Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A judge struck down Michigan's nine thirty one anti abortion law,
Speaker 1: the latest development over abortion rights in a state where
Speaker 1: the issue is being argued in courtrooms and at the
Speaker 1: ballot box. The law, which was dormant before the U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court overturned Roe Vue Wade in June, criminalizes abortion.
Speaker 1: Joining me as an expert in the law of reproductive rights,
Speaker 1: Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School. So, Mary,
Speaker 1: this is what they call a zombie abortion law. So
Speaker 1: Michigan's abortion law is actually unusual, not in the sense
Speaker 1: that the zombie law that was on the books was
Speaker 1: not enforced during the time v. Wade was our law,
Speaker 1: but then sprang back into effect. It's also unusual because
Speaker 1: it was past the one, which was not a kind
Speaker 1: of common time for states to be passing more sweeping
Speaker 1: criminal aboard shan bands. But at the time Michigan lawmakers
Speaker 1: were enhancing penalties and also expanding prohibitions earlier in pregnancy.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, this was also being done at
Speaker 1: a time when the state was expanding the compulsory eugenic
Speaker 1: sterilization laws. So that may have been kind of the
Speaker 1: moment that we were looking at in terms of what
Speaker 1: produced the law. So the judge's decision, her language was
Speaker 1: quite strong. Tell us about you know how she came
Speaker 1: to her decision. Well, the judge's decision essentially was based
Speaker 1: on the idea that Michigan has more expansive ideas of
Speaker 1: liberty and equality than the federal Constitution, and that therefore
Speaker 1: the results under a Michigan state constitutional law would be
Speaker 1: different than the one that the US Supreme Court reached
Speaker 1: in Dabbs. There's so much litigation over abortion in Michigan
Speaker 1: it's quite confusing. The Court of Appeals has ruled that
Speaker 1: this judge's decisions aren't binding on county prosecutors. She disagrees,
Speaker 1: but that's being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. If
Speaker 1: her decision can't stop county prosecutors from prosecuting abortion providers,
Speaker 1: which several of them has said that they intend to do,
Speaker 1: how much of a victory is this, Well, I think
Speaker 1: obviously this is just round one and this much longer
Speaker 1: process of litigation. They are multiple lawsuits challenging the constitutionality
Speaker 1: of the nineteen thirty one law. There's the question about
Speaker 1: whether the judges' order is binding on county prosecutors, and
Speaker 1: we know that in one way or another, all of
Speaker 1: these diceuses are going to end up at the Michigan
Speaker 1: States Supreme Court, and so I think the judges' decision
Speaker 1: is mostly just you know, around fired in that broader
Speaker 1: conflict that's ending at the Michigan Supreme Court. We all
Speaker 1: know that sooner or later that's where we're going to
Speaker 1: get a more complete resolution of all of this. An
Speaker 1: amendment on the November ballot would add abortion rights to
Speaker 1: the state constitution, so that would answer these questions, right.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really resolve the question of whether, as it stands,
Speaker 1: the one law violates Michigan State constitution, which is something
Speaker 1: that the State Supreme Court may have a responsibility to
Speaker 1: resolve regardless of the valid initiative. But I think it's
Speaker 1: it's to say that we will have a lot of
Speaker 1: action in Michigan for a long time, and I think
Speaker 1: that makes sense because Michigan is both significant regionally as
Speaker 1: a place that has offered a worstion access as other
Speaker 1: parts of the Midwest have not, and also kind of
Speaker 1: as a Belle Weather because the best pulling we have
Speaker 1: would suggest that Michigan is a state where a majority
Speaker 1: of voters would want a worship to be legal, and
Speaker 1: yet this state has this law from one that it
Speaker 1: will likely be enforced notwithstanding what voters may prefer. Do
Speaker 1: you think that this judge's decision won't stand, then, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it will stand. I think it's
Speaker 1: just going to be kind of a way station on
Speaker 1: the way to the Michigan Supreme Court. So I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised given the composition of the Michigan Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and some of its past decisions. Um, it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: a shock to me if the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately
Speaker 1: agreed with this judge. All I was saying was that
Speaker 1: one way or another, we won't really have a final
Speaker 1: resolution on any of these questions that in full of
Speaker 1: Michigan State Supreme Court ways. Then I want to turn
Speaker 1: to another issue which is shaping up to be the
Speaker 1: next battle ground in the fight over abortion rights, and
Speaker 1: that's the issue of fetal personhood. Explain that concept, sure, so. Historically,
Speaker 1: the anti abortion movement in the United States was not
Speaker 1: focused on overruling Roe v. Wade in part because the
Speaker 1: movement existed before Roe v. Wade came down. The movement
Speaker 1: was sort of focused at the beginning of this idea
Speaker 1: of recognizing the personhood of fetuses, which would mean not
Speaker 1: that abortion was wrong, but that abortion was actually unconstitutional
Speaker 1: because if a fetis is a person, then that person
Speaker 1: has rights, for example, to do process in equal protection
Speaker 1: under the law. That would make abortion problematic at best
Speaker 1: and likely unconstitutional. So we've seen in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: the Jobs decision a lot of anti aborship groups returning
Speaker 1: of school, which really has kind of been the goal
Speaker 1: all along. But when Roe was on the books, and
Speaker 1: I think when the anti abortion movement was more interested
Speaker 1: in playing to public opinion, even hear a lot about
Speaker 1: it publicly, even though within the movement it was still
Speaker 1: a priority. Now, obviously they're talking about it very publicly
Speaker 1: and pushing forward in the states as well as potentially
Speaker 1: at the federal level. Eleven states already have language in
Speaker 1: their constitutions, laws, or policies granting rights to fetuses. Georgia
Speaker 1: has the most expansive law on fetal personhood in the country.
Speaker 1: The statute prohibits abortion after six weeks and recognizes the
Speaker 1: fetus as a person at that point. It also provides
Speaker 1: expectant mothers with a three thousand dollar tax credit per
Speaker 1: fetus and allows them to file for child support during pregnancy.
Speaker 1: It even instructs state officials to include fetuses in population counts.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to Professor Mary Ziegler of u C.
Speaker 1: Davis Law School. Mary, this george a law seems a
Speaker 1: bit extreme, to say the least, would it stand up
Speaker 1: in court? Well, I mean I think that Georgia law,
Speaker 1: I mean so far has stood up in court. I
Speaker 1: mean there have been challenges to that personhood law that
Speaker 1: we're at least projected by the Eleventh Circuit Courts appeals.
Speaker 1: And I mean I think the Georgia law is interesting
Speaker 1: because most personhood measures we've seen so far have basically
Speaker 1: just been abortion bands. Right, So, for example, South Carolina
Speaker 1: is now considering a personhood law that's essentially just a
Speaker 1: really sweeping abortion ban. George's law is interesting because it
Speaker 1: seems to be trying to take the idea of fetal personhood.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say more seriously, but at least to be
Speaker 1: more logically consistent. Right that vet this as a person
Speaker 1: such that you can send people to prison. It may
Speaker 1: be a person for reasons that could theoretically benefit a
Speaker 1: pregnant person or woman, right, But I think the logistics
Speaker 1: of actually working out how that will all work in
Speaker 1: the real world is something the movement really hasn't done yet.
Speaker 1: And I don't even know if a consensus within the
Speaker 1: anti abortion movement about what fetal personhood is beyond just
Speaker 1: a mandate to criminalize abortion. Arizona has a law granting
Speaker 1: personhood defertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. So what does that
Speaker 1: do if you have a fertilized egg, you decide you
Speaker 1: don't want to go forward with with a pregnancy, and
Speaker 1: you have to keep the egg. I mean, it just
Speaker 1: raises a lot of questions in my mind. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if this has really been worked out, right,
Speaker 1: because I think that when the anti abortion movement first
Speaker 1: developed this argument for personhood in the nineteen sixties, it
Speaker 1: was entirely as an argument against the legalization of abortion.
Speaker 1: And and then there was a moment in the seventies
Speaker 1: when anti abortion leaders were hoping there would be a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment recognizing personhood, and at that point, you began
Speaker 1: to get some conversations about Okay, well we're going to
Speaker 1: recognize personhood, how are we going to actually implement that,
Speaker 1: Who's going to be able to take care of these persons.
Speaker 1: Is the government that's actually recognizing personhood going to do
Speaker 1: anything or is it going to just offload that responsibility
Speaker 1: onto onto women? Right? But you know, the constitutional amendment
Speaker 1: wasn't going anywhere fast, and so those conversations sort of
Speaker 1: stopped happening. Beyond the idea of personhood is a kind
Speaker 1: of rallying cry or a justification for criminalization. So I
Speaker 1: think we're at a moment now where there's definitely interest
Speaker 1: in the anti abortion movement in personhood, but not consensus
Speaker 1: on what it actually is. As you said before, these
Speaker 1: fetal personhood laws, that's just a step to saying that
Speaker 1: can have an abortion even if the mother's life is
Speaker 1: in danger um, Right, So that's the goal. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: and I think I think there are a few sali
Speaker 1: and things about that. One is that personhood is obviously
Speaker 1: a national goal. This is not something the movement wants
Speaker 1: to see stop in states like Georgian Arizona, because the
Speaker 1: dream obviously if you have some kind of a national
Speaker 1: personhood mandate is that there would no longer be you know,
Speaker 1: the federal government allowed to authorize aborship pills, or there'll
Speaker 1: no longer be aborship available in California and New York.
Speaker 1: It would be illegal everywhere. And that's why there's some energy,
Speaker 1: for example, in an executive order recognizing personhood, or a
Speaker 1: federal statute recognizing personhood, or even we've already seen petitions
Speaker 1: filed in the U. S. Supreme Court asking the court
Speaker 1: to recognize that the idea of personhood is deeply rooted
Speaker 1: in the nation's history and tradition. So I think long term,
Speaker 1: you're you'd see this nationwide push. The other way personhood
Speaker 1: comes out, as in the rise of this so called
Speaker 1: abolitionist movement, which is a minority extremist faction within the
Speaker 1: anti abortion movement that calls for the punishment of women.
Speaker 1: They argue that, you know, a fetal personhood is a
Speaker 1: thing that means that the killing of fetuses has to
Speaker 1: be punished a homicide, just as the killing of anyone
Speaker 1: else would be, and that anyone involved in that killing,
Speaker 1: including women, has to be punished. So there are a
Speaker 1: lot of move in parts and a lot of disagreements,
Speaker 1: but I think the ultimate the reason personhood is compelling
Speaker 1: to aborsition opponents, notwithstanding all these disagreements, is as as
Speaker 1: a tool to an aborshion across the country, not just
Speaker 1: in states that theoretically want to do it. In his
Speaker 1: opinion in the Dobbs case, did Justice Samuel Alito referred
Speaker 1: to personhood in any way I mean, not really Justice Alito. Um.
Speaker 1: People who are personhood proponents like josh Hammer and Joshua
Speaker 1: Cratick read Justice Alito as kind of giving a wink
Speaker 1: and a nods personhood. There's nothing that explicit in the
Speaker 1: Dobbs opinion. Justice Alito does refer to fetus is as
Speaker 1: unborn children, and he's you know, quoting Mississippi statute when
Speaker 1: he does that, but I think it's still strategic. Justice
Speaker 1: Alito also differentiates a worshion from other substantive due process
Speaker 1: rights like same sex marriage by emphasizing that abortion is
Speaker 1: the taking of the life, which some saw as an
Speaker 1: odd personhood. So I think, you know, you can really
Speaker 1: read Dobbs either way, and personhood proponents have certainly taken
Speaker 1: it as a positive sign. I think that the more
Speaker 1: cautionary note, at least in the short term for person
Speaker 1: and proponents as Brett Kavanaugh, who went to some length
Speaker 1: to say, you know, the Constitution is neutral. It's not
Speaker 1: pro life or pro choice, which some people took to
Speaker 1: mean Justice Kavanaugh was not yet ready to hear a
Speaker 1: personhood argument. Having said that, I think personhood proponents believe that,
Speaker 1: you know, Justice Kavanaugh may be ready to reconsider, you know,
Speaker 1: several years down the road. They don't take that as
Speaker 1: a sort of permanent to you. They take it as
Speaker 1: a kind of yellow light in the sense that he's
Speaker 1: not ready to move quickly on that front. Wouldn't they
Speaker 1: need some scientific evidence before they would declare that life
Speaker 1: begins at conception? Yeah, I mean that there's there's some
Speaker 1: real challenges about you know, standing and so on in
Speaker 1: the In the pre ro era, abortion opponents asked to
Speaker 1: be named guardians at LTEM, either for the fetus is
Speaker 1: of specific patients or just you know, class action suits
Speaker 1: on behalf of all fetuses potentially scheduled to be awarded
Speaker 1: in particular jurisdictions. The petition before the Supreme Court now
Speaker 1: also has to grapple with this question about, you know,
Speaker 1: who's you know who's actually being represented, so that that's
Speaker 1: going to be an ongoing challenge, and I think obviously
Speaker 1: there's a certain amount of I think over confidence on
Speaker 1: the part of the anti abortion movement now in terms
Speaker 1: of the kind of politics it's practicing, the kind of
Speaker 1: aspirations it's articulating, because I think the movement, after Dobbs, thinks,
Speaker 1: you know, all things that are possible, and that may
Speaker 1: still not be true, notwithstanding the fact that there's a
Speaker 1: conservative supermajority on the Court, because if the Court declares
Speaker 1: that a fetus is a person, then states who passed
Speaker 1: laws that protect abortion those laws would be void. Right. Um, So,
Speaker 1: I mean, and that's really the point, I think, because
Speaker 1: if you're the anti abortion movement right now, you know
Speaker 1: that you have laws that you like in a whole
Speaker 1: variety of places, right but you know that in in America,
Speaker 1: where travel is common in abortion pills can be bought
Speaker 1: on the internet. It's going to be very hard to
Speaker 1: actually make a meaningful change in abortion rates, especially if,
Speaker 1: as is the case for the anti abortion movement, you're
Speaker 1: aligned with a Republican party that does nothing to reduce
Speaker 1: poverty or the reasons people may seek abortion when they
Speaker 1: would otherwise prefer to carry a pregnancy to term. Right,
Speaker 1: So I think again, the movement isn't really turn to
Speaker 1: any of those anti poverty solutions. Instead, there's been this
Speaker 1: escalating effort to prevent people from excessing abortion by any
Speaker 1: means necessary. So that's why you're seeing some states talk,
Speaker 1: for example, about barring travel for abortion or expand applying
Speaker 1: their criminal laws out of state. But it would obviously
Speaker 1: be easier in many ways if the movement just had
Speaker 1: a single national band right, and then you wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to worry about any of this. You could use the
Speaker 1: federal government to enforce such a band on, even if
Speaker 1: state officials were unwilling to do so, And so that
Speaker 1: makes ironically, it kind of increases the movement's reliance on
Speaker 1: controlling the Supreme Court, aligning with the National Republican Party,
Speaker 1: all of these things. We were told we're all just
Speaker 1: about getting rid of row in a postro America, the
Speaker 1: anti abortion movement has I think even more interest than
Speaker 1: those things. Thanks so much. Mary. That's Mary Ziegler, a
Speaker 1: professor at U C. Davis Law School. Even before the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court wiped out the constitutional right to abortion, the
Speaker 1: prosecution of women suspected of purposefully or accidentally ending a
Speaker 1: pregnancy was on the rise. According to reproductive rights lawyers.
Speaker 1: There's been a movement to use state laws on child endangerment,
Speaker 1: feed aside or murder to arrest women whose pregnancies ended prematurely,
Speaker 1: and it may be a harbinger of what's to come.
Speaker 1: Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. Even before
Speaker 1: Roe was overturned, there have been cases where women have
Speaker 1: been executed for miscarriages or stillbirths. Tell us about a
Speaker 1: few of those well. One of them is a case
Speaker 1: involving a woman named Dora Perez who went to the
Speaker 1: hospital and pat a stillbirth, and later the health authorities
Speaker 1: reported her to the local prosecutor and she was charged
Speaker 1: originally with murdering her child for allegedly taking metamphetamine were
Speaker 1: found in her system, not the child's system, so there
Speaker 1: was allegations that she had basically killed her child, and
Speaker 1: murder charges were filed against her. She ended up taking
Speaker 1: a plea. She was facing like more than twenty years
Speaker 1: in prison if she went to trial, so getting the
Speaker 1: advice of a local lawyer that didn't know anything about
Speaker 1: this she decided to plead guilty to a lower charge
Speaker 1: of NaN's laughter for killing the stillborn child. It turns
Speaker 1: out later when a real defense lawyers found out about
Speaker 1: her case, she was laying wishing in jail for having
Speaker 1: guilty to man spatter, and they started taking up her
Speaker 1: case on appeal to overturn her conviction her guilty plea.
Speaker 1: So that was finally resolved after four years. But it's
Speaker 1: quite a long saga for this poor woman. Four years
Speaker 1: in prison, and this is in California, which is in
Speaker 1: the forefront of protecting abortion rights. Yeah, but Perez was
Speaker 1: in the Central Valley of California, which is a very rural,
Speaker 1: very poor, lots of immigrants, and pretty conservative area of California,
Speaker 1: And so the d A prosecuted her for murdering her
Speaker 1: stillborn child, and eventually the California Appeals Court concluded that
Speaker 1: she couldn't have killed someone who was never born because
Speaker 1: the child was still born, so that it was a
Speaker 1: misapplication of the law and the law that Dora Perez
Speaker 1: and this other woman, Chelsea Becker, were both executed in
Speaker 1: California by the same DA. He said that it was
Speaker 1: a law that was created in the nineteen seventies to
Speaker 1: protect pregnant women from a third party attacking them and
Speaker 1: killing the fetus. And it all started when a woman,
Speaker 1: I believe she was a bank teller, she was shot
Speaker 1: in the stomach by a bank robber and there was
Speaker 1: such an outcry that her baby died because of this
Speaker 1: bank robbery that they created this statute of the fetal
Speaker 1: murder statute. But it only applies to a third party.
Speaker 1: And what legal experts and abortion rights activists have said
Speaker 1: is these are misapplications of laws originally designed to protect
Speaker 1: the pregnant person and their child and now are actually
Speaker 1: being applied against the pregnant person and giving the fetus
Speaker 1: the same rights as the parents. Do any states have
Speaker 1: laws that punish women who get abortions? Yeah, there are
Speaker 1: states that have a totally outlawed abortions and they're still
Speaker 1: fighting them out. Every day we see a new ruling
Speaker 1: of how the state is interpreting the overturning of Rowe.
Speaker 1: There's also prohibition against self managed abortions, and these would
Speaker 1: be women who take those drugs to basically self induced
Speaker 1: an abortion under a certain time period. There's an efforts
Speaker 1: underway that is one of the major race women have
Speaker 1: been using to manage their abortions because it's a lot
Speaker 1: more convenient to do it chemically. But of course it
Speaker 1: only takes place up to a certain period of time
Speaker 1: it's allowable. What I was surprised to see June was
Speaker 1: the amount of prosecutions under situations that just seemed like
Speaker 1: it was bad science and the misapplication of the law.
Speaker 1: For example, the mothers prosecuted for her baby dying bill born,
Speaker 1: and they concluded that it was because there was mess
Speaker 1: syntheta means her system, the mother's system, but there was
Speaker 1: none detective in the baby. Her lawyers told me there's
Speaker 1: no evidence that taking math amphetamine, although I'm not condoning it,
Speaker 1: but that that would automatically result in the depth of
Speaker 1: a fetus. And yet the prosecutor proffered and had an
Speaker 1: expert witness that testified about this, And it wasn't until
Speaker 1: later that her lawyers were able to take to the
Speaker 1: appeals court that the baby's umbilical court had been pressed
Speaker 1: against its neck during delivery, and that's shutting off of
Speaker 1: bloods to the child would have killed it. So there's
Speaker 1: there's a lot of unknowns with miscarriages and stillbirth some
Speaker 1: of pregnancies and in miscarriage or stillbirth, And a lot
Speaker 1: of the lawyers for these women say it's un unknowable,
Speaker 1: and yet these prosecutors are using the law and making
Speaker 1: conclusions and trying to convince judges to let these prosecutions
Speaker 1: go for it. It's amazing to me because you know,
Speaker 1: people don't know sometimes why they have a miscarriage. How
Speaker 1: were these women discovered so to speak? Was it their
Speaker 1: healthcare providers? Yeah, there's an indication now we have in
Speaker 1: the case that this people might have remembered it. From May,
Speaker 1: there was a woman named Lazelle Herrera in Texas and
Speaker 1: she was arrested and charged with the murder for a
Speaker 1: self induced abortion. Obstensively, I understand that she was apparently
Speaker 1: taking you know, some medication like methopress down to enter pregnancy.
Speaker 1: She went to the hospital and we understand from the
Speaker 1: local district attorney who indicted her for murder that he
Speaker 1: was informed by hospital staff. Now, the thing was extraordinary
Speaker 1: about Lazelle Herrera's case, which was quickly made public by
Speaker 1: an abortion rights activists and who came to her aid,
Speaker 1: I mean, this woman was being held on murder charges
Speaker 1: and something like five hundred thousand dollars dale in jail,
Speaker 1: and allegedly she was reported because Texas has this vigilante
Speaker 1: law called Senate Bill eight. But that's a civil statute
Speaker 1: that allows people if they believe someone is helping someone
Speaker 1: get an abortion, they can file a suit and file
Speaker 1: a claim. But it's not a criminal statute. And yet
Speaker 1: here's this poor woman what zal Herrera was prosecuted for
Speaker 1: murder and the d A got an indictment against her
Speaker 1: for murdering her fetus for a self induced abortion. But
Speaker 1: there's a difference between a criminal statute and a civil
Speaker 1: statute like SBA. Eventually there was such an outcry he
Speaker 1: had to drop the charges. But the idea that he
Speaker 1: could get an indictment based on a civil statute is
Speaker 1: pretty extraordinary when you think about it. I remember that case.
Speaker 1: It was incredibly odd that he would even try to
Speaker 1: do that. Now, as you mentioned, many of the arrests
Speaker 1: are related to drug use. Yeah, our reportings found out,
Speaker 1: and it was kind of shocking to me that their
Speaker 1: statutes on the books designed to protect children, toddlers whose
Speaker 1: parents maybe operate a meth lab. So these laws were
Speaker 1: created child endangerment laws to protect children from you know, say,
Speaker 1: getting burned or in an explosion, or getting exposed to
Speaker 1: toxic substances because their parents are making meth amphetamines in
Speaker 1: the garage. But what these laws are now being used for,
Speaker 1: which is kind of like that third party example I
Speaker 1: gave about laws originally designed to protect the pregnant woman
Speaker 1: and her fetus are now being used against the pregnant person.
Speaker 1: And they're saying that the chemical endangerment or the child
Speaker 1: endangerment is being done by the mother who exposes the child.
Speaker 1: And some examples were given to me by some of
Speaker 1: the lawyers. They've had cases where the woman took a
Speaker 1: valiant that authorized by her doctor, or the woman was
Speaker 1: like saying, a car accident and took a painkiller, and
Speaker 1: then there's an episode of a miscarriageter still burst inexplicably right,
Speaker 1: And then the woman goes to the hospital and then
Speaker 1: suddenly they asked her what did you take? And then
Speaker 1: she says, well that I took the prescription drug medication
Speaker 1: given to me by my doctor, and they say, ah ha,
Speaker 1: but the mother is taking it for herself. And one
Speaker 1: court opinion I saw that analyze this said, if we
Speaker 1: take this to the logical conclusion that the prosecutor had
Speaker 1: operated under, then it would mean that any mother who
Speaker 1: even takes an aspirant might face prosecution for endangering the
Speaker 1: child under this theory, which is not what the laws
Speaker 1: were designed to do. But it's becoming that the unborn
Speaker 1: fetus is being given fetal personhood at the same level
Speaker 1: as the pregnant person. Abortion rights and reproductive rights lawyers
Speaker 1: have told me this is now going to possibly throw
Speaker 1: everything into an uproar because you'll have is, you might
Speaker 1: have a mother within a topic pregnancy, and now they
Speaker 1: may not be able to perform the abortion that's necessary,
Speaker 1: would never be a viable fetus, and the mother's life
Speaker 1: may be in danger because of this new thinking that
Speaker 1: fetal personhood, it's the pregnant woman's life equated the same
Speaker 1: way as the fetix. About women have been arrested or
Speaker 1: charged from two thousand six to two thousand twenty for
Speaker 1: their actions during pregnancy. These lawyers cities women. These are
Speaker 1: the lawyers and the trenches and their advocates for women say, listen,
Speaker 1: how is it that this is happening? But not only
Speaker 1: is it happening, that's happening at an escalated rate, and
Speaker 1: they say that this is part of this whole effort
Speaker 1: not only to undo row, but also the push. You
Speaker 1: can see that suddenly fetal personhood is a fundamental right,
Speaker 1: that the fetis has the same right as its mother,
Speaker 1: and that you're gonna apply laws that originally we're designed
Speaker 1: to protect the pregnant person from attacks by an outside
Speaker 1: third party, and now you're going to use them against
Speaker 1: the pregnant person. So those are the kinds of things
Speaker 1: that we've seen that are being used currently and have
Speaker 1: been used on an increasing basis. It's kind of staggering.
Speaker 1: Thanks pat. That's Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado, and that's
Speaker 1: it for this edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Remember
Speaker 1: you can always get the latest legal news on our
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
Speaker 1: And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
Speaker 1: week night at ten BM Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to Bloomberg