really by by overruling Roe 

946
01:00:26,900 --> 01:00:30,400
and Casey, the court won't have 
to go down that road and a lot 

947
01:00:30,400 --> 01:00:33,600
of those decisions are quite 
readily Roundtable in history. 

948
01:00:33,600 --> 01:00:35,700
Tradition in the courts, 
traditional factors your honor. 

949
01:00:35,800 --> 01:00:38,900
Thank you just as Thomas Justice
Breyer. 

950
01:00:39,700 --> 01:00:43,500
So we do justice Sotomayor. 
Okay, listen. 

951
01:00:45,900 --> 01:00:49,900
I just wanted to get your quick 
sense of how your intermediate 

952
01:00:49,900 --> 01:00:54,000
positions would work. 
You know, if basically the 

953
01:00:54,000 --> 01:00:57,700
viability line was discarded and
undue burden became the 

954
01:00:57,700 --> 01:01:00,000
standard. 
Overall, a standard that 

955
01:01:00,000 --> 01:01:04,000
according to you is an unclear 
one, what that would leave the 

956
01:01:04,000 --> 01:01:07,200
court with going forward. 
You know, I'm just sort of 

957
01:01:07,207 --> 01:01:14,000
thinking about the Great variety
of different regulations that 

958
01:01:14,000 --> 01:01:17,600
states could pass. 
So whether one is 15 weeks and 

959
01:01:17,600 --> 01:01:22,600
one is 12 weeks, and one is nine
weeks or variation across a wide

960
01:01:22,600 --> 01:01:26,900
variety of other dimensions. 
What would that look like coming

961
01:01:26,900 --> 01:01:29,400
to the court? 
How would we, how do you think 

962
01:01:29,400 --> 01:01:31,700
we should? 
We would be able to deal with 

963
01:01:31,700 --> 01:01:35,200
that or or how would you counsel
us to deal with that? 

964
01:01:35,400 --> 01:01:38,200
If the court were to go down 
that road? 

965
01:01:38,800 --> 01:01:41,600
Well, I think, This is not to 
push back against the n and I 

966
01:01:41,607 --> 01:01:43,900
will answer your question 
Justice Kagan, but part of why 

967
01:01:43,900 --> 01:01:46,600
we've Council to overrule 
full-scale, is that that's the 

968
01:01:46,600 --> 01:01:49,100
only way to get rid of a number 
of the problems that I think 

969
01:01:49,100 --> 01:01:51,600
your honors alluding to. 
And that's that, when you have 

970
01:01:51,600 --> 01:01:57,400
the undue burden standard, it's 
a very hard standard to apply, 

971
01:01:57,400 --> 01:01:59,900
it's not objective. 
The court looks to the record in

972
01:01:59,900 --> 01:02:02,600
each case, and what's going on. 
I mean, the cording Casey itself

973
01:02:02,600 --> 01:02:04,800
said, under this record, this is
not an undue burden. 

974
01:02:05,900 --> 01:02:08,600
You couldn't say necessarily for
certain that a certain number of

975
01:02:08,600 --> 01:02:09,900
weeks. 
One place would be An undue 

976
01:02:09,900 --> 01:02:11,900
burden but would be okay. 
Another place. 

977
01:02:12,100 --> 01:02:15,600
But again, that is the world. 
We have under Casey. 

978
01:02:15,600 --> 01:02:17,900
So if the court upholds, this 
law under the undue burden 

979
01:02:17,900 --> 01:02:22,000
standard, it would be caring for
with those features which and I 

980
01:02:22,008 --> 01:02:24,400
hope I've answered your 
question, but I think that's one

981
01:02:24,400 --> 01:02:27,800
of the very strong reasons to 
just go all the way and overrule

982
01:02:28,000 --> 01:02:34,600
Roe in case your honor, right? 
This is Gorsuch just as camera. 

983
01:02:34,600 --> 01:02:38,500
I want to be clear about what 
you're arguing and not arguing 

984
01:02:38,500 --> 01:02:42,200
and to be clear. 
You're not arguing that the 

985
01:02:42,200 --> 01:02:47,200
court somehow has the authority 
to itself, prohibit abortion or 

986
01:02:47,200 --> 01:02:51,500
that this court has the 
authority to order the states to

987
01:02:51,500 --> 01:02:54,500
prohibit abortion as I 
understand it, correct? 

988
01:02:54,500 --> 01:02:56,200
Correct. 
Your honor and as I understand 

989
01:02:56,200 --> 01:02:58,600
it, you're arguing that the 
constitution silent and 

990
01:02:58,600 --> 01:03:02,100
therefore neutral on the One of 
abortion, in other words that 

991
01:03:02,100 --> 01:03:05,900
the Constitution's need their 
pro-life nor pro-choice on the 

992
01:03:05,908 --> 01:03:10,000
question of abortion, but leaves
the issue for the people of the 

993
01:03:10,000 --> 01:03:12,800
states or perhaps Congress to 
resolve in the Democratic 

994
01:03:12,800 --> 01:03:14,700
process. 
Is that accurate, right? 

995
01:03:14,700 --> 01:03:16,500
We're saying it's left to the 
people, your honor. 

996
01:03:16,900 --> 01:03:23,400
And so for the if you were to 
Prevail the state's majority of 

997
01:03:23,400 --> 01:03:27,900
states or states still could or 
and presuming, would continue to

998
01:03:27,900 --> 01:03:30,500
freely allow abortion many, 
States. 

999
01:03:30,500 --> 01:03:32,600
Some states would be able to do 
that. 

1000
01:03:32,700 --> 01:03:36,200
Even if you Prevail under your 
view is that correct? 

1001
01:03:36,200 --> 01:03:37,600
That's consistent with our view,
your honor. 

1002
01:03:37,600 --> 01:03:41,000
It's one that allows all 
interest to have full voice and 

1003
01:03:41,000 --> 01:03:44,200
and many of the abortions we see
in certain states that I don't 

1004
01:03:44,200 --> 01:03:47,300
think anybody would think would 
be moving to change their laws 

1005
01:03:47,300 --> 01:03:49,700
in a more restrictive direction.
Thank you. 

1006
01:03:49,800 --> 01:03:50,400
Thank you. 
Your honor. 

1007
01:03:50,600 --> 01:03:53,200
That's the spirit. 
General. 

1008
01:03:53,200 --> 01:03:56,100
I have a question that is a 
little bit of a follow-up to one

1009
01:03:56,100 --> 01:03:59,500
that Justice Breyer was asking 
you that's about star decisis. 

1010
01:03:59,500 --> 01:04:02,900
And I think a lot of the colic 
we've had with all of us has 

1011
01:04:02,900 --> 01:04:05,400
been about the benefits of star 
decisis, which I don't think 

1012
01:04:05,400 --> 01:04:08,100
anyone disputes. 
And of course, no one can 

1013
01:04:08,100 --> 01:04:10,600
dispute because it's part of our
star decisis doctrine that it's 

1014
01:04:10,600 --> 01:04:12,600
not an inexorable command and 
that there are some 

1015
01:04:12,600 --> 01:04:15,400
circumstances in which over 
willing it's possible, you know,

1016
01:04:15,700 --> 01:04:21,300
we have + E Brown, we have ours 
versus Hardwick to Lawrence. 

1017
01:04:22,800 --> 01:04:26,300
But in thinking about starter 
sizes, which is obviously the 

1018
01:04:26,300 --> 01:04:29,900
core of this case, how should we
be thinking about it? 

1019
01:04:29,900 --> 01:04:33,500
I mean Justice Breyer pointed 
out that in Casey and in some 

1020
01:04:33,500 --> 01:04:36,900
respects while it was a 
different conception of star 

1021
01:04:36,900 --> 01:04:41,200
decisis and so far, is it very 
explicitly, took into account 

1022
01:04:41,300 --> 01:04:45,800
public reaction? 
Is that a factor that you 

1023
01:04:45,800 --> 01:04:47,900
accept? 
Or are you arguing that we 

1024
01:04:47,900 --> 01:04:51,500
should minimize that factor? 
And is there a different set of 

1025
01:04:51,500 --> 01:04:55,300
rules it? 
Sure that Casey identified Brown

1026
01:04:55,300 --> 01:04:58,600
and west coast hotel as 
Watershed decisions. 

1027
01:04:58,600 --> 01:05:00,700
But is there a distinct set of 
starred as Isis? 

1028
01:05:00,700 --> 01:05:03,700
Considerations applicable to 
what the court might decide as a

1029
01:05:03,700 --> 01:05:06,200
watershed decision? 
I don't think there should be a 

1030
01:05:06,200 --> 01:05:09,000
distinct set of apis of 
considerations there. 

1031
01:05:09,000 --> 01:05:11,200
Your honor. 
I think what I would emphasize 

1032
01:05:14,400 --> 01:05:18,100
and just to make sure on the 
kind of legitimacy the court 

1033
01:05:18,100 --> 01:05:22,100
looking outward, I think Casey 
was unusual in that regard. 

1034
01:05:22,200 --> 01:05:25,100
I think it was a mistake and I 
think it's something that is 

1035
01:05:25,300 --> 01:05:29,900
kind of In conflict with this 
Court's structure and approach 

1036
01:05:29,900 --> 01:05:32,100
is an independent Branch, 
looking to the Constitution, 

1037
01:05:32,100 --> 01:05:35,900
rather than looking without and 
I think that's one reason why 

1038
01:05:36,500 --> 01:05:39,500
traditionally the court is in 
some of its greatest overruling,

1039
01:05:39,500 --> 01:05:42,200
it's not looking without, it's 
saying this was wrong, it was 

1040
01:05:42,200 --> 01:05:44,900
wrong in the day was decided we 
know it's wrong today and it's 

1041
01:05:44,900 --> 01:05:47,300
led to all these terrible 
consequences we should get. 

1042
01:05:47,300 --> 01:05:51,700
We should get rid of it. 
I so I think that that was an 

1043
01:05:51,700 --> 01:05:54,100
unfortunate. 
It break and I think the court, 

1044
01:05:54,100 --> 01:05:56,400
even if the court were to were 
to still look at legitimacy 

1045
01:05:56,400 --> 01:05:59,100
though, Justice Barrett. 
I think the court could very, 

1046
01:05:59,100 --> 01:06:01,700
very powerfully. 
Say look our jar legitimacy, 

1047
01:06:01,700 --> 01:06:06,900
really derives from our 
willingness to stand strong and 

1048
01:06:06,900 --> 01:06:10,900
stand firm in the face of 
whatever is going on and stand 

1049
01:06:10,900 --> 01:06:14,400
for constitutional principle. 
And follow our traditional 

1050
01:06:14,400 --> 01:06:17,300
story, decisive factors to 
overrule when it's appropriate. 

1051
01:06:18,800 --> 01:06:20,200
Thank you, your honor. 
Thank you counsel. 

1052
01:06:20,300 --> 01:06:21,300
Thank you, mr. 
Chief justice. 

1053
01:06:30,900 --> 01:06:34,600
Mr. Coleman. 
Mr. Chief justice and may it, 

1054
01:06:34,600 --> 01:06:37,800
please the court Mississippi's 
ban on abortion. 

1055
01:06:37,800 --> 01:06:41,500
Two months before viability is 
flatly unconstitutional. 

1056
01:06:41,500 --> 01:06:45,400
Under Decades of precedent. 
Mississippi asks of the court to

1057
01:06:45,400 --> 01:06:49,200
dismantle this precedent and 
allows states to force women to 

1058
01:06:49,200 --> 01:06:53,100
remain pregnant and give birth 
against their will, the court 

1059
01:06:53,100 --> 01:06:55,900
should refuse to do. 
So, for, at least three reasons,

1060
01:06:56,500 --> 01:07:01,800
first stare decisis presents, an
especially High bar here in KC 

1061
01:07:01,800 --> 01:07:05,300
this court carefully. 
We examined and rejected every 

1062
01:07:05,300 --> 01:07:09,200
possible reason for overruling 
Roe holding that a woman's 

1063
01:07:09,200 --> 01:07:14,000
right, to end a pregnancy before
viability was a rule of law and 

1064
01:07:14,000 --> 01:07:16,700
a component of Liberty. 
It could not renounce. 

1065
01:07:17,600 --> 01:07:21,000
The question then is not whether
row should be overturned, but 

1066
01:07:21,000 --> 01:07:25,300
whether Casey was egregiously 
wrong to adhere to Rose Central 

1067
01:07:25,300 --> 01:07:31,000
holding, s Casey and row were 
correct for a state to take 

1068
01:07:31,000 --> 01:07:34,500
control of a woman's body and 
demand that she go through 

1069
01:07:34,500 --> 01:07:38,300
pregnancy and childbirth, with 
all the physical risks and 

1070
01:07:38,300 --> 01:07:41,900
life-altering consequences. 
That brings is a fundamental 

1071
01:07:41,900 --> 01:07:45,800
deprivation of her Liberty 
preserving a woman's right to 

1072
01:07:45,800 --> 01:07:50,400
make this decision until My 
ability preserve protect her 

1073
01:07:50,400 --> 01:07:52,500
Liberty while logically 
balancing. 

1074
01:07:52,500 --> 01:07:57,700
The other interests at stake 
third eliminating or reducing 

1075
01:07:57,700 --> 01:08:01,000
the right to abortion will 
Propel women backwards. 

1076
01:08:01,700 --> 01:08:04,600
Two generations have now relied 
on this, right? 

1077
01:08:04,800 --> 01:08:08,800
And one out of every four, women
makes the decision to end a 

1078
01:08:08,800 --> 01:08:13,600
pregnancy Mississippi's ban 
would particularly hurt women 

1079
01:08:13,600 --> 01:08:16,399
with a major health, our life 
change during the course of a 

1080
01:08:16,399 --> 01:08:19,300
pregnancy. 
Poor women who are twice as 

1081
01:08:19,300 --> 01:08:23,300
likely to be delayed in 
accessing care and young people.

1082
01:08:23,300 --> 01:08:26,700
Or those in contraception who 
take longer to recognize a 

1083
01:08:26,700 --> 01:08:30,899
pregnancy to avoid, profound 
damage to women's Liberty, 

1084
01:08:31,100 --> 01:08:37,800
equality, and the rule of law. 
The court should affirm Council.

1085
01:08:39,200 --> 01:08:43,600
I just have one question. 
I assume you from your brief, 

1086
01:08:43,600 --> 01:08:49,899
you're relying on an autonomy 
Theory, both bodily integrity 

1087
01:08:49,899 --> 01:08:52,500
and the ability to make 
decisions related to family 

1088
01:08:52,500 --> 01:08:57,600
marriage and childbearing your 
honor shortly after some years 

1089
01:08:57,600 --> 01:09:04,700
after we decided Casey We had a 
case out of South Carolina, I 

1090
01:09:04,700 --> 01:09:11,000
believe involved, a woman who 
had been convicted of criminal 

1091
01:09:11,000 --> 01:09:15,200
child neglect because she 
ingested cocaine during 

1092
01:09:15,200 --> 01:09:22,000
pregnancy. 
In her case was post viability 

1093
01:09:22,500 --> 01:09:26,200
so it doesn't fit in the facts 
of this case. 

1094
01:09:27,700 --> 01:09:31,600
If she had ingested, cocaine 
pre-viability. 

1095
01:09:33,200 --> 01:09:37,800
And had the same negative 
consequences to her child. 

1096
01:09:39,000 --> 01:09:44,000
Do you think the state had an 
interest and enforcing that law 

1097
01:09:44,000 --> 01:09:48,500
against her? 
The state may have your honor, 

1098
01:09:48,500 --> 01:09:52,100
the state can certainly regulate
to serve its interests and Fetal

1099
01:09:52,100 --> 01:09:53,800
life. 
And in women's health, those 

1100
01:09:53,800 --> 01:09:56,300
particular laws, tend to 
undermine both of those 

1101
01:09:56,300 --> 01:10:00,000
interests because we deter women
from seeking prenatal care which

1102
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:03,200
is counterproductive to both 
their health, the pre-viability 

1103
01:10:03,200 --> 01:10:06,800
as well as post viability. 
No, your honor, the court has 

1104
01:10:06,800 --> 01:10:11,100
been clear that after viability.
States, can prohibit abortion 

1105
01:10:11,100 --> 01:10:15,900
except to say, no. 
I mean, the, in my example of, 

1106
01:10:16,300 --> 01:10:19,400
Criminal child neglect. 
I understand you. 

1107
01:10:19,800 --> 01:10:25,500
Your argument is about abortion.
I am trying to look at the issue

1108
01:10:25,500 --> 01:10:31,600
of bodily autonomy and whether 
or not she has a right also to 

1109
01:10:31,600 --> 01:10:37,600
bodily autonomy in the case of 
ingesting an illegal substance 

1110
01:10:37,900 --> 01:10:41,500
and causing harm to a 
pre-viability fetus. 

1111
01:10:42,600 --> 01:10:45,000
Your honor, of course, those 
issues aren't posed in this 

1112
01:10:45,000 --> 01:10:46,700
case. 
And again, I I'd say that the 

1113
01:10:46,700 --> 01:10:49,700
states can certainly regulate 
throughout pregnancy both before

1114
01:10:49,700 --> 01:10:54,500
and after viability to preserve 
fetal life and to preserve the 

1115
01:10:54,500 --> 01:10:56,300
Women's Health. 
The court has said, however, 

1116
01:10:56,300 --> 01:10:58,900
there's there are other 
constitutional constitutional 

1117
01:10:58,900 --> 01:11:00,700
issues at stake. 
For instance, in the Ferguson 

1118
01:11:00,700 --> 01:11:04,100
case that states still can't 
violate women's Fourth Amendment

1119
01:11:04,100 --> 01:11:05,900
rights. 
But again that's not what this 

1120
01:11:05,900 --> 01:11:08,300
case is about. 
This case is about a ban on 

1121
01:11:08,300 --> 01:11:12,700
abortion that the state concedes
is weeks before viability and 

1122
01:11:12,700 --> 01:11:14,900
the court has been clear for 50 
years. 

1123
01:11:14,900 --> 01:11:18,300
That the one thing that's It's 
cannot do is to take the 

1124
01:11:18,300 --> 01:11:21,800
decision completely away from 
the woman until viability that 

1125
01:11:21,800 --> 01:11:24,800
until that point. 
It is her decision to make given

1126
01:11:24,800 --> 01:11:28,100
the unique physical demands of 
pregnancy and the life-altering 

1127
01:11:28,100 --> 01:11:30,500
consequences of pregnancy and 
having a child. 

1128
01:11:30,600 --> 01:11:33,000
Thank you. 
You're the point you made about 

1129
01:11:33,000 --> 01:11:36,100
the impact on women and their 
place in society. 

1130
01:11:36,300 --> 01:11:39,500
Those words certainly made in 
row as well. 

1131
01:11:39,800 --> 01:11:44,200
What we have before us though, 
is a 15-week standard. 

1132
01:11:44,500 --> 01:11:48,300
Are you suggesting that the 
Difference between 15 weeks and 

1133
01:11:48,300 --> 01:11:51,600
viability are going to have the 
same sort of impacts as you were

1134
01:11:51,600 --> 01:11:53,800
talking about or as we were 
talking about in Rome. 

1135
01:11:54,500 --> 01:11:57,800
Yes, your honor, I believe they 
would because people who need 

1136
01:11:57,800 --> 01:12:01,000
abortion after 15 weeks are 
often in the most challenging 

1137
01:12:01,000 --> 01:12:03,400
circumstances. 
As I mentioned there, people who

1138
01:12:03,400 --> 01:12:07,200
have made perhaps had a major 
health or life, change a family 

1139
01:12:07,200 --> 01:12:10,100
illness. 
A job loss is separation young 

1140
01:12:10,100 --> 01:12:12,500
people or people who are on 
contraception of pregnant for 

1141
01:12:12,500 --> 01:12:14,900
the first time in who are 
delayed and recognizing the 

1142
01:12:14,900 --> 01:12:17,900
signs of pregnancy. 
Or poor women who often have 

1143
01:12:17,900 --> 01:12:20,800
much more trouble navigating 
access to care. 

1144
01:12:20,800 --> 01:12:24,100
And if they're denied the 
ability to make this decision 

1145
01:12:24,200 --> 01:12:27,300
because there's a ban after 15 
weeks, they will suffer all of 

1146
01:12:27,300 --> 01:12:30,700
the consequences that the court 
has talked about in the past. 

1147
01:12:30,700 --> 01:12:34,200
And in fact, the data has been 
very clear over the last 50 

1148
01:12:34,200 --> 01:12:38,000
years that abortion has been 
critical to women's equal 

1149
01:12:38,000 --> 01:12:40,600
participation in society. 
It's been critical to their 

1150
01:12:40,600 --> 01:12:44,200
health to their lives. 
Their ability to pursue a what, 

1151
01:12:44,700 --> 01:12:48,300
what kind of data is that That I
would refer refer the court to 

1152
01:12:48,300 --> 01:12:51,700
the brief of The Economist. 
In this case, your honor and it 

1153
01:12:51,700 --> 01:12:55,600
compiles data showing studies 
based actually on causal 

1154
01:12:55,600 --> 01:12:59,100
inference, showing that it's the
legalization of abortion and not

1155
01:12:59,100 --> 01:13:02,100
other changes that have had 
these benefits for women in 

1156
01:13:02,100 --> 01:13:05,300
society. 
And again, those benefits are 

1157
01:13:05,600 --> 01:13:09,100
clear for education for the 
ability to pursue a profession 

1158
01:13:09,700 --> 01:13:15,400
for the ability to putting that 
data aside, if you think that 

1159
01:13:15,400 --> 01:13:20,200
the issue, Is one of choice that
women should have a choice to 

1160
01:13:20,200 --> 01:13:26,300
terminate their pregnancy that 
supposes that there is a point 

1161
01:13:26,300 --> 01:13:32,000
at which they've had the fair 
Choice opportunity to choice and

1162
01:13:32,000 --> 01:13:35,600
why would 15 weeks be an 
inappropriate line. 

1163
01:13:35,900 --> 01:13:37,900
So viability. 
It seems to me doesn't have 

1164
01:13:37,900 --> 01:13:42,300
anything to do with choice but 
if it really is an issue about 

1165
01:13:42,300 --> 01:13:45,600
Choice, why is 15 weeks not 
enough time? 

1166
01:13:46,800 --> 01:13:49,800
For for a few reasons, your 
honor first, the state has 

1167
01:13:49,800 --> 01:13:53,000
conceded that some women will 
not be able to obtain an 

1168
01:13:53,008 --> 01:13:56,400
abortion before 15 weeks, and 
this law will borrow them from 

1169
01:13:56,400 --> 01:13:58,900
doing so. 
And a reasonable possibility, 

1170
01:13:58,900 --> 01:14:02,600
standard would be completely 
unworkable for the courts. 

1171
01:14:02,600 --> 01:14:06,700
It would be both less principled
and less workable than viability

1172
01:14:06,700 --> 01:14:09,400
and some of the reasons for that
are without viability. 

1173
01:14:09,400 --> 01:14:13,500
There will be no stopping point 
States will rush to ban abortion

1174
01:14:13,500 --> 01:14:15,400
at virtually any point in 
pregnancy. 

1175
01:14:15,500 --> 01:14:19,400
Mrs. Itself has a six-week ban 
that it's defending with very 

1176
01:14:19,400 --> 01:14:22,400
similar arguments, as it's using
to defend the 15-week, ban and 

1177
01:14:22,400 --> 01:14:23,900
their states that have bands. 
I know. 

1178
01:14:23,900 --> 01:14:28,900
But I'd like to focus on the 
15-week band because that's not 

1179
01:14:28,900 --> 01:14:32,600
a dramatic departure from 
viability. 

1180
01:14:32,900 --> 01:14:36,900
It is the standard that the vast
majority of other countries 

1181
01:14:37,000 --> 01:14:39,700
have. 
When you get to the viability 

1182
01:14:39,700 --> 01:14:43,800
standard, we share that standard
with the People's Republic of 

1183
01:14:43,800 --> 01:14:47,100
China, and North Korea. 
And I don't think you have to be

1184
01:14:47,100 --> 01:14:50,200
in favor of looking to 
international law to set our 

1185
01:14:50,200 --> 01:14:52,100
constitutional standards to be 
concerned. 

1186
01:14:52,100 --> 01:14:57,000
If those are your Share that 
particular time period. 

1187
01:14:57,600 --> 01:14:58,900
I think there's two questions 
there. 

1188
01:14:58,900 --> 01:15:02,100
Your honor if I may first that 
is not correct about 

1189
01:15:02,100 --> 01:15:05,700
international law. 
In fact, the majority of 

1190
01:15:05,700 --> 01:15:09,300
countries that permit legal 
access to abortion allow access 

1191
01:15:09,600 --> 01:15:13,000
right up until viability even if
they have nominal lines earlier.

1192
01:15:13,000 --> 01:15:16,800
So, for example, Canada, Great 
Britain and most of Europe 

1193
01:15:16,800 --> 01:15:19,700
allows access to abortion, right
up until viability. 

1194
01:15:19,800 --> 01:15:22,300
And it also doesn't have the 
same barriers in place. 

1195
01:15:22,300 --> 01:15:25,900
Your mean, even if they have 
nominal Lon Earlier some 

1196
01:15:25,900 --> 01:15:30,000
countries, your honor, have a 
nominal line of 12 weeks or 18 

1197
01:15:30,000 --> 01:15:32,900
weeks, but they permit legal 
access to abortion. 

1198
01:15:32,900 --> 01:15:36,500
After that point for Broad 
Social reasons, health reasons, 

1199
01:15:36,500 --> 01:15:38,900
socio-economic reasons. 
So they're regimes, really 

1200
01:15:38,900 --> 01:15:42,900
aren't comparable and they also 
don't have the same types of 

1201
01:15:42,900 --> 01:15:46,000
barriers that we have here. 
So if the court were to move the

1202
01:15:46,000 --> 01:15:49,800
line, substantial substantially 
backwards and 15 weeks is nine 

1203
01:15:49,800 --> 01:15:52,600
weeks before viability your 
honor, it's quite a bit 

1204
01:15:52,600 --> 01:15:55,300
backwards. 
It may need to consider the 

1205
01:15:55,300 --> 01:15:58,400
rules around regulations because
of its cutting the time period, 

1206
01:15:58,400 --> 01:16:01,400
to obtain an abortion roughly in
half, then those barriers are 

1207
01:16:01,400 --> 01:16:04,300
going to be much more important.
Thank you. 

1208
01:16:05,700 --> 01:16:08,000
Mr. Coleman. 
I have a question about the safe

1209
01:16:08,000 --> 01:16:11,100
haven laws. 
So petitioner points out that in

1210
01:16:11,100 --> 01:16:14,600
all 50 states, you can terminate
parental rights, by 

1211
01:16:14,600 --> 01:16:16,500
relinquishing, a child after 
abortion. 

1212
01:16:16,500 --> 01:16:19,800
And I think the shortest period 
might have been 48 hours, if I'm

1213
01:16:19,800 --> 01:16:24,400
remembering the data correctly. 
So it seems to me seeing in that

1214
01:16:24,400 --> 01:16:26,900
light, both Roe and Casey 
emphasize the burdens of 

1215
01:16:26,900 --> 01:16:32,600
parenting and insofar as you and
many of your Ami Ki focus on the

1216
01:16:32,600 --> 01:16:37,300
ways in which forced Being 
forced motherhood would hinder 

1217
01:16:37,300 --> 01:16:40,500
women's access to the workplace 
and to equal opportunities. 

1218
01:16:40,800 --> 01:16:43,300
It's also focused on the 
consequences of parenting and 

1219
01:16:43,300 --> 01:16:45,900
the obligations of motherhood 
that flow from pregnancy. 

1220
01:16:46,500 --> 01:16:49,200
Why don't the safe haven laws? 
Take care of that problem. 

1221
01:16:49,200 --> 01:16:51,900
It seems to me that it focuses 
the burden, much more narrowly. 

1222
01:16:52,400 --> 01:16:56,200
There is without question and 
infringement on bodily autonomy,

1223
01:16:56,300 --> 01:16:58,700
which we have another contexts, 
like vaccines. 

1224
01:17:00,000 --> 01:17:05,300
However, it doesn't seem to me 
to follow that pregnancy. 

1225
01:17:05,700 --> 01:17:07,900
And then Parenthood are all part
of the same burden. 

1226
01:17:07,900 --> 01:17:11,800
And so it seems to me that the 
choice more focused would be 

1227
01:17:11,800 --> 01:17:16,300
between, say, the ability to get
an abortion at 23 weeks or the 

1228
01:17:16,300 --> 01:17:21,500
state, requiring the woman to go
15, 16 weeks more and then 

1229
01:17:21,500 --> 01:17:23,500
terminate parental rights at the
conclusion. 

1230
01:17:23,500 --> 01:17:25,500
Why didn't you address the safe 
haven laws? 

1231
01:17:25,500 --> 01:17:28,500
And why don't they matter? 
I think they don't matter for a 

1232
01:17:28,500 --> 01:17:31,600
couple of reasons. 
Your honor first, even if some 

1233
01:17:31,600 --> 01:17:35,000
of those laws are new, since 
Casey, the idea that a woman 

1234
01:17:35,000 --> 01:17:38,200
could Is a child up for 
adoption, has of course, been 

1235
01:17:38,200 --> 01:17:40,500
true since Rose. 
So it's a consideration that the

1236
01:17:40,508 --> 01:17:44,500
court already had before it, 
when it decided those cases and 

1237
01:17:44,500 --> 01:17:48,100
adhere to the viability line. 
But in addition, we don't just 

1238
01:17:48,100 --> 01:17:51,300
focus on the burdens of 
parenting and neither did Roe 

1239
01:17:51,300 --> 01:17:54,000
and Casey. 
Instead, pregnancy itself is 

1240
01:17:54,000 --> 01:17:57,500
unique, it, imposes, unique, 
physical demands, and risk on 

1241
01:17:57,500 --> 01:18:00,000
women. 
And in fact, has impact on all 

1242
01:18:00,000 --> 01:18:02,700
of their lives and their ability
to care for other children. 

1243
01:18:02,800 --> 01:18:05,200
Other family members on their 
ability to work. 

1244
01:18:05,400 --> 01:18:08,600
And in particular in 
Mississippi, those risks are 

1245
01:18:08,600 --> 01:18:12,700
alarmingly high. 
It's 75 times more dangerous to 

1246
01:18:12,700 --> 01:18:15,700
give birth in Mississippi than 
it than it is to have a 

1247
01:18:15,700 --> 01:18:18,100
pre-viability abortion. 
And those risks are 

1248
01:18:18,100 --> 01:18:21,000
disproportionately threatening 
the lives of women of color. 

1249
01:18:21,000 --> 01:18:23,600
So are you saying? 
I mean, actually, as I read Roe 

1250
01:18:23,600 --> 01:18:25,900
and Casey, they don't talk very 
much about adoption. 

1251
01:18:25,900 --> 01:18:29,800
It's a passing reference that 
that means out of the 

1252
01:18:29,808 --> 01:18:33,100
obligations of Parenthood. 
But as I hear this answer, then,

1253
01:18:33,100 --> 01:18:36,200
are you saying that it's the 
right as Conceive of it is 

1254
01:18:36,200 --> 01:18:40,600
grounded, primarily in the 
bearing of the child, the caring

1255
01:18:40,600 --> 01:18:43,000
pregnancy and not so much. 
Looking forward, into the 

1256
01:18:43,000 --> 01:18:46,200
consequences on professional 
opportunities and work life and 

1257
01:18:46,200 --> 01:18:49,100
economic burdens. 
No, your honor. 

1258
01:18:49,100 --> 01:18:52,000
I believe it's both and and that
is exactly how Casey talked 

1259
01:18:52,000 --> 01:18:54,000
about it. 
It talked about the two strands 

1260
01:18:54,000 --> 01:18:57,100
of cases that supported. 
The right one, was the strand of

1261
01:18:57,100 --> 01:19:00,100
cases supporting bodily 
integrity and it cited. 

1262
01:19:00,100 --> 01:19:03,100
Two cases like cruising and 
Riggins versus Nevada and the 

1263
01:19:03,100 --> 01:19:05,200
second was a strand of cases 
support. 

1264
01:19:05,300 --> 01:19:08,600
Um decisional autonomy and 
specifically decisions related 

1265
01:19:08,700 --> 01:19:12,300
to child bearing marriage and 
procreation decisions like 

1266
01:19:12,300 --> 01:19:14,900
Griswold loving. 
And so it's really both strands 

1267
01:19:14,900 --> 01:19:19,000
that were relying on here. 
May I ask you a question about 

1268
01:19:19,000 --> 01:19:23,200
star decisis counsel your 
colleagues on the other side 

1269
01:19:23,200 --> 01:19:28,200
have emphasized that Casey 
rejected Rose, trimester 

1270
01:19:28,200 --> 01:19:31,300
framework and replaced it with 
an undue burden standard. 

1271
01:19:31,700 --> 01:19:36,300
They argue that the undue burden
standard was Not well known to 

1272
01:19:36,300 --> 01:19:40,600
the law before that, and then 
they argue that the undue burden

1273
01:19:40,600 --> 01:19:43,500
standard has evolved over time 
to in ways. 

1274
01:19:43,500 --> 01:19:47,800
The court has found difficult to
agree upon in Heller stat. 

1275
01:19:47,800 --> 01:19:52,100
For example, if they point out 
in their briefs that the court 

1276
01:19:52,100 --> 01:19:54,100
seemed to suggest that a court 
should consider. 

1277
01:19:54,100 --> 01:19:58,700
Both the benefits and the 
burdens associated with the 

1278
01:19:59,000 --> 01:20:03,200
proposed restriction in June, 
medical more, recently, the 

1279
01:20:03,200 --> 01:20:07,400
court splintered on, on that 
same, Question, whether benefits

1280
01:20:07,400 --> 01:20:09,200
could be considered are only 
burdens. 

1281
01:20:09,600 --> 01:20:13,200
And so the argument goes that 
this is proved to be, putting 

1282
01:20:13,200 --> 01:20:16,700
aside, all the other obviously 
difficult questions. 

1283
01:20:16,700 --> 01:20:21,100
In the case that the standard 
itself has proved difficult to 

1284
01:20:21,100 --> 01:20:23,900
administer and that that is 
relevant to the star decisis 

1285
01:20:23,900 --> 01:20:25,700
analysis. 
And I just wanted to give you an

1286
01:20:25,700 --> 01:20:30,100
opportunity to respond. 
Yes, your honor at the first 

1287
01:20:30,100 --> 01:20:32,900
point I'd like to make is the 
undue burden test is not at 

1288
01:20:32,900 --> 01:20:35,200
issue in this case. 
That is the test that applies to

1289
01:20:35,400 --> 01:20:39,100
Galatians not prohibitions, in 
the state has conceded that this

1290
01:20:39,100 --> 01:20:40,900
is a Prohibition. 
In fact, that's the title of 

1291
01:20:40,907 --> 01:20:44,600
this law is an act to prohibit 
abortion after 15 weeks. 

1292
01:20:44,600 --> 01:20:47,300
And the only thing that's at 
issue in this case is the 

1293
01:20:47,300 --> 01:20:50,100
viability line. 
And the viability line has been 

1294
01:20:50,100 --> 01:20:53,700
enduring Lee workable, the lower
federal courts have applied. 

1295
01:20:53,700 --> 01:20:57,300
It consistently and uniformly 
for 50 years and the fifth 

1296
01:20:57,300 --> 01:21:00,400
circuit here, Below had no 
difficulty striking down this 

1297
01:21:00,400 --> 01:21:03,800
Sly unanimously 30. 
So it's been an exceedingly 

1298
01:21:03,800 --> 01:21:06,200
workable standard. 
And if I may return to your 

1299
01:21:06,200 --> 01:21:08,100
question mr. 
Chief justice, a reasonable 

1300
01:21:08,100 --> 01:21:10,700
possibility. 
Standard would not be workable. 

1301
01:21:10,700 --> 01:21:14,500
It would ultimately boil down to
an argument that states can 

1302
01:21:14,500 --> 01:21:18,300
prohibit a category of women 
from exercising a 

1303
01:21:18,300 --> 01:21:20,900
constitutional, right? 
Merely because of the number of 

1304
01:21:20,900 --> 01:21:23,500
people in the category and 
that's just not how 

1305
01:21:23,500 --> 01:21:26,600
constitutional rights work. 
A state would never say that. 

1306
01:21:26,600 --> 01:21:30,000
It could ban religious services 
on a Wednesday evening. 

1307
01:21:30,000 --> 01:21:33,000
For example, simply because most
people could attend religious 

1308
01:21:33,000 --> 01:21:34,800
services on another night of the
week. 

1309
01:21:34,900 --> 01:21:38,000
So She just wanted it that 
that's helpful. 

1310
01:21:38,000 --> 01:21:40,100
I think I just want to make sure
I understand what you're telling

1311
01:21:40,100 --> 01:21:43,200
me counseling it. 
That if the court were to, in 

1312
01:21:43,200 --> 01:21:47,400
this case, step past viability 
and apply undue burden. 

1313
01:21:48,100 --> 01:21:53,100
The undue burden test to 
regulations prior to viability. 

1314
01:21:53,300 --> 01:21:55,000
You would agree with the other 
side. 

1315
01:21:55,000 --> 01:21:57,700
I think that that's not a 
workable standard. 

1316
01:21:57,700 --> 01:22:01,200
Is that is that a fair 
understanding what you're 

1317
01:22:01,200 --> 01:22:03,100
telling the court? 
No, your honor? 

1318
01:22:03,100 --> 01:22:05,200
I believe that would be 
workable, I believe. 

1319
01:22:05,300 --> 01:22:08,300
That if I may clarify believe, 
the undue burden test has been 

1320
01:22:08,300 --> 01:22:12,400
workable for regulations that. 
I understand that, if it were to

1321
01:22:12,400 --> 01:22:15,300
apply, if the court were to and 
I thought, this is what you were

1322
01:22:15,308 --> 01:22:18,200
saying in response to the chief 
justice but maybe I'm mistaken. 

1323
01:22:19,200 --> 01:22:23,700
Please correct me if I am. 
But what is your argument 

1324
01:22:23,700 --> 01:22:25,800
against applying the undue 
burden standard? 

1325
01:22:25,800 --> 01:22:29,500
Prior to viability. 
If the undue burden standard as 

1326
01:22:29,500 --> 01:22:34,200
this court laid out in KC, which
includes the viability line, I'm

1327
01:22:34,200 --> 01:22:36,500
asking, I know. 
We're fighting the hypothetical 

1328
01:22:36,500 --> 01:22:39,700
here Council, right? 
Except the hypothetical, 

1329
01:22:40,500 --> 01:22:43,000
hypothetically. 
The court were to extend the 

1330
01:22:43,000 --> 01:22:46,600
undue burden standard to 
regulations prior to viability, 

1331
01:22:46,900 --> 01:22:49,500
would that be workable, or would
that not be workable in your 

1332
01:22:49,500 --> 01:22:52,100
view without viability? 
Would not be workable, your 

1333
01:22:52,100 --> 01:22:54,400
honor because it would 
ultimately, again always come 

1334
01:22:54,400 --> 01:22:59,100
down to a claim that states can 
borrow a certain category of 

1335
01:22:59,100 --> 01:23:01,500
people from exercising, this 
right, simply because of the 

1336
01:23:01,500 --> 01:23:04,400
number of people in the category
and that's not a workable 

1337
01:23:04,400 --> 01:23:06,200
standard and it's not a 
constant. 

1338
01:23:06,200 --> 01:23:08,000
I appreciate that clarification.
Thank you. 

1339
01:23:11,500 --> 01:23:15,100
Just a follow-up on that. 
I read your briefs, your brief 

1340
01:23:15,100 --> 01:23:21,100
to say that the only real 
options we have our to reaffirm 

1341
01:23:21,100 --> 01:23:25,900
Roe and Casey, as they stand, or
to overrule them in their 

1342
01:23:25,900 --> 01:23:30,700
entirety. 
You say that quote, there are no

1343
01:23:30,700 --> 01:23:33,500
half measures here, is that a 
correct understanding of your 

1344
01:23:33,500 --> 01:23:36,000
brief? 
Your honor? 

1345
01:23:36,000 --> 01:23:39,900
It certainly the argument that 
the State has presented is what 

1346
01:23:39,900 --> 01:23:42,500
we're responding to their, which
is that all of the state's 

1347
01:23:42,500 --> 01:23:45,500
arguments including their 
Alternatives, which are undue 

1348
01:23:45,500 --> 01:23:49,000
burden, without viability would 
be the equivalent of overruling 

1349
01:23:49,000 --> 01:23:51,500
Casey and row. 
Because the viability line is 

1350
01:23:51,500 --> 01:23:53,200
the central holding of those 
cases. 

1351
01:23:53,200 --> 01:23:57,200
Casey mentioned it. 
No fewer than 19 times and, and 

1352
01:23:57,200 --> 01:23:59,800
the court in June medical, just 
a year ago, affirmed that the 

1353
01:23:59,800 --> 01:24:03,300
viability line is, the central 
holding of both Casey and row. 

1354
01:24:03,300 --> 01:24:08,500
But you do emphasize that the 
court drew the line at Viability

1355
01:24:08,500 --> 01:24:11,700
and row and reaffirm that in 
case the and that is certainly 

1356
01:24:11,700 --> 01:24:15,300
something that we have to take 
very seriously into 

1357
01:24:15,300 --> 01:24:19,500
consideration but suppose we 
were considering that question 

1358
01:24:19,500 --> 01:24:24,900
now for the first time I'm sure 
you know, the arguments about 

1359
01:24:24,900 --> 01:24:29,500
the viability line as well as I 
do, probably better than I do. 

1360
01:24:29,500 --> 01:24:32,600
What would you say in defense of
that line? 

1361
01:24:32,600 --> 01:24:36,000
What would you say to the 
argument that has been made many

1362
01:24:36,000 --> 01:24:40,300
times by people who Pro-choice 
and pro-life. 

1363
01:24:40,500 --> 01:24:44,000
That the line really doesn't 
make any sense that it is as 

1364
01:24:44,000 --> 01:24:47,700
Justice blackmun, himself 
described it arbitrary. 

1365
01:24:47,700 --> 01:24:52,600
The woman's if a woman wants to 
be free of the burdens of 

1366
01:24:52,700 --> 01:24:56,700
pregnancy that interest does not
disappear. 

1367
01:24:57,100 --> 01:24:59,300
The moment. 
The viability line is crossed 

1368
01:24:59,300 --> 01:25:02,100
isn't that right? 
No your honor and if I may make 

1369
01:25:02,100 --> 01:25:04,700
a few points to answer your 
question first, I think the 

1370
01:25:04,700 --> 01:25:08,600
state views viability is 
arbitrary because it Cledus 

1371
01:25:08,600 --> 01:25:12,300
counts, the woman's interest but
viability of does a woman have 

1372
01:25:12,400 --> 01:25:16,900
dozens upon reaching the point 
of viability does not the woman 

1373
01:25:16,900 --> 01:25:20,500
have the same interest that she 
had before viability in being 

1374
01:25:20,500 --> 01:25:24,200
free of this pregnancy that she 
no longer wants to continue. 

1375
01:25:24,700 --> 01:25:28,100
Viability is a principled line. 
Your honor because in ordering 

1376
01:25:28,100 --> 01:25:30,500
the I'm trying to see whether it
is a principle line. 

1377
01:25:30,500 --> 01:25:35,200
You agree with me at least on 
that point, that woman still has

1378
01:25:35,200 --> 01:25:38,100
the same interest in terminating
her pregnancy. 

1379
01:25:38,300 --> 01:25:41,200
See after the viability line has
been crossed. 

1380
01:25:41,700 --> 01:25:43,400
Yes, your honor. 
But the court balance, the 

1381
01:25:43,400 --> 01:25:46,300
interest in an ordering them 
interested station on. 

1382
01:25:46,400 --> 01:25:53,100
On the other side, the fetus has
an interest in having a life and

1383
01:25:53,100 --> 01:25:56,500
that doesn't change. 
Does it from the point before? 

1384
01:25:56,500 --> 01:26:00,700
Viability to the point after 
viability, in some people's 

1385
01:26:00,700 --> 01:26:01,500
view. 
It doesn't your honor. 

1386
01:26:01,500 --> 01:26:04,600
But what the court said is that 
those philosophical differences,

1387
01:26:04,600 --> 01:26:06,700
couldn't be resolved. 
It was that what? 

1388
01:26:06,700 --> 01:26:08,100
I'm, that's what I'm getting at.
What? 

1389
01:26:08,200 --> 01:26:11,200
Is the philosophical argument, 
the secular philosophical 

1390
01:26:11,200 --> 01:26:14,200
argument for saying this is the 
appropriate line. 

1391
01:26:14,800 --> 01:26:18,400
There are those who say that, 
the rights of personhood should 

1392
01:26:18,400 --> 01:26:24,800
be considered to have taken hold
at a point when the fetus 

1393
01:26:24,800 --> 01:26:29,100
requires, certain independent 
characteristics, but viability 

1394
01:26:29,100 --> 01:26:32,500
is dependent on medical 
technology and Medical Practice.

1395
01:26:33,000 --> 01:26:35,700
It has changed. 
It may continue to change. 

1396
01:26:37,000 --> 01:26:39,000
No, your honor. 
It is principal because in 

1397
01:26:39,000 --> 01:26:42,400
ordering the interest at stake, 
the court had to set a line 

1398
01:26:42,400 --> 01:26:45,600
between conception and birth and
it logically looked at the 

1399
01:26:45,600 --> 01:26:49,300
fetuses ability to survive 
separately as a legal line 

1400
01:26:49,300 --> 01:26:52,500
because it's objectively 
verifiable and doesn't require 

1401
01:26:52,500 --> 01:26:55,300
the court to resolve the 
philosophical issues at stake. 

1402
01:26:56,700 --> 01:26:59,900
I just want to focus on Starry 
decisis for a little bit. 

1403
01:27:00,300 --> 01:27:04,200
I found my colleague Justice. 
Breyer is comments quite 

1404
01:27:04,200 --> 01:27:06,100
compelling. 
I'm not quite sure. 

1405
01:27:06,300 --> 01:27:10,600
Earth, how they play out in in 
KC? 

1406
01:27:11,000 --> 01:27:13,400
It is certainly true. 
That we cannot base our 

1407
01:27:13,400 --> 01:27:17,500
decisions on whether they're 
popular or not with the people. 

1408
01:27:17,800 --> 01:27:22,100
Casey seem to say, we shouldn't 
base our decisions, not only on 

1409
01:27:22,100 --> 01:27:26,800
that, but whether they're going 
to Whether they're going to seem

1410
01:27:26,800 --> 01:27:30,300
popular it. 
And it seemed to me to have a 

1411
01:27:30,300 --> 01:27:35,400
paradoxical conclusion, that the
more unpopular, the decisions 

1412
01:27:35,400 --> 01:27:38,200
are the firmer. 
The court should be in, not 

1413
01:27:38,200 --> 01:27:43,200
departing from prior precedent. 
It's sort of a superstar e 

1414
01:27:43,208 --> 01:27:48,400
decisis but it's Superstar 
decisis for what are regarded as

1415
01:27:48,900 --> 01:27:51,500
by many as the most erroneous 
decisions. 

1416
01:27:51,900 --> 01:27:53,600
Do you think there is that 
categories? 

1417
01:27:53,600 --> 01:27:56,100
Or is it just normal star eat? 
Decisis. 

1418
01:27:56,100 --> 01:27:59,000
I think it is precedent on 
precedent, your honor because 

1419
01:27:59,000 --> 01:28:02,200
Casey did the stereo decisis 
analysis for row. 

1420
01:28:02,200 --> 01:28:05,000
So, the question before this 
court is whether that's, Terry 

1421
01:28:05,000 --> 01:28:07,800
decisis, analysis was 
egregiously wrong and if I may 

1422
01:28:07,800 --> 01:28:10,800
answer your earlier question 
about whether viability was 

1423
01:28:10,800 --> 01:28:14,500
squarely at issue in Casey, it 
clearly was your honor a Pages 

1424
01:28:14,500 --> 01:28:19,100
869 2871, the court squarely 
addressed by ability because the

1425
01:28:19,100 --> 01:28:22,100
government had made the argument
that viability line are 

1426
01:28:22,100 --> 01:28:25,200
appreciate that. 
Casey addressed it, but that's 

1427
01:28:25,200 --> 01:28:27,000
different than Saying it was an 
issue. 

1428
01:28:27,800 --> 01:28:31,600
It said it was the sensible 
Central principle of row because

1429
01:28:31,600 --> 01:28:34,000
it was pretty much all that was 
left after they were done 

1430
01:28:34,000 --> 01:28:40,500
dealing with the rest of it and 
the regulations in Casey had no 

1431
01:28:40,500 --> 01:28:43,800
applicability or not, depending 
upon where viability, was they 

1432
01:28:43,800 --> 01:28:46,500
applied throughout the whole 
range period. 

1433
01:28:46,500 --> 01:28:49,300
So if they didn't say anything 
about viability, it's like what 

1434
01:28:49,300 --> 01:28:54,800
Justice blackmun said in when 
discussing among his colleagues 

1435
01:28:54,800 --> 01:28:57,900
which is a good reason? 
And not to have papers out that 

1436
01:28:57,900 --> 01:29:03,200
that early is that they don't 
have to address the 

1437
01:29:03,200 --> 01:29:05,900
line-drawing, it all in row and 
they didn't have to address the 

1438
01:29:05,900 --> 01:29:08,500
line-drawing. 
It all in Casey. 

1439
01:29:08,800 --> 01:29:11,700
I disagree with that your honor 
because the undue burden test 

1440
01:29:11,700 --> 01:29:15,000
incorporates, the viability 
line, that was what the court 

1441
01:29:15,000 --> 01:29:18,300
was, assessing the regulations 
of guests, whether they imposed 

1442
01:29:18,300 --> 01:29:21,600
a substantial obstacle in the 
path of a woman before 

1443
01:29:21,600 --> 01:29:24,200
viability. 
And if a Prohibition like this 

1444
01:29:24,200 --> 01:29:27,700
law isn't a Anshel obstacle, the
nothing would be. 

1445
01:29:27,700 --> 01:29:30,700
So, the issue was squarely 
before the court. 

1446
01:29:30,700 --> 01:29:34,700
And in fact, the court said at 
page 879 that, in adopting, the 

1447
01:29:34,700 --> 01:29:37,100
undue burden test. 
It was not disturbing viability 

1448
01:29:37,100 --> 01:29:39,900
line. 
Maybe it's a very interesting 

1449
01:29:39,900 --> 01:29:44,400
question that I think Justice 
para, Tres Tew, it's usually 

1450
01:29:44,400 --> 01:29:48,100
just philosophical, but I think 
it has B here. 

1451
01:29:49,500 --> 01:29:53,000
When I read Casey, it's not just
one on one, you know, to P is 

1452
01:29:53,000 --> 01:29:56,200
greater than 1. 
Casey plus rho is greater than 

1453
01:29:57,200 --> 01:30:02,300
its, they're making a point that
we're an institution, perhaps 

1454
01:30:02,300 --> 01:30:07,900
more than of Court of Appeals. 
Or District Court. 

1455
01:30:08,300 --> 01:30:13,400
It's Hamilton's point no purse. 
No sword. 

1456
01:30:14,800 --> 01:30:19,600
And yet, we have to have public 
support. 

1457
01:30:20,900 --> 01:30:23,600
And that comes primarily says, 
Casey. 

1458
01:30:24,200 --> 01:30:28,700
I wonder if it was O'Connor who 
wrote that, I don't know but it 

1459
01:30:28,700 --> 01:30:35,600
comes primarily from people 
believing that We do our job. 

1460
01:30:37,200 --> 01:30:41,200
We use reason. 
We don't look to just what's 

1461
01:30:41,200 --> 01:30:43,800
popular and that's where he's 
seeing the Paradox. 

1462
01:30:44,800 --> 01:30:49,700
But the problem with the super 
case of which we've heard three 

1463
01:30:49,700 --> 01:30:54,900
mentioned, the problem with the 
super case like this, the rear 

1464
01:30:54,900 --> 01:31:01,700
case, the Watershed case where 
people are really opposed What 

1465
01:31:01,700 --> 01:31:05,100
both sides? 
And they really fight each 

1466
01:31:05,100 --> 01:31:08,500
other. 
Is there going to be ready to 

1467
01:31:08,500 --> 01:31:10,600
say? 
No, you're just political you're

1468
01:31:10,600 --> 01:31:15,800
just politicians and that's what
kills us as an American 

1469
01:31:15,800 --> 01:31:18,800
Institution. 
That's what they're saying. 

1470
01:31:19,500 --> 01:31:23,500
So we're looking at it for that.
But we are looking to and that 

1471
01:31:23,500 --> 01:31:29,300
they say is a reason. 
Why A reason why when you get a 

1472
01:31:29,308 --> 01:31:32,100
case like that, you better be. 
Damn sure. 

1473
01:31:33,700 --> 01:31:37,000
That the normal star 
reconsiderations sorry, decisis 

1474
01:31:37,000 --> 01:31:40,700
overruling, his are really there
in Spades, double triple 

1475
01:31:40,700 --> 01:31:44,700
quadruple, and then they go 
through and show their not okay.

1476
01:31:46,400 --> 01:31:49,600
What's the Paradox? 
Maybe you think I've just made 

1477
01:31:49,600 --> 01:31:55,400
an argument that there isn't one
but really in my head I'm 

1478
01:31:55,400 --> 01:31:58,600
thinking I'm not sure there may 
be one and I don't know if 

1479
01:31:58,600 --> 01:32:01,600
you've ever thought about this. 
I don't know if you've ever, if,

1480
01:32:01,800 --> 01:32:06,000
when that occurred to you, I 
don't want to overrule the story

1481
01:32:06,000 --> 01:32:09,300
that I wouldn't want the court 
to overrule The Starry decisis 

1482
01:32:09,300 --> 01:32:15,500
section of KC You say and that's
what that's what I think is 

1483
01:32:15,500 --> 01:32:19,000
being brought up and maybe I 
haven't made it clearer but I've

1484
01:32:19,000 --> 01:32:21,300
tried to yes. 
Your honor. 

1485
01:32:21,300 --> 01:32:24,200
I think the point that the court
was making was that the fact 

1486
01:32:24,200 --> 01:32:28,100
that some states may continue to
enact laws in the teeth of the 

1487
01:32:28,100 --> 01:32:31,400
courts precedent has never been 
enough of a reason to overrule. 

1488
01:32:31,400 --> 01:32:34,200
And that's true for a number of 
decisions that the court has 

1489
01:32:34,200 --> 01:32:36,000
issued. 
The fact that some people 

1490
01:32:36,100 --> 01:32:39,400
continue to disagree with them 
is not a basis to discard that 

1491
01:32:39,400 --> 01:32:45,400
President, this is Thomas. 
And he further Back to my 

1492
01:32:45,400 --> 01:32:52,100
original question. 
If I were, I know your interest 

1493
01:32:52,100 --> 01:32:56,000
here is in abortion. 
I understand that. 

1494
01:32:57,100 --> 01:33:03,600
But if I were to ask you what, 
constitutional right protects 

1495
01:33:03,600 --> 01:33:08,200
the right to abortion. 
Is it privacy? 

1496
01:33:08,200 --> 01:33:10,600
Is it autonomy? 
What would it be? 

1497
01:33:11,200 --> 01:33:14,700
It's liberty, your honor. 
It's the textual protection in 

1498
01:33:14,700 --> 01:33:18,100
the 14th amendment that a state 
can't deprive a person of 

1499
01:33:18,100 --> 01:33:20,000
Liberty without due process of 
law. 

1500
01:33:20,200 --> 01:33:23,600
And the court has interpreted 
Liberty to include the right, to

1501
01:33:23,600 --> 01:33:26,500
make a family decisions, and the
right to physical autonomy, 

1502
01:33:26,500 --> 01:33:29,100
including the right to end a 
pre-viability pregnancy. 

1503
01:33:30,200 --> 01:33:33,000
So it's all of the above the 
court. 

1504
01:33:33,000 --> 01:33:35,100
That's how the court has 
interpreted the Liberty clause 

1505
01:33:35,100 --> 01:33:38,400
for over 100 years, in cases 
going back to Meyer. 

1506
01:33:38,400 --> 01:33:41,400
Griswold carry, loving Lawrence.
Yeah. 

1507
01:33:41,400 --> 01:33:44,700
But it's, and I mean, all of 
those sort of just come out of 

1508
01:33:44,700 --> 01:33:48,800
lochner, the so it's that we've 
dropped part of it. 

1509
01:33:49,400 --> 01:33:52,200
So I understand what you're 
saying but what I'm trying to 

1510
01:33:52,200 --> 01:33:58,100
focus on is if we is to lower 
the level of generality, or at 

1511
01:33:58,108 --> 01:34:01,600
least be a little bit more. 
Ethic in the old days we used to

1512
01:34:01,600 --> 01:34:05,900
say, it was a right to privacy 
that the court found in the due 

1513
01:34:05,900 --> 01:34:09,000
process substantive due process 
clause, okay. 

1514
01:34:09,300 --> 01:34:13,700
So Orion subsidy of due process 
and I'm trying to get you to 

1515
01:34:13,700 --> 01:34:16,500
tell me. 
What are we relying on now? 

1516
01:34:16,800 --> 01:34:19,500
Is it privacy? 
Is it autonomy? 

1517
01:34:19,500 --> 01:34:21,700
What is it? 
I think it continues to be 

1518
01:34:21,700 --> 01:34:25,000
Liberty and the right exists, 
whatever, level of generality, 

1519
01:34:25,000 --> 01:34:27,600
the Court applies. 
There was a tradition under the 

1520
01:34:27,600 --> 01:34:30,200
common law for centuries of 
women being able to End their 

1521
01:34:30,200 --> 01:34:32,600
pregnancies. 
But in addition when it comes to

1522
01:34:32,600 --> 01:34:35,900
decisions related to family 
marriage and childbearing, the 

1523
01:34:35,900 --> 01:34:38,800
court has done the analysis at a
higher level of generality and 

1524
01:34:38,800 --> 01:34:41,400
that makes sense because 
otherwise, the Constitution 

1525
01:34:41,400 --> 01:34:44,200
would reinforce the historical 
discrimination against women. 

1526
01:34:45,200 --> 01:34:52,100
This is Justice. 
Alito How are you just mentioned

1527
01:34:52,100 --> 01:34:54,500
the common law. 
So let me ask you a couple of 

1528
01:34:54,500 --> 01:34:58,300
questions about history. 
Did any state constitutional 

1529
01:34:58,400 --> 01:35:02,100
provision recognize that 
abortion was a right Liberty or 

1530
01:35:02,500 --> 01:35:05,700
immunity in 1868 when the 
fourteenth amendment was 

1531
01:35:05,700 --> 01:35:07,000
adopted? 
It. 

1532
01:35:07,000 --> 01:35:09,500
No your honor, but it had been 
allowed under the common law for

1533
01:35:09,500 --> 01:35:12,800
many years. 
There's any judicial decision at

1534
01:35:12,800 --> 01:35:18,000
that time or shortly or 
immediately after 1868 

1535
01:35:18,000 --> 01:35:22,100
recognized That abortion was a 
right Liberty or immunity. 

1536
01:35:22,700 --> 01:35:26,100
There were State High Court 
decisions shortly before then 

1537
01:35:26,100 --> 01:35:28,200
your honor talking about the 
ability of women to end a 

1538
01:35:28,200 --> 01:35:32,000
pregnancy before quickening. 
What's your best case? 

1539
01:35:34,200 --> 01:35:39,000
For the right to end a 
pregnancy, your honor allowing a

1540
01:35:39,000 --> 01:35:42,900
state to take control of a 
woman's body and force her to 

1541
01:35:42,900 --> 01:35:46,400
undergo the physical demands 
risks and life-altering. 

1542
01:35:46,400 --> 01:35:50,400
Consequences of pregnancy is a 
fundamental deprivation of her 

1543
01:35:50,400 --> 01:35:53,300
Liberty and once the court 
recognizes that that liberty 

1544
01:35:53,300 --> 01:35:56,800
interest deserves heightened 
protection, it does need to draw

1545
01:35:56,800 --> 01:36:00,600
a workable line and viability is
aligned that logically balances,

1546
01:36:00,600 --> 01:36:05,900
the interests, take the brief 
for the Starkel Association says

1547
01:36:05,900 --> 01:36:11,400
that abortion was not legal 
before a quickening in 26, out 

1548
01:36:11,400 --> 01:36:14,700
of 37 States. 
The time when the fourteenth 

1549
01:36:14,700 --> 01:36:17,400
amendment was adopted, is that 
correct? 

1550
01:36:17,600 --> 01:36:20,300
That is correct because some of 
the states had started to 

1551
01:36:20,300 --> 01:36:22,800
discard the common law at that 
point because of a 

1552
01:36:22,800 --> 01:36:25,800
discriminatory view that a 
woman's proper role was, as a 

1553
01:36:25,800 --> 01:36:28,700
wife and mother of you that the 
constitution not Rejects, and 

1554
01:36:28,700 --> 01:36:31,600
that's why it's appropriate to 
do the historical analysis at a 

1555
01:36:31,608 --> 01:36:33,600
higher level of generality in 
the face. 

1556
01:36:33,700 --> 01:36:36,900
S of that, can it be said that 
the right to abortion is deeply 

1557
01:36:36,900 --> 01:36:40,700
rooted in the history and 
traditions of the American 

1558
01:36:40,700 --> 01:36:42,100
people? 
Yes, it can. 

1559
01:36:42,100 --> 01:36:45,000
Your honor again at the founding
women were able to end their 

1560
01:36:45,000 --> 01:36:47,600
pregnancy under the common law. 
And in fact, this court in 

1561
01:36:47,600 --> 01:36:51,700
glucksberg specifically, decide 
discussed Casey as a decision 

1562
01:36:51,700 --> 01:36:55,700
based on history and tradition, 
and it note 19 specifically 

1563
01:36:55,700 --> 01:36:59,700
called out and relied on Rose 
conclusion, that at the time of 

1564
01:36:59,700 --> 01:37:02,900
the founding, and well into the 
1800s, women had the ability to 

1565
01:37:02,900 --> 01:37:05,300
end a pregnancy. 
See what was the the principal 

1566
01:37:05,300 --> 01:37:09,100
source that the court relied on 
in row for its historical 

1567
01:37:09,300 --> 01:37:12,800
analysis? 
Who was the author of that of 

1568
01:37:12,800 --> 01:37:15,000
that article? 
I apologize, your honor. 

1569
01:37:15,000 --> 01:37:17,900
I don't remember the author. 
I know that the court spent many

1570
01:37:17,900 --> 01:37:20,200
pages of the opinion, doing a 
historical analysis. 

1571
01:37:20,200 --> 01:37:23,600
There's also a brief on behalf 
of several key American 

1572
01:37:23,600 --> 01:37:26,800
historian associations that go 
through that history in detail 

1573
01:37:26,800 --> 01:37:30,000
because there's even more 
information now that supports 

1574
01:37:30,000 --> 01:37:31,800
Rose legal conclusions. 
Thank you. 

1575
01:37:38,900 --> 01:37:43,900
I think the other side would say
that, the core problem here is 

1576
01:37:43,900 --> 01:37:48,600
that the court has been forced 
by the position, you're taking. 

1577
01:37:48,600 --> 01:37:55,200
And by the cases to pick sides 
on the most contentious social 

1578
01:37:55,200 --> 01:37:58,700
debate in American life and to 
do. 

1579
01:37:58,700 --> 01:38:03,800
So in a situation where they say
that the constitution is neutral

1580
01:38:03,800 --> 01:38:07,300
on the question of abortion, the
text and history that The 

1581
01:38:07,300 --> 01:38:11,200
Constitution's neither pro-life 
nor pro-choice on the question 

1582
01:38:11,200 --> 01:38:15,200
of abortion and they would say, 
therefore, it should be left to 

1583
01:38:15,200 --> 01:38:20,100
the people to the states, or to 
Congress. 

1584
01:38:20,800 --> 01:38:24,400
And I think they also then 
continue because the 

1585
01:38:24,400 --> 01:38:28,700
Constitution is neutral, that 
this court should be 

1586
01:38:28,700 --> 01:38:33,500
scrupulously neutral on the 
question of abortion neither 

1587
01:38:33,500 --> 01:38:37,900
pro-choice or pro-life. 
But because They say, the 

1588
01:38:37,900 --> 01:38:39,600
Constitution doesn't give us the
authority. 

1589
01:38:39,600 --> 01:38:42,500
We should leave it to the states
and we should be scrupulously 

1590
01:38:42,500 --> 01:38:46,300
neutral on the question and that
they are saying here. 

1591
01:38:46,900 --> 01:38:53,700
I think that we should return to
a position of neutrality on that

1592
01:38:54,200 --> 01:38:59,000
contentious social issue rather 
than continuing to pick sides on

1593
01:38:59,000 --> 01:39:01,300
that issue. 
So, I think that's at a big 

1594
01:39:01,300 --> 01:39:03,600
picture level. 
Their argument want to give you 

1595
01:39:03,600 --> 01:39:06,900
a chance to respond to that? 
Yes, a few points. 

1596
01:39:06,900 --> 01:39:08,900
If I may May your honor. 
First, of course, those very 

1597
01:39:08,900 --> 01:39:11,800
same arguments were made in KC 
and the court rejected them 

1598
01:39:11,800 --> 01:39:16,200
saying that this philosophical 
disagreements, can't be resolved

1599
01:39:16,200 --> 01:39:18,200
in a way that a woman has no 
choice in the matter. 

1600
01:39:18,200 --> 01:39:20,900
And second, I don't think it 
would be a neutral position. 

1601
01:39:21,100 --> 01:39:23,700
The Constitution provides a 
guarantee of Liberty. 

1602
01:39:23,800 --> 01:39:26,700
The court has interpreted that 
Liberty to include the ability 

1603
01:39:26,800 --> 01:39:30,500
to make decisions related to 
childbearing marriage and family

1604
01:39:30,600 --> 01:39:33,800
women have an equal, right to 
Liberty under the Constitution, 

1605
01:39:33,800 --> 01:39:36,600
your honor, and if they're not 
able to make this decision, if 

1606
01:39:36,600 --> 01:39:41,000
states can Control of women's 
bodies and force them to endure 

1607
01:39:41,000 --> 01:39:43,700
months of pregnancy and 
childbirth, then they will never

1608
01:39:43,700 --> 01:39:46,000
have equal status under the 
Constitution. 

1609
01:39:47,100 --> 01:39:51,200
And when I ask a question about 
Starry decisis and to think 

1610
01:39:52,000 --> 01:39:54,700
about how to approach that here,
because there's been lots of 

1611
01:39:54,700 --> 01:39:57,700
questions picking up on Justice 
Barrett's, questions and others 

1612
01:39:58,700 --> 01:40:02,400
and history helps think about 
star decisis as I've looked at 

1613
01:40:02,400 --> 01:40:06,600
it and the history of how the 
courts applied star decisis and 

1614
01:40:06,600 --> 01:40:11,700
when you really We dig into it, 
history tells the somewhat 

1615
01:40:11,700 --> 01:40:13,200
different story, I think than 
is. 

1616
01:40:13,200 --> 01:40:16,500
Sometimes assumed you think 
about some of the most important

1617
01:40:16,500 --> 01:40:20,800
cases, the most consequential 
cases in this Court's history. 

1618
01:40:21,200 --> 01:40:26,800
There's a string of them where 
the case is overruled, Preston 

1619
01:40:26,900 --> 01:40:30,600
Brown V board, outlawed 
separate, but equal. 

1620
01:40:31,900 --> 01:40:34,200
Baker versus Carr which set the 
stage. 

1621
01:40:34,200 --> 01:40:38,600
For one person, one vote, West 
Coast Hotel which recognized the

1622
01:40:38,600 --> 01:40:40,700
state's authority to regulate 
business. 

1623
01:40:41,200 --> 01:40:44,600
Miranda versus Arizona which 
required police to give warnings

1624
01:40:44,600 --> 01:40:47,300
when the right to rule about the
right to remain silent and to 

1625
01:40:47,300 --> 01:40:50,600
have an attorney present, two 
suspects and criminal custody 

1626
01:40:51,100 --> 01:40:55,200
Lawrence V, Texas said that the 
state may not prohibit same-sex 

1627
01:40:55,200 --> 01:41:00,400
conduct, Mapp versus Ohio, which
held that the exclusionary rule 

1628
01:41:00,400 --> 01:41:03,800
applies to state criminal 
prosecutions to exclude evidence

1629
01:41:03,800 --> 01:41:07,400
obtained in violation of the 
Fourth Amendment Gideon versus 

1630
01:41:07,400 --> 01:41:10,200
rain Wainwright, which 
guaranteed the right to counsel 

1631
01:41:10,200 --> 01:41:13,700
and criminal cases. 
Oh berga fell which recognized a

1632
01:41:13,700 --> 01:41:17,000
constitutional, right to 
same-sex marriage in each of 

1633
01:41:17,008 --> 01:41:20,600
those cases. 
And that's a list and I could go

1634
01:41:20,600 --> 01:41:24,700
on And those are some of the 
most consequential and important

1635
01:41:24,700 --> 01:41:28,500
in the courts history. 
The court overruled precedent 

1636
01:41:28,800 --> 01:41:35,600
and it turns out if the court in
those cases had had listened and

1637
01:41:35,600 --> 01:41:38,200
they are presented in art with 
arguments, in those cases 

1638
01:41:38,700 --> 01:41:43,900
adhered a precedent in brown V, 
board adhere to + e, on West 

1639
01:41:43,900 --> 01:41:47,100
Coast Hotel and here to Atkins 
and adhere to lochner. 

1640
01:41:48,400 --> 01:41:55,000
And if the court had done that 
in those cases, this the country

1641
01:41:55,000 --> 01:42:00,100
would be a much different place.
So I assume you agree with most,

1642
01:42:00,100 --> 01:42:04,300
if not all the cases, I listed 
there where the court overruled 

1643
01:42:04,300 --> 01:42:08,400
precedent. 
So, the question on starts, Isis

1644
01:42:08,400 --> 01:42:10,400
is why? 
If? 

1645
01:42:10,400 --> 01:42:12,000
And I know you just screw with 
what I'm not saying. 

1646
01:42:12,000 --> 01:42:18,100
The if if we think that the 
prior precedents are seriously 

1647
01:42:18,300 --> 01:42:23,000
Long if that why then doesn't 
the history of this Court's 

1648
01:42:23,000 --> 01:42:26,300
practice with respect to those 
cases, tell us that the right 

1649
01:42:26,300 --> 01:42:31,300
answer is actually the return to
the position of neutrality and 

1650
01:42:31,800 --> 01:42:35,600
and not stick with those 
precedents in the same way that 

1651
01:42:35,600 --> 01:42:40,000
all those other cases didn't. 
Because of the view that a 

1652
01:42:40,000 --> 01:42:42,900
previous precedent is wrong. 
Your honor has never been enough

1653
01:42:43,000 --> 01:42:45,500
for this court to overrule and 
it certainly shouldn't be in 

1654
01:42:45,800 --> 01:42:48,000
enough here. 
When there's 50 years of 

1655
01:42:48,000 --> 01:42:51,200
precedent instead, the court has
required something else a 

1656
01:42:51,200 --> 01:42:53,800
special justification and the 
state doesn't come forward with 

1657
01:42:53,800 --> 01:42:56,900
any special justification. 
It makes the same exact 

1658
01:42:56,900 --> 01:42:59,300
arguments. 
The court already considered and

1659
01:42:59,300 --> 01:43:02,600
rejected and it's Terry decisis 
analysis and Casey and in fact 

1660
01:43:02,600 --> 01:43:06,200
there is nothing different, 
there is no less need today than

1661
01:43:06,200 --> 01:43:09,900
30 years ago or 50 years. 
Ago for women to be able to make

1662
01:43:09,900 --> 01:43:13,600
this fundamental decision for 
themselves about their bodies 

1663
01:43:13,600 --> 01:43:18,100
lives and health. 
Thank you mrs. 

1664
01:43:18,100 --> 01:43:22,500
Barrett I want to ask you a 
follow-up question and the chief

1665
01:43:22,500 --> 01:43:27,000
was asking about the viability 
line, and if that was the right 

1666
01:43:27,000 --> 01:43:29,000
place, if that's the right line 
to draw. 

1667
01:43:29,000 --> 01:43:32,400
So let's take it out of the 
question of stare decisis. 

1668
01:43:32,400 --> 01:43:35,800
And imagine that there's a state
constitution that's identical to

1669
01:43:35,800 --> 01:43:40,100
the 14th amendment's due process
clause and a state supreme 

1670
01:43:40,100 --> 01:43:44,100
court, has to decide as a matter
of State constitutional law, 

1671
01:43:44,900 --> 01:43:46,500
what the scope of an abortion, 
right? 

1672
01:43:46,500 --> 01:43:50,600
Is and the second trimester, 
Friends at 27 weeks. 

1673
01:43:51,200 --> 01:43:54,700
And so that state supreme court 
says, we think that the right 

1674
01:43:54,700 --> 01:43:58,400
exists, you know, in a in an 
absolute sense that the state 

1675
01:43:58,400 --> 01:44:00,400
cannot take away the right up to
27 weeks. 

1676
01:44:00,400 --> 01:44:03,100
And then after that adopts, an 
undue burden standard. 

1677
01:44:03,700 --> 01:44:07,300
As a matter of first principles 
is that line acceptable, as a 

1678
01:44:07,300 --> 01:44:12,200
matter of constitutional law, 
Your honor, it may be. 

1679
01:44:12,200 --> 01:44:15,500
But I think the question in this
case, is whether a line is 

1680
01:44:15,500 --> 01:44:18,000
obviously more principled. 
They're obviously more workable 

1681
01:44:18,000 --> 01:44:20,700
than viability because of the 
stereo decisis content. 

1682
01:44:20,700 --> 01:44:23,300
I am in, that's the row 
framework basically the 

1683
01:44:23,300 --> 01:44:25,200
trimester why wouldn't that be 
workable? 

1684
01:44:25,200 --> 01:44:28,100
If you pick a line and say the 
end of the second trimester, 27 

1685
01:44:28,100 --> 01:44:31,200
weeks? 
Third trimester States interests

1686
01:44:31,200 --> 01:44:34,000
increase. 
I don't understand why 27 weeks 

1687
01:44:34,000 --> 01:44:37,000
is less workable than 24. 
I'm not trying to suggest it is 

1688
01:44:37,000 --> 01:44:40,200
your honor and what I was trying
to suggest is that the Ability 

1689
01:44:40,200 --> 01:44:43,200
line is a principled and 
workable line, so to change it, 

1690
01:44:43,300 --> 01:44:44,400
there would have to be a new 
line. 

1691
01:44:44,400 --> 01:44:46,700
That's obviously more principled
than more workable. 

1692
01:44:46,700 --> 01:44:50,100
And, and the line that the court
has drawn actually that started 

1693
01:44:50,100 --> 01:44:52,000
two sizes. 
I'm asking as a matter of first 

1694
01:44:52,000 --> 01:44:55,000
principles, as a matter of first
principle, the viability line 

1695
01:44:55,000 --> 01:44:56,900
makes sense. 
Because if the Kant the state 

1696
01:44:56,900 --> 01:44:59,400
constitutions, a matter of that 
potential judgment, it's not 

1697
01:44:59,400 --> 01:45:01,800
constitutionally required as a 
matter of first principles 

1698
01:45:01,800 --> 01:45:05,300
because in fact, we could decide
to be more protective and say, 

1699
01:45:05,400 --> 01:45:08,700
27 weeks. 
And the second trimester, you 

1700
01:45:08,700 --> 01:45:11,600
could your honor but the the 
viability line makes sense given

1701
01:45:11,600 --> 01:45:14,400
the protection for Liberty, 
because it comes from the 

1702
01:45:14,400 --> 01:45:17,300
woman's liberty interest in 
resisting State control of her 

1703
01:45:17,300 --> 01:45:19,000
body. 
And once the court recognizes 

1704
01:45:19,000 --> 01:45:20,800
that interest, it does need to 
draw a line. 

1705
01:45:21,000 --> 01:45:23,500
As it does in many other 
constitutional context like the 

1706
01:45:23,500 --> 01:45:26,300
fourth and fifth amendment and 
the viability line. 

1707
01:45:26,300 --> 01:45:29,400
As I mentioned, makes sense 
because it focuses on the 

1708
01:45:29,400 --> 01:45:32,500
fetuses, ability to survive 
separately which is an 

1709
01:45:32,500 --> 01:45:35,900
appropriate legal line because 
it's objectively verifiable and 

1710
01:45:35,900 --> 01:45:38,900
doesn't delve into philosophical
questions about when life 

1711
01:45:38,900 --> 01:45:39,600
begins. 
Yeah. 

1712
01:45:41,200 --> 01:45:58,600
Thank you, counsel. 
General pre longer mr. 

1713
01:45:58,600 --> 01:46:02,700
Chief justice and may it please 
the court for a half century. 

1714
01:46:02,700 --> 01:46:05,800
This court has correctly 
recognized that the constitution

1715
01:46:05,800 --> 01:46:09,000
protects a woman's fundamental 
right to decide whether to end a

1716
01:46:09,008 --> 01:46:13,200
pregnancy before viability that 
guarantee that the state cannot 

1717
01:46:13,200 --> 01:46:16,800
force a woman to carry, a 
pregnancy to term and give birth

1718
01:46:17,100 --> 01:46:20,400
has engendered, substantial 
individual and societal reliance

1719
01:46:20,500 --> 01:46:24,400
Since the real world effects of 
overruling Roe and Casey would 

1720
01:46:24,400 --> 01:46:28,800
be severe and Swift nearly half 
of the states already have or 

1721
01:46:28,800 --> 01:46:31,900
expected to enact bans on 
abortion at all stages of 

1722
01:46:31,900 --> 01:46:34,500
pregnancy. 
Many without exceptions for 

1723
01:46:34,500 --> 01:46:37,900
rape, or incest women who are 
unable to travel. 

1724
01:46:37,900 --> 01:46:40,200
Hundreds of miles to gain access
to legal. 

1725
01:46:40,200 --> 01:46:43,300
Abortion, will be required to 
continue with their pregnancies 

1726
01:46:43,300 --> 01:46:47,100
and give birth with profound 
effects on their bodies, their 

1727
01:46:47,100 --> 01:46:49,200
health, and the course of their 
lives. 

1728
01:46:50,100 --> 01:46:53,300
If this court renounces, the 
liberty interest recognized and 

1729
01:46:53,300 --> 01:46:56,900
row and reaffirmed, and Casey, 
it would be an unprecedented 

1730
01:46:56,900 --> 01:47:00,300
contraction of individual rights
and a stark departure from 

1731
01:47:00,300 --> 01:47:04,300
principles of story decisis. 
The court has never revoked a 

1732
01:47:04,308 --> 01:47:06,500
right. 
That is so fundamental to so 

1733
01:47:06,500 --> 01:47:10,000
many Americans and so Central to
their ability to participate 

1734
01:47:10,000 --> 01:47:14,000
fully and equally in society, 
the court should not overrule 

1735
01:47:14,000 --> 01:47:16,000
the central component of women's
Liberty. 

1736
01:47:19,000 --> 01:47:26,000
General would you specifically 
tell me specifically State what 

1737
01:47:26,000 --> 01:47:29,500
the right is? 
Is that specifically abortion? 

1738
01:47:30,500 --> 01:47:35,600
Is that Liberty is at autonomy? 
Is it privacy? 

1739
01:47:36,700 --> 01:47:39,500
The right is grounded in the 
Liberty component of the 14th 

1740
01:47:39,500 --> 01:47:42,800
Amendment, Justice Thomas, but I
think that it promotes interests

1741
01:47:42,800 --> 01:47:46,400
and autonomy, bodily Integrity, 
Liberty, and equality. 

1742
01:47:46,700 --> 01:47:49,200
And I do You think that it is 
specifically the right to 

1743
01:47:49,200 --> 01:47:51,200
abortion here? 
The right of a woman to be able 

1744
01:47:51,200 --> 01:47:53,900
to control without the state, 
forcing her to continue a 

1745
01:47:53,900 --> 01:47:59,000
pregnancy whether to carry that 
baby to term I understand we're 

1746
01:47:59,000 --> 01:48:06,300
talking about abortion here. 
But what is confusing is that we

1747
01:48:06,300 --> 01:48:09,800
if we were talking about the 
Second Amendment I know exactly 

1748
01:48:09,800 --> 01:48:11,800
what we're talking about. 
If we're talking about Fourth 

1749
01:48:11,800 --> 01:48:15,400
Amendment, I know what we're 
talking about because it's 

1750
01:48:15,400 --> 01:48:19,500
written, it's there. 
What specifically is the right 

1751
01:48:19,500 --> 01:48:24,200
here that we're talking about? 
Well, Justice Thomas, I think 

1752
01:48:24,200 --> 01:48:27,000
that the court in those other 
context with respect to those 

1753
01:48:27,000 --> 01:48:30,300
other amendments has had to 
articulate what the text means 

1754
01:48:30,300 --> 01:48:32,700
and the bounds of the 
Constitutional guarantees. 

1755
01:48:32,700 --> 01:48:35,300
And it's done so through a 
variety of different tests that 

1756
01:48:35,300 --> 01:48:37,100
Implement First Amendment 
rights. 

1757
01:48:37,100 --> 01:48:39,000
Second amendment rights Fourth 
Amendment rights. 

1758
01:48:39,000 --> 01:48:41,700
So I don't think that there is 
anything unprecedented or 

1759
01:48:41,708 --> 01:48:45,000
anomalous about the right that 
the court articulated in Roman 

1760
01:48:45,000 --> 01:48:47,000
Casey and the way that it 
implemented that right? 

1761
01:48:47,100 --> 01:48:50,300
Right by defining the scope of 
the liberty interest by 

1762
01:48:50,300 --> 01:48:52,000
reference to viability and 
providing that. 

1763
01:48:52,000 --> 01:48:55,400
That is the moment when the 
balance of Interest tips and 

1764
01:48:55,400 --> 01:48:58,700
when the state can act to 
prohibit a woman from from 

1765
01:48:58,800 --> 01:49:02,000
getting an abortion based on its
interest in protecting the fetal

1766
01:49:02,000 --> 01:49:04,700
life at that point. 
So the right specifically is 

1767
01:49:04,700 --> 01:49:08,200
abortion it's the right of a 
woman prior to viability to 

1768
01:49:08,200 --> 01:49:10,100
control whether to continue with
the pregnancy. 

1769
01:49:10,100 --> 01:49:16,200
Yes thank you. 
I am interested in Justice cabin

1770
01:49:16,200 --> 01:49:19,200
noise long. 
Long Litany of cases in which we

1771
01:49:19,200 --> 01:49:23,700
overrule precedent, and we have 
yet, you did call this 

1772
01:49:23,700 --> 01:49:28,200
unprecedented. 
As I see the structure of the 

1773
01:49:28,200 --> 01:49:33,700
Constitution. 
The body of it is the 

1774
01:49:33,700 --> 01:49:37,000
relationship of the three 
branches of government. 

1775
01:49:38,300 --> 01:49:42,900
And then there is the 
relationship of the federal 

1776
01:49:42,900 --> 01:49:47,700
government to the state. 
And through our incorporation of

1777
01:49:47,700 --> 01:49:53,900
the 14th Amendment of the state,
vis-à-vis, the individual, it's 

1778
01:49:53,900 --> 01:49:57,300
the federal government and the 
states relationship to 

1779
01:49:57,300 --> 01:50:00,400
individuals. 
And I see the Bill of Rights 

1780
01:50:00,400 --> 01:50:02,300
including the Fourteenth 
Amendment. 

1781
01:50:03,200 --> 01:50:09,400
As basically setting the limits 
giving individual freedom To do 

1782
01:50:09,400 --> 01:50:14,000
certain things and stopping the 
government from intruding. 

1783
01:50:15,900 --> 01:50:21,600
In those Liberties, in those 
Bill of Rights, correct of all 

1784
01:50:21,600 --> 01:50:28,600
of the decisions that Justice 
cabin are listed all of them, 

1785
01:50:28,600 --> 01:50:33,900
invite virtually except for 
maybe one involved us, 

1786
01:50:34,200 --> 01:50:41,000
recognizing and overturning. 
State control over issues that 

1787
01:50:41,000 --> 01:50:46,700
we said belong to individuals. 
The right in Miranda to be 

1788
01:50:46,700 --> 01:50:50,100
warned was an individual, right?
Correct. 

1789
01:50:51,200 --> 01:50:52,600
That's right. 
Justice Sotomayor. 

1790
01:50:52,600 --> 01:50:55,200
And I think that that is a key 
distinction with the list of 

1791
01:50:55,200 --> 01:50:57,500
precedents, the Justice 
Kavanaugh was relying on. 

1792
01:50:57,500 --> 01:51:00,100
I think that there are really 
two key distinctions and the 

1793
01:51:00,100 --> 01:51:03,200
first is that in the vast, 
majority of those cases, the 

1794
01:51:03,200 --> 01:51:06,000
court was actually taking the 
issue away from the people and 

1795
01:51:06,000 --> 01:51:09,300
saying that it had been wrong 
before not to recognize a right 

1796
01:51:09,400 --> 01:51:10,700
now. 
I think that matters because it 

1797
01:51:10,700 --> 01:51:13,400
goes straight to Reliance 
interests here. 

1798
01:51:13,400 --> 01:51:15,700
The court would be doing the 
opposite, it would be telling 

1799
01:51:15,900 --> 01:51:19,100
the women of America that it was
wrong that actually the ability 

1800
01:51:19,100 --> 01:51:22,200
to control their bodies and 
Perhaps the most important 

1801
01:51:22,200 --> 01:51:24,500
decision that can make about 
whether to bring a child into 

1802
01:51:24,500 --> 01:51:26,800
this world is not part of their 
protected Liberty. 

1803
01:51:26,900 --> 01:51:29,500
And I think that that would come
at tremendous cost to the 

1804
01:51:29,500 --> 01:51:31,700
Reliance that women have placed 
on this, right? 

1805
01:51:31,800 --> 01:51:34,200
And on societal, Reliance in 
what this right has meant for 

1806
01:51:34,200 --> 01:51:36,200
further. 
Influence quantity is a good 

1807
01:51:36,200 --> 01:51:37,900
point. 
In this may be my fault. 

1808
01:51:38,000 --> 01:51:45,100
I'm talking about Pages 854 2863
in the Casey case and I've 

1809
01:51:45,100 --> 01:51:48,900
already used up too much time. 
I can't read those pages out 

1810
01:51:48,900 --> 01:51:53,300
loud, but they do not Include 
the list that Justice Kappa 

1811
01:51:53,300 --> 01:52:01,600
nawwww had they do include two. 
One is brown and the second one 

1812
01:52:02,200 --> 01:52:07,200
is West Coast Hotel versus 
parish and you could add the gay

1813
01:52:07,200 --> 01:52:10,500
rights cases as a third, which 
would fit the criteria. 

1814
01:52:10,900 --> 01:52:15,300
But there are complex criteria 
that she's talking about that 

1815
01:52:15,300 --> 01:52:19,100
link. 
To the position in the rule of 

1816
01:52:19,100 --> 01:52:22,600
law of this court. 
So I would say is you have to 

1817
01:52:22,600 --> 01:52:24,500
read them before. 
Beginning to say, whether they 

1818
01:52:24,500 --> 01:52:28,100
are overruling or not 
overruling, in the sense meant, 

1819
01:52:28,200 --> 01:52:34,300
they're calling for special 
concern, they say in those, I 

1820
01:52:34,300 --> 01:52:37,200
maybe I'd mentioned to wait a 
minute. 

1821
01:52:38,200 --> 01:52:42,700
Of course, plus he was wrong, 
when decided, but just a minute 

1822
01:52:43,500 --> 01:52:47,600
also, remember, Plessy said that
separate, but equal was a badge 

1823
01:52:47,600 --> 01:52:51,500
of inferiority. 
No, they said it isn't. 

1824
01:52:52,000 --> 01:52:54,900
Well, all you have to do is open
your eyes and look at the South,

1825
01:52:54,900 --> 01:52:59,800
my friend and you will see 
whether it was, or it wasn't in 

1826
01:52:59,800 --> 01:53:03,500
1954, and they made a similar 
point. 

1827
01:53:03,900 --> 01:53:05,900
He said, are you going to sit 
here in the middle of the 

1828
01:53:05,900 --> 01:53:11,300
depression and tell me? 
That lock mirror with its other 

1829
01:53:11,300 --> 01:53:17,800
cases and pure just about pure 
less a fair that we can run the 

1830
01:53:17,800 --> 01:53:21,900
country that way. 
I mention that because I'd want 

1831
01:53:21,900 --> 01:53:25,300
people to read those 15 pages 
with care. 

1832
01:53:26,000 --> 01:53:29,300
And that's why I said that, if 
you had anything to add to my 

1833
01:53:29,300 --> 01:53:32,400
plea, to read it, please do well
Justice Breyer. 

1834
01:53:32,400 --> 01:53:34,500
I agree completely. 
I have read those pages and 

1835
01:53:34,500 --> 01:53:37,000
reread them many times, and I 
think that this is actually 

1836
01:53:37,000 --> 01:53:40,100
another key to Sting ssion from 
the cases that Justice Kavanaugh

1837
01:53:40,100 --> 01:53:42,800
was referring to. 
And that is, as I understand 

1838
01:53:42,800 --> 01:53:46,300
those passages in Casey, the 
court carefully walked through 

1839
01:53:46,300 --> 01:53:49,300
each and every story, decisive 
factor that this court focuses 

1840
01:53:49,300 --> 01:53:50,800
on it. 
Looked at workability of the 

1841
01:53:50,800 --> 01:53:53,600
viability, rule doctrinal, 
underpinnings, legal, and 

1842
01:53:53,600 --> 01:53:56,500
factual developments, and 
critically Reliance interests 

1843
01:53:56,600 --> 01:54:00,100
and down the line and found that
the case for reaffirming row was

1844
01:54:00,200 --> 01:54:03,200
overwhelming and in that 
situation, when every factor 

1845
01:54:03,200 --> 01:54:05,500
that the court consults to 
determine whether to retain 

1846
01:54:05,500 --> 01:54:08,900
precedent councils in favor of 
retaining, I think Casey 

1847
01:54:08,900 --> 01:54:11,400
properly perceived that a 
decision to overrule. 

1848
01:54:11,400 --> 01:54:14,700
Nevertheless, perhaps based on 
occlusion that conclusion, that 

1849
01:54:14,700 --> 01:54:17,300
the justices thought the case 
was wrongly decided in the first

1850
01:54:17,300 --> 01:54:21,100
instance would run counter to 
the ability of story decisis to 

1851
01:54:21,100 --> 01:54:24,400
function as a Cornerstone of the
rule of law in this context. 

1852
01:54:24,400 --> 01:54:27,500
Is it your argument that a case 
can never be over World? 

1853
01:54:27,500 --> 01:54:29,800
Simply because it was 
egregiously wrong. 

1854
01:54:29,800 --> 01:54:33,700
I think that, at the very least,
the state would have to come 

1855
01:54:33,700 --> 01:54:36,700
forward with some kind of 
materially changed circumstance 

1856
01:54:36,700 --> 01:54:38,900
or some kind of material. 
Early new argument and 

1857
01:54:38,900 --> 01:54:42,200
Mississippi hasn't done. 
So in really, so suppose plus u 

1858
01:54:42,200 --> 01:54:46,000
versus Ferguson was reargued in 
1897. 

1859
01:54:46,000 --> 01:54:51,600
So nothing had changed, would it
not be sufficient to say that 

1860
01:54:51,600 --> 01:54:54,200
was a egregiously wrong decision
on the day? 

1861
01:54:54,200 --> 01:54:57,100
It was handed down and now it 
should be overruled. 

1862
01:54:57,400 --> 01:54:59,700
It certainly was egregiously 
wrong on the day that it was 

1863
01:54:59,700 --> 01:55:03,300
handed down Plessy, but what the
court said, and by analyzing 

1864
01:55:03,300 --> 01:55:07,600
Plessy to Brown and Casey was 
that what had become clear is 

1865
01:55:07,600 --> 01:55:09,800
that Factual premise, that 
underlay, the decision. 

1866
01:55:09,800 --> 01:55:13,000
This idea that segregation 
didn't create a badge oven for 

1867
01:55:13,000 --> 01:55:15,000
inferiority had been entirely 
mistaken. 

1868
01:55:15,000 --> 01:55:18,000
So it is real. 
Is it your answer that we needed

1869
01:55:18,000 --> 01:55:23,600
all the experience from 1896 to 
1954 to realize that plus he 

1870
01:55:23,600 --> 01:55:26,800
was, was wrongly decided, which 
answer my question. 

1871
01:55:27,000 --> 01:55:29,900
How did come before the court in
1897? 

1872
01:55:30,200 --> 01:55:32,100
Should it have been overruled? 
Or not? 

1873
01:55:32,700 --> 01:55:35,300
I think it should have been 
overruled, but I think that the 

1874
01:55:35,300 --> 01:55:38,600
factual premise was wrong in the
moment, it was Has decided in 

1875
01:55:38,600 --> 01:55:41,100
the court realized that and 
clarified that when it 

1876
01:55:41,100 --> 01:55:43,100
overruled. 
So there are circumstances in 

1877
01:55:43,100 --> 01:55:46,600
which a decision may be 
overruled properly over world 

1878
01:55:46,600 --> 01:55:49,200
when it must be over World, 
simply because it was 

1879
01:55:49,200 --> 01:55:53,400
egregiously wrong at the moment.
It was decided, I think every 

1880
01:55:53,400 --> 01:55:55,700
other story does not correct 
actor, likewise would have 

1881
01:55:55,700 --> 01:55:58,700
justified overruling in that 
interest, that actually it would

1882
01:55:58,700 --> 01:56:00,700
run counter to any notion of 
reasonable. 

1883
01:56:00,700 --> 01:56:03,700
Reliance that it was not a 
workable rule that it had been 

1884
01:56:03,700 --> 01:56:06,400
come and an outlier in our 
understanding of fundamental 

1885
01:56:06,400 --> 01:56:08,900
freedoms. 
Well, there was a lot of It was 

1886
01:56:08,900 --> 01:56:13,000
a lot of Reliance on Plessy that
the South built up a whole 

1887
01:56:13,300 --> 01:56:17,800
society based on the idea of 
white supremacy. 

1888
01:56:18,000 --> 01:56:21,500
So there was a lot of Reliance. 
It was real, it was improper 

1889
01:56:21,500 --> 01:56:25,500
Reliance, it was Reliance on an 
egregiously wrong understanding 

1890
01:56:25,500 --> 01:56:29,400
of what equal protection means. 
But your answer is, I don't, I 

1891
01:56:29,400 --> 01:56:31,600
still don't understand. 
I still don't have your answer. 

1892
01:56:31,600 --> 01:56:35,500
Clearly Canada decision. 
Be overruled simply because it 

1893
01:56:35,500 --> 01:56:39,600
was erroneously wrong. 
Even If nothing has changed 

1894
01:56:39,600 --> 01:56:42,500
between the time of that 
decision, on the time, when the 

1895
01:56:42,508 --> 01:56:45,100
court is called upon to 
consider, whether it should be 

1896
01:56:45,100 --> 01:56:45,900
overruled. 
Yes. 

1897
01:56:45,900 --> 01:56:47,300
Or no. 
Can you give me a yes or no? 

1898
01:56:47,300 --> 01:56:50,900
Answer on that this court? 
No has never overruled in that 

1899
01:56:50,900 --> 01:56:52,900
situation. 
Just based on a conclusion that 

1900
01:56:52,900 --> 01:56:54,900
the decision was wrong. 
It has always applied. 

1901
01:56:54,900 --> 01:56:58,300
The story decisis factors and 
likewise found that they warned 

1902
01:56:58,300 --> 01:57:01,600
overruling in that instance, and
Casey did that it applied the 

1903
01:57:01,600 --> 01:57:04,700
story decisive factors. 
If story decisis is to mean 

1904
01:57:04,700 --> 01:57:06,500
anything. 
It has to mean that that kind of

1905
01:57:06,500 --> 01:57:11,000
extensive And of all of the same
Arguments for whether to retain 

1906
01:57:11,000 --> 01:57:14,100
or discard, a precedent itself 
is an additional layer of 

1907
01:57:14,100 --> 01:57:17,200
precedent that needs to be 
relied on and can form a stable 

1908
01:57:17,200 --> 01:57:19,300
foundation of the rule of law 
General. 

1909
01:57:19,300 --> 01:57:22,100
You've talked a number of times 
about the Reliance interests 

1910
01:57:22,100 --> 01:57:26,300
here and I think I'd like you to
say a little bit more about that

1911
01:57:26,300 --> 01:57:28,600
because, you know, sometimes 
when we talk about Reliance 

1912
01:57:28,600 --> 01:57:31,000
interest that's like there's a 
rule of law and you look at it 

1913
01:57:31,000 --> 01:57:34,600
and you say, oh, somebody will 
enforce my contract because of 

1914
01:57:34,600 --> 01:57:37,700
this Rule and has a very kind of
grounded. 

1915
01:57:37,800 --> 01:57:40,200
See to it. 
And as Casey talked about the 

1916
01:57:40,200 --> 01:57:44,900
Reliance interests, here, 
they're a little bit more Airy. 

1917
01:57:45,200 --> 01:57:48,500
And I just wanted to get your 
sense of what are the Reliance 

1918
01:57:48,500 --> 01:57:51,100
interests here? 
And how does how do they cash 

1919
01:57:51,100 --> 01:57:53,600
out on the ground? 
Well, there are multiple 

1920
01:57:53,600 --> 01:57:56,000
Reliance interests here. 
As I think, Casey correctly, 

1921
01:57:56,000 --> 01:57:59,800
recognized Casey pointed to the 
individual Reliance of women in 

1922
01:57:59,800 --> 01:58:02,900
their Partners who had been able
to organize their lives and make

1923
01:58:02,900 --> 01:58:06,000
important life decisions against
the backdrop of having control 

1924
01:58:06,000 --> 01:58:07,500
over this incredibly 
consequential. 

1925
01:58:07,900 --> 01:58:11,000
And whether to have a child and 
people make decisions in 

1926
01:58:11,000 --> 01:58:14,300
Reliance on having that kind of 
reproductive control decisions 

1927
01:58:14,300 --> 01:58:17,500
about where to live what 
relationships to enter into what

1928
01:58:17,500 --> 01:58:19,800
investments to make in their 
jobs and careers. 

1929
01:58:19,800 --> 01:58:22,500
And so, I think on a very 
individual level, there has been

1930
01:58:22,500 --> 01:58:24,800
profound Reliance and it's 
certainly the case. 

1931
01:58:24,800 --> 01:58:28,200
That not every woman in America 
has needed to exercise this, 

1932
01:58:28,200 --> 01:58:30,600
right? 
Or has wanted to but one in four

1933
01:58:30,600 --> 01:58:33,600
American women have had an 
abortion and for those women the

1934
01:58:33,600 --> 01:58:36,400
rights secured by Rowan Casey 
has been critical in ensuring 

1935
01:58:36,400 --> 01:58:37,700
that they can control their 
bodies. 

1936
01:58:37,800 --> 01:58:40,600
He's and control their lives and
then I think there's a second 

1937
01:58:40,600 --> 01:58:42,600
dimension to it. 
The Casey also properly 

1938
01:58:42,600 --> 01:58:46,200
recognized and that's the 
societal Dimension, that's the 

1939
01:58:46,200 --> 01:58:48,900
understanding of our society 
even though this has been a 

1940
01:58:48,907 --> 01:58:52,300
controversial decision that this
is a liberty interest of women. 

1941
01:58:52,600 --> 01:58:55,500
It's the case that not everyone 
agrees with Roe versus Wade but 

1942
01:58:55,500 --> 01:58:58,800
just about every person in 
America knows what this Court 

1943
01:58:58,800 --> 01:59:00,200
held. 
They know how the court has 

1944
01:59:00,200 --> 01:59:02,400
defined. 
This concept of Liberty for 

1945
01:59:02,400 --> 01:59:04,700
women and what control they will
have in the situation of an 

1946
01:59:04,700 --> 01:59:07,400
unplanned pregnancy. 
And for the court to reverse 

1947
01:59:07,400 --> 01:59:11,100
course If now, I think would run
counter to that societal 

1948
01:59:11,100 --> 01:59:14,300
Reliance, and the Very concept 
we have of what the quality is 

1949
01:59:14,300 --> 01:59:16,000
guaranteed to women in this 
country. 

1950
01:59:19,500 --> 01:59:26,900
It is certainly true that there 
can be some Planning by some 

1951
01:59:26,900 --> 01:59:32,200
people about pregnancy. 
People who are raped, don't have

1952
01:59:32,200 --> 01:59:36,000
a choice, whether it's by an 
outsider or their own husband 

1953
01:59:36,900 --> 01:59:38,100
and not. 
Everybody can afford 

1954
01:59:38,100 --> 01:59:42,800
contraceptives, contrary to the 
salute. 

1955
01:59:42,800 --> 01:59:49,500
The, your adversary's brief in 
fact, 19% of the Women in 

1956
01:59:49,500 --> 01:59:53,000
Mississippi are uninsured, so 
they don't have money to pay for

1957
01:59:53,000 --> 02:00:01,300
concert contraceptives. 
So, but why they're point in 

1958
02:00:01,300 --> 02:00:05,300
their brief was, you know, 
contraceptives if you use them, 

1959
02:00:05,900 --> 02:00:08,900
the failure rate is very small 
etc, etc. 

1960
02:00:08,900 --> 02:00:12,000
How can there be real Reliance? 
So could you address that issue?

1961
02:00:12,300 --> 02:00:15,400
Of course. 
So first, this is not a new 

1962
02:00:15,400 --> 02:00:18,300
circumstance, since Roe and 
Casey contraceptives existed in 

1963
02:00:18,300 --> 02:00:21,500
1973. 
And in 1992, and still, the 

1964
02:00:21,500 --> 02:00:24,500
court recognized that unplanned 
pregnancies would persist, and 

1965
02:00:24,500 --> 02:00:27,400
deeply implicate, the liberty, 
interest of women, but I think 

1966
02:00:27,400 --> 02:00:29,400
even on the facts, the state is 
mistaken. 

1967
02:00:29,400 --> 02:00:32,900
Here a contraceptive failure 
rate in this country is at about

1968
02:00:32,900 --> 02:00:36,200
10% using the most common 
methods that means that women 

1969
02:00:36,200 --> 02:00:38,900
using contraceptives. 
Approximately one in ten will 

1970
02:00:38,900 --> 02:00:41,700
experience an unplanned 
pregnancy in the first year of 

1971
02:00:41,700 --> 02:00:44,400
use alone, about half of the 
women who have unplanned 

1972
02:00:44,400 --> 02:00:46,800
pregnancies were on 
contraceptives in the month that

1973
02:00:46,800 --> 02:00:49,400
that occurred. 
And so I think the idea, That 

1974
02:00:49,400 --> 02:00:52,200
contraceptives could make the 
need for abortion. 

1975
02:00:52,300 --> 02:00:55,200
Dissipated is just contrary to 
the factual reality. 

1976
02:00:56,200 --> 02:01:02,600
You also mentions or maybe it 
was your co-counsel that life 

1977
02:01:02,600 --> 02:01:06,000
changes for women after 15 
weeks. 

1978
02:01:07,000 --> 02:01:08,500
That's exactly right Justice 
Sotomayor. 

1979
02:01:08,500 --> 02:01:10,800
And I think that this is 
responsive as well to the 

1980
02:01:10,808 --> 02:01:14,200
questions that the Chief Justice
was asking about, in particular,

1981
02:01:14,400 --> 02:01:16,500
the impact of enforcing a 
15-week bar. 

1982
02:01:16,500 --> 02:01:19,000
In this case, the court has 
always looked at that. 

1983
02:01:19,200 --> 02:01:21,400
Shoo by looking at the People 
For Whom the laws of 

1984
02:01:21,407 --> 02:01:23,700
restriction, not those for whom 
it's irrelevant. 

1985
02:01:23,700 --> 02:01:27,000
So the question is, why would 
women need access to abortion 

1986
02:01:27,000 --> 02:01:29,500
after 15 weeks? 
And what is the effect on them? 

1987
02:01:29,700 --> 02:01:32,300
And there are any number of 
women who cannot get an abortion

1988
02:01:32,300 --> 02:01:34,900
earlier, they don't realize that
they're pregnant. 

1989
02:01:34,900 --> 02:01:38,200
That's especially true of women 
who are young or don't have have

1990
02:01:38,200 --> 02:01:40,600
an experienced a pregnancy 
before or their life 

1991
02:01:40,600 --> 02:01:42,400
circumstances change. 
As you refer to Justice 

1992
02:01:42,400 --> 02:01:45,600
Sotomayor, they lose their job 
or their relationship breaks 

1993
02:01:45,600 --> 02:01:48,600
apart, or they have medical 
complications, or for many 

1994
02:01:48,600 --> 02:01:50,300
women. 
They don't have the resources to

1995
02:01:50,300 --> 02:01:52,600
pay for it earlier. 
It takes time for them to raise 

1996
02:01:52,600 --> 02:01:56,200
the money or make the 
appropriate logistical 

1997
02:01:56,300 --> 02:01:59,300
arrangements to be able to take 
time off work and travel and 

1998
02:01:59,300 --> 02:02:01,500
have childcare. 
And for all those women in this 

1999
02:02:01,500 --> 02:02:05,100
category who need access to 
abortion, after 15 weeks, the 

2000
02:02:05,100 --> 02:02:08,300
fact that other women were able 
to exercise their constitutional

2001
02:02:08,300 --> 02:02:11,300
rights does nothing to diminish 
the impact on their liberty 

2002
02:02:11,300 --> 02:02:13,900
interest in forcing them to 
continue with that pregnancy. 

2003
02:02:14,200 --> 02:02:21,500
Thank you. 
General following up on that, 

2004
02:02:22,900 --> 02:02:29,100
with that argument be true in 
terms of viability as well. 

2005
02:02:29,800 --> 02:02:32,200
In other words, what your 
discussion of the Reliance 

2006
02:02:32,200 --> 02:02:37,100
interests and the ability of 
women and men to control their 

2007
02:02:37,100 --> 02:02:45,500
lives in reliance. 
The right to an abortion, the 

2008
02:02:45,500 --> 02:02:49,200
argument would not be as strong.
I think you'll have to concede 

2009
02:02:50,100 --> 02:02:52,900
given what we're talking about 
which is not a Prohibition. 

2010
02:02:52,900 --> 02:02:57,800
It's a 15-week line. 
Is that right there. 

2011
02:02:58,200 --> 02:03:02,400
You have to hypothesize people 
who have planned their lives, 

2012
02:03:02,500 --> 02:03:06,000
according to a 24, whatever weak
limit. 

2013
02:03:06,200 --> 02:03:09,700
It is, but not a 15-week limit 
on abortion, right? 

2014
02:03:09,800 --> 02:03:12,500
Well, I don't think the court 
has ever Sized Reliance with 

2015
02:03:12,500 --> 02:03:15,900
that kind of person. 
I think here, the, I, the force 

2016
02:03:15,900 --> 02:03:18,900
of the viability line is that 
it's clearly, demarcated, the 

2017
02:03:18,907 --> 02:03:21,200
scope of a woman's protected, 
liberty interest in this 

2018
02:03:21,200 --> 02:03:23,500
context. 
And the state is not actually 

2019
02:03:23,500 --> 02:03:26,600
asking this court to replace it 
with a clear 15-week line that 

2020
02:03:26,600 --> 02:03:29,100
would provide some measure of 
continued protection for this, 

2021
02:03:29,100 --> 02:03:30,700
right? 
They're asking the court to 

2022
02:03:30,700 --> 02:03:33,600
reverse the liberty interest 
altogether or leave it up in the

2023
02:03:33,600 --> 02:03:34,900
air. 
And if that were to happen then 

2024
02:03:34,900 --> 02:03:37,600
immediately states with six-week
band's, eighth week, bands, 

2025
02:03:37,600 --> 02:03:40,900
10-week bands, and so on would 
seek to enforce those with no. 

2026
02:03:41,400 --> 02:03:43,900
And guidance of what the scope 
of the liberty interest is going

2027
02:03:43,900 --> 02:03:45,500
forward? 
Well, that may be what they're 

2028
02:03:45,500 --> 02:03:49,500
asking for but the thing that is
at issue before us today is 15 

2029
02:03:49,500 --> 02:03:54,700
weeks and I just wonder what the
strength of your Reliance 

2030
02:03:54,700 --> 02:03:59,000
arguments which sounded to me 
like being based on a total 

2031
02:03:59,000 --> 02:04:03,800
prohibition would be if there 
isn't a total prohibition and as

2032
02:04:03,800 --> 02:04:07,900
far as viability goes, I don't 
see what that has to do with the

2033
02:04:07,900 --> 02:04:12,300
question of choice at all. 
Well, I think as Casey 

2034
02:04:12,300 --> 02:04:15,600
emphasized and reaffirming the 
viability line, the court 

2035
02:04:15,600 --> 02:04:18,400
Justified that as having both a 
logical and a biological 

2036
02:04:18,400 --> 02:04:21,200
justification that it marks the 
point in pregnancy, when the 

2037
02:04:21,200 --> 02:04:25,000
fetus is capable of meeting a 
bird John Hart really explain 

2038
02:04:25,000 --> 02:04:27,300
was a complete syllogism. 
That's the definition of 

2039
02:04:27,300 --> 02:04:30,300
viability. 
It's not a reason that viability

2040
02:04:30,300 --> 02:04:32,700
is a good line. 
Well, it's focused on the idea 

2041
02:04:32,700 --> 02:04:35,400
of fetal separateness and I 
think that that is a line that 

2042
02:04:35,400 --> 02:04:38,400
also Accords with the history 
and tradition in this country of

2043
02:04:38,400 --> 02:04:41,400
abortion regulation. 
SRI to the state's arguments 

2044
02:04:41,400 --> 02:04:44,300
here at the time of the founding
and foremost of early American 

2045
02:04:44,300 --> 02:04:48,100
history woman had an ability to 
access abortion in the early 

2046
02:04:48,100 --> 02:04:50,600
stages of pregnancy. 
And it was only when the fetus 

2047
02:04:50,600 --> 02:04:52,000
was deemed sufficiently 
separate. 

2048
02:04:52,000 --> 02:04:53,400
The states could act to borrow 
that. 

2049
02:04:53,500 --> 02:04:57,000
So, I think that the viability 
line also aligns with history 

2050
02:04:57,000 --> 02:05:00,700
and tradition in that respect, 
just as Thomas. 

2051
02:05:03,000 --> 02:05:10,800
Alright, you heard my question 
to council earlier about the 

2052
02:05:10,900 --> 02:05:15,500
woman who was convicted of 
criminal child neglect, what 

2053
02:05:15,500 --> 02:05:20,400
would be your reaction to that 
as far as her Liberty and 

2054
02:05:20,400 --> 02:05:23,300
whether or not the liberty 
interest that we're talking 

2055
02:05:23,300 --> 02:05:27,200
about extends to her? 
Well, Justice Thomas, I have to 

2056
02:05:27,200 --> 02:05:29,700
confess that I haven't read the 
specific case, you're referring 

2057
02:05:29,700 --> 02:05:32,800
to, but if I understand the 
question, you were posing It 

2058
02:05:32,800 --> 02:05:35,400
sounds as though the state is 
seeking to regulate. 

2059
02:05:35,400 --> 02:05:38,200
For a child that's been born 
that was injured while it was 

2060
02:05:38,200 --> 02:05:41,300
inside the womb, and I think 
that we are not denying that a 

2061
02:05:41,308 --> 02:05:43,500
state has an interest there, 
we're not denying that. 

2062
02:05:43,500 --> 02:05:46,500
A state has an interest here 
either row, recognize the states

2063
02:05:46,500 --> 02:05:49,100
have interest that exists from 
the outset of pregnancy. 

2064
02:05:49,300 --> 02:05:51,800
But with respect to this 
specific, right to abortion, 

2065
02:05:52,000 --> 02:05:55,100
there are also profound liberty 
interest of the woman on the 

2066
02:05:55,100 --> 02:05:58,100
other side of the scale and not 
being forced to continue with 

2067
02:05:58,100 --> 02:06:01,100
the pregnancy, not being forced 
to endure childbirth and to have

2068
02:06:01,100 --> 02:06:03,500
a child out in the world and the
State's arguments. 

2069
02:06:03,500 --> 02:06:06,500
Here seem to ask this court to 
look only at its interests and 

2070
02:06:06,500 --> 02:06:09,100
to ignore entirely those 
incredibly witty interests of 

2071
02:06:09,108 --> 02:06:11,200
the woman on the other side. 
Thank you. 

2072
02:06:11,800 --> 02:06:14,700
Just his part. 
Straight. 

2073
02:06:18,000 --> 02:06:21,400
Just as Gorsuch any further. 
I just want to make sure I 

2074
02:06:21,400 --> 02:06:23,600
understand your response to the 
Chief Justice. 

2075
02:06:25,000 --> 02:06:27,700
If this court will reject the 
viability line. 

2076
02:06:27,700 --> 02:06:31,700
Do you see any other 
intelligible principle that the 

2077
02:06:31,700 --> 02:06:35,100
court could choose? 
Well, I think that it would be 

2078
02:06:35,100 --> 02:06:37,900
critically important even if 
this court were to reject the 

2079
02:06:37,900 --> 02:06:42,200
viability line to reinforce and 
reaffirm the fundamental and 

2080
02:06:42,200 --> 02:06:44,800
profound liberty interest at 
stake here and I am sorry for 

2081
02:06:44,800 --> 02:06:46,700
interrupting. 
But that wasn't my question. 

2082
02:06:46,800 --> 02:06:48,300
I understand. 
Steady. 

2083
02:06:48,500 --> 02:06:52,900
I understand that point fully by
the end of this argument that is

2084
02:06:52,900 --> 02:06:54,800
deeply. 
Clear to me, I understand your 

2085
02:06:54,800 --> 02:06:57,300
position. 
I'm just asking a question about

2086
02:06:57,300 --> 02:07:00,100
whether you think there would be
another alternative line that 

2087
02:07:00,100 --> 02:07:04,800
the government would propose. 
We're not at you in emphasize 

2088
02:07:04,800 --> 02:07:08,800
that if 15 weeks were approved 
and we'd have cases about 12 and

2089
02:07:08,800 --> 02:07:12,700
10 and 8 and 6. 
And so my question is is there a

2090
02:07:12,708 --> 02:07:15,200
line in there that the 
government believes would be 

2091
02:07:15,200 --> 02:07:18,100
principled or not? 
I don't think there's any line 

2092
02:07:18,100 --> 02:07:20,400
that could be more principled 
than viability. 

2093
02:07:20,700 --> 02:07:22,700
You know, I think the factors 
the court would have to think 

2094
02:07:22,700 --> 02:07:26,200
about are, what is most 
consistent with president? 

2095
02:07:26,200 --> 02:07:29,300
What would be clear and workable
and what would preserve the, the

2096
02:07:29,300 --> 02:07:31,900
essential components of the 
liberty interest and viability 

2097
02:07:31,900 --> 02:07:35,100
checks, all of those boxes and 
has the advantage as well as 

2098
02:07:35,100 --> 02:07:37,000
being a rule of law for 50 
years. 

2099
02:07:37,100 --> 02:07:38,100
Thank you. 
That's helpful counts. 

2100
02:07:38,100 --> 02:07:44,400
Appreciate just as Cavanaugh. 
You make a very forceful 

2101
02:07:44,400 --> 02:07:49,500
argument and Notify, critically 
important interests that are at 

2102
02:07:49,500 --> 02:07:51,700
stake in this issue. 
No doubt about that. 

2103
02:07:53,400 --> 02:07:56,000
The other side says, though, 
that they're two interests at 

2104
02:07:56,000 --> 02:08:01,800
stake, that there's also the 
interest in fetal life at stake 

2105
02:08:01,900 --> 02:08:05,400
as well. 
And in your brief, you say that 

2106
02:08:05,400 --> 02:08:09,300
the existing framework 
accommodates, that's your word, 

2107
02:08:09,300 --> 02:08:12,200
both the interest of the 
pregnant woman in the interest 

2108
02:08:12,200 --> 02:08:16,200
of the fetus. 
And the problem, I think the 

2109
02:08:16,200 --> 02:08:18,800
other side, Say in the reason 
this issue is hard. 

2110
02:08:20,400 --> 02:08:24,000
Is that you can't accommodate 
both interests. 

2111
02:08:25,400 --> 02:08:29,000
You have to pick. 
That's the fundamental problem. 

2112
02:08:29,100 --> 02:08:34,400
And one interest has to Prevail 
over the other at any given 

2113
02:08:34,400 --> 02:08:38,000
point in time. 
And that's why this is so 

2114
02:08:38,000 --> 02:08:43,500
challenging I think and the 
question then becomes, what does

2115
02:08:43,500 --> 02:08:47,200
the Constitution say about that.
And I just want to get your 

2116
02:08:47,200 --> 02:08:49,400
reaction to what the other 
side's theme. 

2117
02:08:49,600 --> 02:08:52,000
Ms. And I've mentioned in my 
prior questions. 

2118
02:08:53,600 --> 02:08:56,600
When you have those two 
interests at stake and both are 

2119
02:08:56,600 --> 02:09:02,400
important as you acknowledge, 
Why not? 

2120
02:09:02,600 --> 02:09:06,300
Why should this court? 
Be the Arbiter rather than 

2121
02:09:07,100 --> 02:09:10,600
Congress, the state 
legislatures, state Supreme 

2122
02:09:10,600 --> 02:09:15,600
Court's, the people being able 
to resolve this and they'll be 

2123
02:09:15,600 --> 02:09:18,600
different answers in 
Mississippi, and New, York 

2124
02:09:19,200 --> 02:09:23,400
different answers in Alabama 
than California because they're 

2125
02:09:23,400 --> 02:09:26,400
two different interests at stake
and the people in those States 

2126
02:09:26,400 --> 02:09:29,700
might value those interests 
somewhat differently. 

2127
02:09:31,200 --> 02:09:35,100
Is that not the right answer 
Justice Kavanaugh, it's not the 

2128
02:09:35,100 --> 02:09:38,800
right answer because the court 
correctly recognized that this 

2129
02:09:38,800 --> 02:09:42,700
is a fundamental right of women 
and the nature of fundamental 

2130
02:09:42,700 --> 02:09:46,100
rights is that it's not left up 
to state legislators to decide 

2131
02:09:46,200 --> 02:09:48,600
whether to honor them or not and
it's true. 

2132
02:09:48,600 --> 02:09:51,200
Different rules would Prevail 
throughout the country if this 

2133
02:09:51,200 --> 02:09:53,700
court were to overrule Roe and 
wait, Roe and Casey. 

2134
02:09:53,700 --> 02:09:57,200
But what that would mean is that
women in those States who are 

2135
02:09:57,200 --> 02:10:00,500
refusing to honor their rights 
and who are forcing them to 

2136
02:10:00,500 --> 02:10:03,600
continue to To use their bodies 
to sustain a pregnancy and then 

2137
02:10:03,600 --> 02:10:07,000
to bring a child into the world.
Will have no recourse other than

2138
02:10:07,000 --> 02:10:11,500
to travel, if they're able to 
afford it or to attempt abortion

2139
02:10:11,500 --> 02:10:14,200
outside, the confines of the 
medical system or to have a 

2140
02:10:14,208 --> 02:10:17,300
child, even though that was not 
the best choice for them and 

2141
02:10:17,300 --> 02:10:20,500
their family. 
Thank you, justice. 

2142
02:10:20,500 --> 02:10:22,600
Barrett. 
I have a file of to Justice 

2143
02:10:22,600 --> 02:10:25,600
kagan's question about Reliance.
I'm just trying to nail down on 

2144
02:10:25,600 --> 02:10:29,800
and I asked miss riggleman this 
question too and I'm not sure 

2145
02:10:29,800 --> 02:10:33,700
that I fully understand the 
government's position or mr. 

2146
02:10:33,700 --> 02:10:36,800
Coleman's position. 
So, on pages, 18 and 19 of your 

2147
02:10:36,800 --> 02:10:40,500
brief, you talk about Reliance 
interests and you quote some of 

2148
02:10:40,508 --> 02:10:43,400
the language from Casey, about a
woman's ability to participate 

2149
02:10:43,400 --> 02:10:45,700
in the social and economic life 
of the nation. 

2150
02:10:46,200 --> 02:10:48,900
And I mentioned the safe haven 
laws. 

2151
02:10:49,100 --> 02:10:51,300
To miss Ray Coleman. 
And it seems to me, I fully 

2152
02:10:51,300 --> 02:10:54,800
understand the Reliance interest
there, the Airy ones Justice 

2153
02:10:54,800 --> 02:10:56,500
Kagan was referring to. 
And then there, the more 

2154
02:10:56,500 --> 02:11:01,000
specific, excuse me, specific 
ones about a women's access to 

2155
02:11:01,000 --> 02:11:04,000
abortion as a backup form of 
birth control and the event that

2156
02:11:04,000 --> 02:11:05,900
contraception fails, so that she
need. 

2157
02:11:05,900 --> 02:11:08,500
Not bear the burdens of 
pregnancy. 

2158
02:11:09,100 --> 02:11:13,000
But what do you have to say to 
petitioners argument that those 

2159
02:11:13,000 --> 02:11:15,700
Reliance interests? 
Do not include the Reliance 

2160
02:11:15,700 --> 02:11:18,100
interests of parenting and 
bringing a child into the world?

2161
02:11:18,100 --> 02:11:20,600
When maybe that's not the best? 
Best thing for her family or her

2162
02:11:20,600 --> 02:11:24,400
career, I think the state is 
wrong about that and I think 

2163
02:11:24,400 --> 02:11:27,000
where the analysis goes wrong 
and Reliance on those Safe. 

2164
02:11:27,000 --> 02:11:32,100
Haven laws is overlooking the 
consequences of forcing a woman 

2165
02:11:32,600 --> 02:11:34,500
upon her. 
The choice of having to decide 

2166
02:11:34,500 --> 02:11:36,300
whether to give a child up to, 
for adoption. 

2167
02:11:36,300 --> 02:11:39,300
That itself is its own 
Monumental decision for her. 

2168
02:11:39,300 --> 02:11:42,300
And so I think that there's 
nothing new about the safe haven

2169
02:11:42,300 --> 02:11:45,700
laws, the or, at least nothing 
new about the availability of 

2170
02:11:45,800 --> 02:11:48,900
adoption as an alternative Roe 
and Casey already took it. 

2171
02:11:49,100 --> 02:11:50,900
Of that fact. 
And I think that there are 

2172
02:11:50,900 --> 02:11:53,700
certainly, of course, all of the
the bodily Integrity interests 

2173
02:11:53,700 --> 02:11:57,000
that we refer to, but also the 
autonomy and Troost retain and 

2174
02:11:57,000 --> 02:11:59,600
forces. 
Well, okay, so it's the, the 

2175
02:11:59,600 --> 02:12:02,500
Reliance interests in the right 
to be able to choose to 

2176
02:12:02,500 --> 02:12:05,800
terminate the pregnancy rather 
than having to terminate the 

2177
02:12:05,800 --> 02:12:08,300
parental rights. 
I think that that is part of it.

2178
02:12:08,300 --> 02:12:09,800
Yes. 
And I think for many women that 

2179
02:12:09,800 --> 02:12:12,500
is an incredibly difficult 
choice, but it's one that this 

2180
02:12:12,500 --> 02:12:15,400
court for 50 years has 
recognized must be left up to 

2181
02:12:15,400 --> 02:12:18,600
them based on their beliefs, and
their conscience and their 

2182
02:12:18,600 --> 02:12:20,100
determination. 
The Nation about what is best 

2183
02:12:20,100 --> 02:12:22,200
for the course of their lives. 
Thank you General. 

2184
02:12:23,000 --> 02:12:26,200
Thank you General. 
Rebuttal. 

2185
02:12:26,200 --> 02:12:30,700
General Stewart. 
Thank you, mr. 

2186
02:12:30,700 --> 02:12:32,700
Chief justice. 
I'd like to do my best to make 

2187
02:12:32,700 --> 02:12:37,000
three points first picking up 
where you just left off. 

2188
02:12:37,000 --> 02:12:39,900
Just as Barrett on Safe, Haven 
laws, the respondents. 

2189
02:12:39,900 --> 02:12:41,700
In this case, I believe as your 
honor pointed out, have 

2190
02:12:41,700 --> 02:12:46,800
emphasized parenting burdens 
being a lead or the lead reason 

2191
02:12:46,800 --> 02:12:49,300
that women seek abortions. 
I would emphasize Safe Haven 

2192
02:12:49,300 --> 02:12:51,300
laws as best. 
I've been able to find first, 

2193
02:12:51,300 --> 02:12:53,800
came into existence in 1999 in 
Texas there now. 

2194
02:12:53,800 --> 02:12:56,500
Ubiquitous and you're correct 
Justice Barrett that they were 

2195
02:12:56,500 --> 02:13:00,300
leave that huge burden. 
I would also add that as to To 

2196
02:13:01,500 --> 02:13:06,600
burdens during pregnancy I would
emphasize that contraception is 

2197
02:13:06,800 --> 02:13:10,600
more accessible and affordable 
and available than it was at the

2198
02:13:10,608 --> 02:13:15,000
time of lowercase e it serves 
the same goal of allowing women 

2199
02:13:15,000 --> 02:13:17,500
to decide if when and how many 
children to have. 

2200
02:13:17,900 --> 02:13:21,500
And I would also note just 
frankly the lowest cost borscht 

2201
02:13:21,500 --> 02:13:24,600
abortion at Jackson women's 
health is $600 for the abortion 

2202
02:13:25,700 --> 02:13:28,800
additional costs and further 
fees according to to my friends 

2203
02:13:28,800 --> 02:13:29,900
that respondents and their 
Amici. 

2204
02:13:30,000 --> 02:13:32,500
Why there are also additional 
costs related to travel taking 

2205
02:13:32,500 --> 02:13:35,300
off, time off of work, 
accommodations all of those 

2206
02:13:35,300 --> 02:13:38,300
sorts of things. 
Whether somebody's uninsured or 

2207
02:13:38,300 --> 02:13:41,900
not, the cost of contraception 
are consistently significantly, 

2208
02:13:41,900 --> 02:13:43,800
less than those. 
Number two. 

2209
02:13:44,000 --> 02:13:46,900
I think Jesse's cabin. 
Are you had it exactly right 

2210
02:13:46,900 --> 02:13:50,000
when you when you use the term 
scrupulously neutral. 

2211
02:13:50,100 --> 02:13:52,300
I think that's a very good 
description of what we're asking

2212
02:13:52,300 --> 02:13:54,600
for here. 
I think it's the problem, and 

2213
02:13:54,600 --> 02:13:56,900
the value that is evaded. 
The court and will continue to 

2214
02:13:56,900 --> 02:13:58,500
evade this court under Roe and 
Casey. 

2215
02:13:58,500 --> 02:14:00,200
But that is exactly, exactly. 
Actly. 

2216
02:14:00,200 --> 02:14:02,400
Right? 
This is a hard issue it involves

2217
02:14:02,600 --> 02:14:04,600
and and I would emphasize your 
honor that as you said, their 

2218
02:14:04,600 --> 02:14:07,400
interest here on both sides, 
their interests for everyone 

2219
02:14:07,400 --> 02:14:09,000
involved. 
This is unique for the woman. 

2220
02:14:09,100 --> 02:14:12,800
It's Unique for The Unborn Child
to whose life is at stake in all

2221
02:14:12,800 --> 02:14:15,100
of these decisions. 
It's Unique for us as a society 

2222
02:14:15,100 --> 02:14:17,800
and how we decide. 
If the state's get to get, get 

2223
02:14:17,800 --> 02:14:20,800
to legislate on this issue, how 
to decide and how to weigh, 

2224
02:14:20,800 --> 02:14:23,600
these tremendously momentous 
issues in closing. 

2225
02:14:23,600 --> 02:14:26,600
I would say that. 
In his dissent in Plessy versus 

2226
02:14:26,600 --> 02:14:29,600
Ferguson, Justice Harlan 
emphasized, that there is no 

2227
02:14:29,600 --> 02:14:32,000
caste system here. 
The humblest in our country is 

2228
02:14:32,000 --> 02:14:34,600
the peer of the most powerful. 
Our constitution neither knows 

2229
02:14:34,600 --> 02:14:36,700
nor tolerates distinctions on 
the basis of race. 

2230
02:14:36,700 --> 02:14:39,900
It took fifty eight years for 
this court to recognize the 

2231
02:14:39,900 --> 02:14:42,200
truth of those realities in a 
decision. 

2232
02:14:42,500 --> 02:14:44,400
And that was the greatest 
decision that this court ever 

2233
02:14:44,400 --> 02:14:47,500
reached. 
We're running on 50 years of 

2234
02:14:47,500 --> 02:14:49,300
row. 
It is an egregious lie. 

2235
02:14:49,300 --> 02:14:52,100
Wrong decision that has 
inflicted tremendous damage on 

2236
02:14:52,100 --> 02:14:54,000
our country and will continue to
do so. 

2237
02:14:54,000 --> 02:14:57,400
And take Able human lives. 
Unless, and until this court 

2238
02:14:57,400 --> 02:14:59,000
overrules, it we ask the court 
to do that. 

2239
02:14:59,000 --> 02:15:00,900
So in this case, and uphold the 
state's law. 

2240
02:15:01,100 --> 02:15:03,600
Thank you, your honor. 
Thank you, general counsel the 

2241
02:15:03,600 --> 02:15:07,100
case is submitted, so there you 
go, my friends. 

2242
02:15:08,300 --> 02:15:11,600
That's it, that was the whole 
shebang. 

2243
02:15:12,800 --> 02:15:16,400
Unbelievable. 
Those questions from those 

2244
02:15:16,400 --> 02:15:22,200
justices, the men. 
Oh my God. 

2245
02:15:23,400 --> 02:15:26,500
So that's it. 
My friends, you've now heard the

2246
02:15:26,500 --> 02:15:32,100
whole argument historic day one 
of is one woman. 

2247
02:15:32,100 --> 02:15:36,400
One historian said today, maybe 
maybe the worst day, certainly 

2248
02:15:36,400 --> 02:15:38,200
the worst day in our lifetime 
for women. 

2249
02:15:39,100 --> 02:15:42,900
In our United States government 
and it may go down in history 

2250
02:15:42,900 --> 02:15:48,400
that way that women were spoken 
of and talked about questioned 

2251
02:15:48,800 --> 02:15:53,300
in this way in our top Court in 
this democracy. 

2252
02:15:54,500 --> 02:16:00,100
Thank you for listening to it. 
Thank you for an advance 

2253
02:16:00,100 --> 02:16:04,300
committing to joining the 
movement to stop this. 

2254
02:16:05,200 --> 02:16:10,600
This may take a serious serious 
effort, amongst all of us. 

2255
02:16:12,000 --> 02:16:15,500
They have our voices heard, they
must not be able to get away 

2256
02:16:15,500 --> 02:16:18,300
with us. 
Thank you for listening to 

2257
02:16:18,300 --> 02:16:20,500
rumble today. 
Thank you to our executive 

2258
02:16:20,500 --> 02:16:23,500
producer bezel, Hamden or editor
sound engineer. 

2259
02:16:23,500 --> 02:16:28,400
Nick, quas, Donald Bornstein, 
our chief of all things that 

2260
02:16:28,400 --> 02:16:33,900
basil and I can't do and also 
and Harrison Malcolm for all 

2261
02:16:33,900 --> 02:16:37,700
your help here on this podcast. 
Thanks to all of you who are 

2262
02:16:37,700 --> 02:16:41,400
listening, thanks to all of you 
who are going to help continue 

2263
02:16:41,400 --> 02:16:46,200
and Dissipate in the struggle. 
We are the majority, our voices 

2264
02:16:46,200 --> 02:16:48,700
have to be heard. 
And when we're talking about the

2265
02:16:48,700 --> 02:16:54,200
majority gender, All of us have 
a responsibility to stop this 

2266
02:16:54,200 --> 02:16:57,400
madness. 
Thank you very much for tuning 

2267
02:16:57,400 --> 02:17:00,200
into this today. 
Thank you. 

2268
02:17:52,299 --> 02:17:54,400
I won't keep quiet. 
I won't keep quiet.