WEBVTT - The Next Battleground Over Abortion 0:00:03.160 --> 0:00:07.960 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brasso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.240 --> 0:00:13.520 A judge struck down Michigan's nine thirty one anti abortion law, 0:00:13.720 --> 0:00:16.880 the latest development over abortion rights in a state where 0:00:16.920 --> 0:00:19.959 the issue is being argued in courtrooms and at the 0:00:20.000 --> 0:00:23.680 ballot box. The law, which was dormant before the U. S. 0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:28.440 Supreme Court overturned Roe Vue Wade in June, criminalizes abortion. 0:00:29.040 --> 0:00:32.000 Joining me as an expert in the law of reproductive rights, 0:00:32.400 --> 0:00:36.480 Mary Ziegler, a professor at u C. Davis Law School. So, Mary, 0:00:36.560 --> 0:00:39.599 this is what they call a zombie abortion law. So 0:00:39.720 --> 0:00:42.840 Michigan's abortion law is actually unusual, not in the sense 0:00:42.880 --> 0:00:46.360 that the zombie law that was on the books was 0:00:46.400 --> 0:00:49.680 not enforced during the time v. Wade was our law, 0:00:49.920 --> 0:00:52.640 but then sprang back into effect. It's also unusual because 0:00:52.640 --> 0:00:55.240 it was past the one, which was not a kind 0:00:55.280 --> 0:00:59.200 of common time for states to be passing more sweeping 0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:02.800 criminal aboard shan bands. But at the time Michigan lawmakers 0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:09.480 were enhancing penalties and also expanding prohibitions earlier in pregnancy. 0:01:09.800 --> 0:01:11.640 I mean, you know, this was also being done at 0:01:11.640 --> 0:01:15.400 a time when the state was expanding the compulsory eugenic 0:01:15.480 --> 0:01:17.880 sterilization laws. So that may have been kind of the 0:01:17.959 --> 0:01:20.520 moment that we were looking at in terms of what 0:01:20.600 --> 0:01:24.319 produced the law. So the judge's decision, her language was 0:01:24.440 --> 0:01:27.640 quite strong. Tell us about you know how she came 0:01:27.680 --> 0:01:32.280 to her decision. Well, the judge's decision essentially was based 0:01:32.280 --> 0:01:36.120 on the idea that Michigan has more expansive ideas of 0:01:36.160 --> 0:01:40.400 liberty and equality than the federal Constitution, and that therefore 0:01:40.480 --> 0:01:43.840 the results under a Michigan state constitutional law would be 0:01:43.840 --> 0:01:46.720 different than the one that the US Supreme Court reached 0:01:47.000 --> 0:01:51.280 in Dabbs. There's so much litigation over abortion in Michigan 0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:55.240 it's quite confusing. The Court of Appeals has ruled that 0:01:55.840 --> 0:02:01.040 this judge's decisions aren't binding on county prosecutors. She disagrees, 0:02:01.720 --> 0:02:05.160 but that's being appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court. If 0:02:05.200 --> 0:02:11.160 her decision can't stop county prosecutors from prosecuting abortion providers, 0:02:11.160 --> 0:02:13.839 which several of them has said that they intend to do, 0:02:14.480 --> 0:02:17.040 how much of a victory is this, Well, I think 0:02:17.080 --> 0:02:20.040 obviously this is just round one and this much longer 0:02:20.840 --> 0:02:25.080 process of litigation. They are multiple lawsuits challenging the constitutionality 0:02:25.120 --> 0:02:27.800 of the nineteen thirty one law. There's the question about 0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:31.280 whether the judges' order is binding on county prosecutors, and 0:02:31.320 --> 0:02:32.960 we know that in one way or another, all of 0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.360 these diceuses are going to end up at the Michigan 0:02:35.639 --> 0:02:38.440 States Supreme Court, and so I think the judges' decision 0:02:38.600 --> 0:02:41.519 is mostly just you know, around fired in that broader 0:02:41.560 --> 0:02:44.240 conflict that's ending at the Michigan Supreme Court. We all 0:02:44.240 --> 0:02:46.440 know that sooner or later that's where we're going to 0:02:46.520 --> 0:02:49.400 get a more complete resolution of all of this. An 0:02:49.440 --> 0:02:52.960 amendment on the November ballot would add abortion rights to 0:02:53.000 --> 0:02:57.160 the state constitution, so that would answer these questions, right. 0:02:57.400 --> 0:03:00.880 It doesn't really resolve the question of whether, as it stands, 0:03:00.919 --> 0:03:04.480 the one law violates Michigan State constitution, which is something 0:03:04.520 --> 0:03:06.920 that the State Supreme Court may have a responsibility to 0:03:06.960 --> 0:03:10.119 resolve regardless of the valid initiative. But I think it's 0:03:10.160 --> 0:03:12.920 it's to say that we will have a lot of 0:03:12.960 --> 0:03:15.079 action in Michigan for a long time, and I think 0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:19.200 that makes sense because Michigan is both significant regionally as 0:03:19.240 --> 0:03:21.840 a place that has offered a worstion access as other 0:03:21.880 --> 0:03:24.120 parts of the Midwest have not, and also kind of 0:03:24.160 --> 0:03:26.320 as a Belle Weather because the best pulling we have 0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.800 would suggest that Michigan is a state where a majority 0:03:28.840 --> 0:03:31.720 of voters would want a worship to be legal, and 0:03:31.800 --> 0:03:34.920 yet this state has this law from one that it 0:03:34.960 --> 0:03:38.680 will likely be enforced notwithstanding what voters may prefer. Do 0:03:38.760 --> 0:03:42.080 you think that this judge's decision won't stand, then, well, 0:03:42.120 --> 0:03:43.920 I don't know if it will stand. I think it's 0:03:43.960 --> 0:03:46.080 just going to be kind of a way station on 0:03:46.120 --> 0:03:48.280 the way to the Michigan Supreme Court. So I wouldn't 0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:51.720 be surprised given the composition of the Michigan Supreme Court 0:03:51.960 --> 0:03:54.920 and some of its past decisions. Um, it wouldn't be 0:03:54.960 --> 0:03:57.320 a shock to me if the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately 0:03:57.320 --> 0:03:59.840 agreed with this judge. All I was saying was that 0:04:00.200 --> 0:04:02.800 one way or another, we won't really have a final 0:04:02.880 --> 0:04:05.880 resolution on any of these questions that in full of 0:04:05.920 --> 0:04:08.440 Michigan State Supreme Court ways. Then I want to turn 0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:10.640 to another issue which is shaping up to be the 0:04:10.720 --> 0:04:14.320 next battle ground in the fight over abortion rights, and 0:04:14.360 --> 0:04:20.120 that's the issue of fetal personhood. Explain that concept, sure, so. Historically, 0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:23.000 the anti abortion movement in the United States was not 0:04:23.480 --> 0:04:26.960 focused on overruling Roe v. Wade in part because the 0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:31.640 movement existed before Roe v. Wade came down. The movement 0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:34.040 was sort of focused at the beginning of this idea 0:04:34.760 --> 0:04:39.480 of recognizing the personhood of fetuses, which would mean not 0:04:39.560 --> 0:04:44.360 that abortion was wrong, but that abortion was actually unconstitutional 0:04:44.520 --> 0:04:46.760 because if a fetis is a person, then that person 0:04:46.800 --> 0:04:49.440 has rights, for example, to do process in equal protection 0:04:49.520 --> 0:04:52.560 under the law. That would make abortion problematic at best 0:04:52.600 --> 0:04:57.200 and likely unconstitutional. So we've seen in the aftermath of 0:04:57.240 --> 0:04:59.839 the Jobs decision a lot of anti aborship groups returning 0:05:00.000 --> 0:05:02.040 of school, which really has kind of been the goal 0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:05.560 all along. But when Roe was on the books, and 0:05:05.640 --> 0:05:08.080 I think when the anti abortion movement was more interested 0:05:08.160 --> 0:05:11.719 in playing to public opinion, even hear a lot about 0:05:11.720 --> 0:05:14.240 it publicly, even though within the movement it was still 0:05:14.360 --> 0:05:17.320 a priority. Now, obviously they're talking about it very publicly 0:05:17.360 --> 0:05:19.520 and pushing forward in the states as well as potentially 0:05:19.520 --> 0:05:22.680 at the federal level. Eleven states already have language in 0:05:22.720 --> 0:05:28.040 their constitutions, laws, or policies granting rights to fetuses. Georgia 0:05:28.080 --> 0:05:32.080 has the most expansive law on fetal personhood in the country. 0:05:32.640 --> 0:05:36.720 The statute prohibits abortion after six weeks and recognizes the 0:05:36.760 --> 0:05:40.480 fetus as a person at that point. It also provides 0:05:40.520 --> 0:05:44.200 expectant mothers with a three thousand dollar tax credit per 0:05:44.279 --> 0:05:48.960 fetus and allows them to file for child support during pregnancy. 0:05:49.320 --> 0:05:54.400 It even instructs state officials to include fetuses in population counts. 0:05:54.440 --> 0:05:57.040 I've been talking to Professor Mary Ziegler of u C. 0:05:57.240 --> 0:06:01.920 Davis Law School. Mary, this george a law seems a 0:06:01.920 --> 0:06:05.200 bit extreme, to say the least, would it stand up 0:06:05.200 --> 0:06:07.719 in court? Well, I mean I think that Georgia law, 0:06:08.200 --> 0:06:10.520 I mean so far has stood up in court. I 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.880 mean there have been challenges to that personhood law that 0:06:14.279 --> 0:06:18.200 we're at least projected by the Eleventh Circuit Courts appeals. 0:06:18.480 --> 0:06:20.360 And I mean I think the Georgia law is interesting 0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:24.799 because most personhood measures we've seen so far have basically 0:06:24.839 --> 0:06:27.760 just been abortion bands. Right, So, for example, South Carolina 0:06:27.800 --> 0:06:30.440 is now considering a personhood law that's essentially just a 0:06:30.480 --> 0:06:33.960 really sweeping abortion ban. George's law is interesting because it 0:06:34.000 --> 0:06:37.040 seems to be trying to take the idea of fetal personhood. 0:06:37.279 --> 0:06:39.279 I wouldn't say more seriously, but at least to be 0:06:39.320 --> 0:06:42.480 more logically consistent. Right that vet this as a person 0:06:42.800 --> 0:06:45.240 such that you can send people to prison. It may 0:06:45.320 --> 0:06:48.680 be a person for reasons that could theoretically benefit a 0:06:48.760 --> 0:06:51.920 pregnant person or woman, right, But I think the logistics 0:06:51.920 --> 0:06:55.320 of actually working out how that will all work in 0:06:55.360 --> 0:06:58.960 the real world is something the movement really hasn't done yet. 0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:01.400 And I don't even know if a consensus within the 0:07:01.440 --> 0:07:05.640 anti abortion movement about what fetal personhood is beyond just 0:07:05.839 --> 0:07:10.520 a mandate to criminalize abortion. Arizona has a law granting 0:07:10.600 --> 0:07:16.360 personhood defertilized eggs, embryos, and fetuses. So what does that 0:07:16.440 --> 0:07:20.240 do if you have a fertilized egg, you decide you 0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:24.160 don't want to go forward with with a pregnancy, and 0:07:24.560 --> 0:07:26.080 you have to keep the egg. I mean, it just 0:07:26.240 --> 0:07:29.120 raises a lot of questions in my mind. Yeah, I mean, 0:07:29.160 --> 0:07:32.080 I don't know if this has really been worked out, right, 0:07:32.120 --> 0:07:35.200 because I think that when the anti abortion movement first 0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:38.240 developed this argument for personhood in the nineteen sixties, it 0:07:38.320 --> 0:07:42.720 was entirely as an argument against the legalization of abortion. 0:07:43.320 --> 0:07:46.240 And and then there was a moment in the seventies 0:07:46.320 --> 0:07:48.800 when anti abortion leaders were hoping there would be a 0:07:48.840 --> 0:07:52.920 constitutional amendment recognizing personhood, and at that point, you began 0:07:52.960 --> 0:07:56.120 to get some conversations about Okay, well we're going to 0:07:56.200 --> 0:07:58.960 recognize personhood, how are we going to actually implement that, 0:07:59.040 --> 0:08:01.560 Who's going to be able to take care of these persons. 0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:04.640 Is the government that's actually recognizing personhood going to do 0:08:04.680 --> 0:08:08.280 anything or is it going to just offload that responsibility 0:08:08.400 --> 0:08:12.800 onto onto women? Right? But you know, the constitutional amendment 0:08:12.840 --> 0:08:15.720 wasn't going anywhere fast, and so those conversations sort of 0:08:15.760 --> 0:08:19.000 stopped happening. Beyond the idea of personhood is a kind 0:08:19.040 --> 0:08:23.480 of rallying cry or a justification for criminalization. So I 0:08:23.520 --> 0:08:27.120 think we're at a moment now where there's definitely interest 0:08:27.160 --> 0:08:29.880 in the anti abortion movement in personhood, but not consensus 0:08:29.880 --> 0:08:33.160 on what it actually is. As you said before, these 0:08:33.440 --> 0:08:38.600 fetal personhood laws, that's just a step to saying that 0:08:38.800 --> 0:08:42.760 can have an abortion even if the mother's life is 0:08:42.800 --> 0:08:47.760 in danger um, Right, So that's the goal. Yeah, I mean, 0:08:47.800 --> 0:08:49.520 and I think I think there are a few sali 0:08:49.600 --> 0:08:52.240 and things about that. One is that personhood is obviously 0:08:52.280 --> 0:08:54.880 a national goal. This is not something the movement wants 0:08:54.920 --> 0:08:58.319 to see stop in states like Georgian Arizona, because the 0:08:58.400 --> 0:09:00.360 dream obviously if you have some kind of a national 0:09:00.360 --> 0:09:03.440 personhood mandate is that there would no longer be you know, 0:09:03.520 --> 0:09:06.560 the federal government allowed to authorize aborship pills, or there'll 0:09:06.640 --> 0:09:09.160 no longer be aborship available in California and New York. 0:09:09.200 --> 0:09:13.040 It would be illegal everywhere. And that's why there's some energy, 0:09:13.120 --> 0:09:17.839 for example, in an executive order recognizing personhood, or a 0:09:18.000 --> 0:09:21.800 federal statute recognizing personhood, or even we've already seen petitions 0:09:21.840 --> 0:09:24.680 filed in the U. S. Supreme Court asking the court 0:09:24.760 --> 0:09:27.960 to recognize that the idea of personhood is deeply rooted 0:09:27.960 --> 0:09:32.240 in the nation's history and tradition. So I think long term, 0:09:32.280 --> 0:09:35.680 you're you'd see this nationwide push. The other way personhood 0:09:35.679 --> 0:09:37.480 comes out, as in the rise of this so called 0:09:37.520 --> 0:09:42.080 abolitionist movement, which is a minority extremist faction within the 0:09:42.120 --> 0:09:45.240 anti abortion movement that calls for the punishment of women. 0:09:45.920 --> 0:09:48.800 They argue that, you know, a fetal personhood is a 0:09:48.920 --> 0:09:52.000 thing that means that the killing of fetuses has to 0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:54.400 be punished a homicide, just as the killing of anyone 0:09:54.400 --> 0:09:56.760 else would be, and that anyone involved in that killing, 0:09:56.800 --> 0:09:59.439 including women, has to be punished. So there are a 0:09:59.480 --> 0:10:01.679 lot of move in parts and a lot of disagreements, 0:10:01.679 --> 0:10:05.480 but I think the ultimate the reason personhood is compelling 0:10:05.520 --> 0:10:09.640 to aborsition opponents, notwithstanding all these disagreements, is as as 0:10:09.679 --> 0:10:12.200 a tool to an aborshion across the country, not just 0:10:12.280 --> 0:10:15.400 in states that theoretically want to do it. In his 0:10:15.600 --> 0:10:22.840 opinion in the Dobbs case, did Justice Samuel Alito referred 0:10:22.840 --> 0:10:28.040 to personhood in any way I mean, not really Justice Alito. Um. 0:10:28.360 --> 0:10:32.679 People who are personhood proponents like josh Hammer and Joshua 0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:36.000 Cratick read Justice Alito as kind of giving a wink 0:10:36.080 --> 0:10:39.480 and a nods personhood. There's nothing that explicit in the 0:10:39.559 --> 0:10:43.160 Dobbs opinion. Justice Alito does refer to fetus is as 0:10:43.240 --> 0:10:47.160 unborn children, and he's you know, quoting Mississippi statute when 0:10:47.200 --> 0:10:50.160 he does that, but I think it's still strategic. Justice 0:10:50.160 --> 0:10:55.960 Alito also differentiates a worshion from other substantive due process 0:10:56.040 --> 0:10:59.000 rights like same sex marriage by emphasizing that abortion is 0:10:59.040 --> 0:11:01.439 the taking of the life, which some saw as an 0:11:01.440 --> 0:11:04.559 odd personhood. So I think, you know, you can really 0:11:05.000 --> 0:11:08.720 read Dobbs either way, and personhood proponents have certainly taken 0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:10.880 it as a positive sign. I think that the more 0:11:10.920 --> 0:11:13.480 cautionary note, at least in the short term for person 0:11:13.520 --> 0:11:16.120 and proponents as Brett Kavanaugh, who went to some length 0:11:16.200 --> 0:11:18.880 to say, you know, the Constitution is neutral. It's not 0:11:18.960 --> 0:11:21.040 pro life or pro choice, which some people took to 0:11:21.040 --> 0:11:23.760 mean Justice Kavanaugh was not yet ready to hear a 0:11:23.800 --> 0:11:28.040 personhood argument. Having said that, I think personhood proponents believe that, 0:11:28.600 --> 0:11:31.920 you know, Justice Kavanaugh may be ready to reconsider, you know, 0:11:32.040 --> 0:11:33.880 several years down the road. They don't take that as 0:11:33.880 --> 0:11:36.560 a sort of permanent to you. They take it as 0:11:36.840 --> 0:11:39.240 a kind of yellow light in the sense that he's 0:11:39.280 --> 0:11:41.720 not ready to move quickly on that front. Wouldn't they 0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:47.800 need some scientific evidence before they would declare that life 0:11:47.840 --> 0:11:51.160 begins at conception? Yeah, I mean that there's there's some 0:11:51.240 --> 0:11:54.040 real challenges about you know, standing and so on in 0:11:54.040 --> 0:11:56.880 the In the pre ro era, abortion opponents asked to 0:11:56.880 --> 0:12:00.720 be named guardians at LTEM, either for the fetus is 0:12:00.760 --> 0:12:04.480 of specific patients or just you know, class action suits 0:12:04.520 --> 0:12:08.560 on behalf of all fetuses potentially scheduled to be awarded 0:12:09.040 --> 0:12:13.280 in particular jurisdictions. The petition before the Supreme Court now 0:12:13.360 --> 0:12:15.679 also has to grapple with this question about, you know, 0:12:15.840 --> 0:12:19.560 who's you know who's actually being represented, so that that's 0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:22.920 going to be an ongoing challenge, and I think obviously 0:12:23.040 --> 0:12:27.040 there's a certain amount of I think over confidence on 0:12:27.080 --> 0:12:30.160 the part of the anti abortion movement now in terms 0:12:30.160 --> 0:12:32.560 of the kind of politics it's practicing, the kind of 0:12:32.559 --> 0:12:38.480 aspirations it's articulating, because I think the movement, after Dobbs, thinks, 0:12:38.520 --> 0:12:40.319 you know, all things that are possible, and that may 0:12:40.440 --> 0:12:43.120 still not be true, notwithstanding the fact that there's a 0:12:43.160 --> 0:12:48.120 conservative supermajority on the Court, because if the Court declares 0:12:48.480 --> 0:12:52.640 that a fetus is a person, then states who passed 0:12:52.760 --> 0:12:58.920 laws that protect abortion those laws would be void. Right. Um, So, 0:12:59.000 --> 0:13:01.640 I mean, and that's really the point, I think, because 0:13:02.320 --> 0:13:05.240 if you're the anti abortion movement right now, you know 0:13:05.400 --> 0:13:07.800 that you have laws that you like in a whole 0:13:07.880 --> 0:13:10.720 variety of places, right but you know that in in America, 0:13:10.760 --> 0:13:13.320 where travel is common in abortion pills can be bought 0:13:13.360 --> 0:13:15.079 on the internet. It's going to be very hard to 0:13:15.120 --> 0:13:18.680 actually make a meaningful change in abortion rates, especially if, 0:13:18.840 --> 0:13:21.120 as is the case for the anti abortion movement, you're 0:13:21.120 --> 0:13:23.720 aligned with a Republican party that does nothing to reduce 0:13:23.800 --> 0:13:26.240 poverty or the reasons people may seek abortion when they 0:13:26.240 --> 0:13:28.800 would otherwise prefer to carry a pregnancy to term. Right, 0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:33.360 So I think again, the movement isn't really turn to 0:13:33.400 --> 0:13:36.520 any of those anti poverty solutions. Instead, there's been this 0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:39.960 escalating effort to prevent people from excessing abortion by any 0:13:40.000 --> 0:13:42.600 means necessary. So that's why you're seeing some states talk, 0:13:42.679 --> 0:13:46.720 for example, about barring travel for abortion or expand applying 0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:49.320 their criminal laws out of state. But it would obviously 0:13:49.360 --> 0:13:52.400 be easier in many ways if the movement just had 0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:55.719 a single national band right, and then you wouldn't have 0:13:55.760 --> 0:13:57.360 to worry about any of this. You could use the 0:13:57.400 --> 0:14:00.520 federal government to enforce such a band on, even if 0:14:00.559 --> 0:14:03.280 state officials were unwilling to do so, And so that 0:14:03.360 --> 0:14:08.200 makes ironically, it kind of increases the movement's reliance on 0:14:08.320 --> 0:14:12.319 controlling the Supreme Court, aligning with the National Republican Party, 0:14:12.320 --> 0:14:14.240 all of these things. We were told we're all just 0:14:14.280 --> 0:14:16.480 about getting rid of row in a postro America, the 0:14:16.480 --> 0:14:18.960 anti abortion movement has I think even more interest than 0:14:18.960 --> 0:14:22.360 those things. Thanks so much. Mary. That's Mary Ziegler, a 0:14:22.360 --> 0:14:26.800 professor at U C. Davis Law School. Even before the 0:14:26.880 --> 0:14:31.320 Supreme Court wiped out the constitutional right to abortion, the 0:14:31.440 --> 0:14:36.280 prosecution of women suspected of purposefully or accidentally ending a 0:14:36.400 --> 0:14:40.800 pregnancy was on the rise. According to reproductive rights lawyers. 0:14:41.000 --> 0:14:44.600 There's been a movement to use state laws on child endangerment, 0:14:44.720 --> 0:14:49.600 feed aside or murder to arrest women whose pregnancies ended prematurely, 0:14:49.840 --> 0:14:52.200 and it may be a harbinger of what's to come. 0:14:52.520 --> 0:14:56.320 Joining me is Bloomberg Legal reporter Patricia Hurtado. Even before 0:14:56.440 --> 0:14:59.480 Roe was overturned, there have been cases where women have 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:04.000 been executed for miscarriages or stillbirths. Tell us about a 0:15:04.000 --> 0:15:06.360 few of those well. One of them is a case 0:15:06.480 --> 0:15:10.600 involving a woman named Dora Perez who went to the 0:15:10.720 --> 0:15:16.239 hospital and pat a stillbirth, and later the health authorities 0:15:16.440 --> 0:15:20.760 reported her to the local prosecutor and she was charged 0:15:20.800 --> 0:15:25.920 originally with murdering her child for allegedly taking metamphetamine were 0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:29.480 found in her system, not the child's system, so there 0:15:29.560 --> 0:15:33.200 was allegations that she had basically killed her child, and 0:15:33.280 --> 0:15:36.240 murder charges were filed against her. She ended up taking 0:15:36.360 --> 0:15:39.240 a plea. She was facing like more than twenty years 0:15:39.280 --> 0:15:43.160 in prison if she went to trial, so getting the 0:15:43.440 --> 0:15:46.440 advice of a local lawyer that didn't know anything about 0:15:46.480 --> 0:15:49.920 this she decided to plead guilty to a lower charge 0:15:49.920 --> 0:15:54.200 of NaN's laughter for killing the stillborn child. It turns 0:15:54.200 --> 0:15:58.600 out later when a real defense lawyers found out about 0:15:58.640 --> 0:16:01.720 her case, she was laying wishing in jail for having 0:16:02.200 --> 0:16:05.560 guilty to man spatter, and they started taking up her 0:16:05.600 --> 0:16:09.920 case on appeal to overturn her conviction her guilty plea. 0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:13.720 So that was finally resolved after four years. But it's 0:16:13.840 --> 0:16:17.160 quite a long saga for this poor woman. Four years 0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:20.440 in prison, and this is in California, which is in 0:16:20.520 --> 0:16:25.440 the forefront of protecting abortion rights. Yeah, but Perez was 0:16:25.520 --> 0:16:29.320 in the Central Valley of California, which is a very rural, 0:16:29.520 --> 0:16:35.240 very poor, lots of immigrants, and pretty conservative area of California, 0:16:35.880 --> 0:16:39.840 And so the d A prosecuted her for murdering her 0:16:39.960 --> 0:16:45.920 stillborn child, and eventually the California Appeals Court concluded that 0:16:46.080 --> 0:16:50.280 she couldn't have killed someone who was never born because 0:16:50.280 --> 0:16:52.680 the child was still born, so that it was a 0:16:52.760 --> 0:16:57.480 misapplication of the law and the law that Dora Perez 0:16:57.600 --> 0:17:00.960 and this other woman, Chelsea Becker, were both executed in 0:17:01.080 --> 0:17:04.879 California by the same DA. He said that it was 0:17:05.160 --> 0:17:08.399 a law that was created in the nineteen seventies to 0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:12.639 protect pregnant women from a third party attacking them and 0:17:12.720 --> 0:17:16.119 killing the fetus. And it all started when a woman, 0:17:16.240 --> 0:17:18.840 I believe she was a bank teller, she was shot 0:17:18.880 --> 0:17:21.840 in the stomach by a bank robber and there was 0:17:21.880 --> 0:17:24.800 such an outcry that her baby died because of this 0:17:24.880 --> 0:17:28.480 bank robbery that they created this statute of the fetal 0:17:28.560 --> 0:17:32.119 murder statute. But it only applies to a third party. 0:17:32.359 --> 0:17:37.240 And what legal experts and abortion rights activists have said 0:17:37.480 --> 0:17:42.760 is these are misapplications of laws originally designed to protect 0:17:42.760 --> 0:17:46.400 the pregnant person and their child and now are actually 0:17:46.440 --> 0:17:50.840 being applied against the pregnant person and giving the fetus 0:17:50.960 --> 0:17:54.560 the same rights as the parents. Do any states have 0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:59.320 laws that punish women who get abortions? Yeah, there are 0:17:59.400 --> 0:18:03.160 states that have a totally outlawed abortions and they're still 0:18:03.200 --> 0:18:05.760 fighting them out. Every day we see a new ruling 0:18:05.960 --> 0:18:10.119 of how the state is interpreting the overturning of Rowe. 0:18:10.320 --> 0:18:14.520 There's also prohibition against self managed abortions, and these would 0:18:14.520 --> 0:18:19.160 be women who take those drugs to basically self induced 0:18:19.160 --> 0:18:23.520 an abortion under a certain time period. There's an efforts 0:18:23.800 --> 0:18:27.359 underway that is one of the major race women have 0:18:27.440 --> 0:18:31.359 been using to manage their abortions because it's a lot 0:18:31.640 --> 0:18:34.320 more convenient to do it chemically. But of course it 0:18:34.440 --> 0:18:36.960 only takes place up to a certain period of time 0:18:37.000 --> 0:18:40.320 it's allowable. What I was surprised to see June was 0:18:40.600 --> 0:18:46.159 the amount of prosecutions under situations that just seemed like 0:18:46.520 --> 0:18:49.840 it was bad science and the misapplication of the law. 0:18:50.440 --> 0:18:54.880 For example, the mothers prosecuted for her baby dying bill born, 0:18:55.600 --> 0:18:58.920 and they concluded that it was because there was mess 0:18:59.000 --> 0:19:02.280 syntheta means her system, the mother's system, but there was 0:19:02.320 --> 0:19:04.960 none detective in the baby. Her lawyers told me there's 0:19:05.000 --> 0:19:08.840 no evidence that taking math amphetamine, although I'm not condoning it, 0:19:09.000 --> 0:19:12.280 but that that would automatically result in the depth of 0:19:12.560 --> 0:19:17.640 a fetus. And yet the prosecutor proffered and had an 0:19:17.640 --> 0:19:21.160 expert witness that testified about this, And it wasn't until 0:19:21.280 --> 0:19:23.840 later that her lawyers were able to take to the 0:19:23.880 --> 0:19:27.960 appeals court that the baby's umbilical court had been pressed 0:19:28.040 --> 0:19:32.119 against its neck during delivery, and that's shutting off of 0:19:32.280 --> 0:19:36.200 bloods to the child would have killed it. So there's 0:19:36.359 --> 0:19:39.680 there's a lot of unknowns with miscarriages and stillbirth some 0:19:41.160 --> 0:19:44.400 of pregnancies and in miscarriage or stillbirth, And a lot 0:19:44.440 --> 0:19:47.400 of the lawyers for these women say it's un unknowable, 0:19:47.600 --> 0:19:51.679 and yet these prosecutors are using the law and making 0:19:52.160 --> 0:19:57.280 conclusions and trying to convince judges to let these prosecutions 0:19:57.280 --> 0:19:59.800 go for it. It's amazing to me because you know, 0:20:00.520 --> 0:20:03.720 people don't know sometimes why they have a miscarriage. How 0:20:03.800 --> 0:20:07.120 were these women discovered so to speak? Was it their 0:20:07.119 --> 0:20:11.199 healthcare providers? Yeah, there's an indication now we have in 0:20:11.240 --> 0:20:14.520 the case that this people might have remembered it. From May, 0:20:14.560 --> 0:20:17.760 there was a woman named Lazelle Herrera in Texas and 0:20:17.920 --> 0:20:21.879 she was arrested and charged with the murder for a 0:20:21.920 --> 0:20:26.960 self induced abortion. Obstensively, I understand that she was apparently 0:20:27.040 --> 0:20:31.840 taking you know, some medication like methopress down to enter pregnancy. 0:20:31.960 --> 0:20:35.040 She went to the hospital and we understand from the 0:20:35.080 --> 0:20:39.440 local district attorney who indicted her for murder that he 0:20:39.520 --> 0:20:43.439 was informed by hospital staff. Now, the thing was extraordinary 0:20:43.440 --> 0:20:47.440 about Lazelle Herrera's case, which was quickly made public by 0:20:47.720 --> 0:20:51.200 an abortion rights activists and who came to her aid, 0:20:51.840 --> 0:20:55.280 I mean, this woman was being held on murder charges 0:20:55.440 --> 0:20:59.359 and something like five hundred thousand dollars dale in jail, 0:21:00.119 --> 0:21:04.840 and allegedly she was reported because Texas has this vigilante 0:21:04.960 --> 0:21:08.800 law called Senate Bill eight. But that's a civil statute 0:21:08.920 --> 0:21:12.280 that allows people if they believe someone is helping someone 0:21:12.320 --> 0:21:15.560 get an abortion, they can file a suit and file 0:21:15.600 --> 0:21:18.879 a claim. But it's not a criminal statute. And yet 0:21:18.920 --> 0:21:22.919 here's this poor woman what zal Herrera was prosecuted for 0:21:23.080 --> 0:21:26.080 murder and the d A got an indictment against her 0:21:26.480 --> 0:21:30.520 for murdering her fetus for a self induced abortion. But 0:21:30.840 --> 0:21:33.639 there's a difference between a criminal statute and a civil 0:21:33.680 --> 0:21:38.119 statute like SBA. Eventually there was such an outcry he 0:21:38.240 --> 0:21:41.199 had to drop the charges. But the idea that he 0:21:41.240 --> 0:21:44.840 could get an indictment based on a civil statute is 0:21:44.920 --> 0:21:48.200 pretty extraordinary when you think about it. I remember that case. 0:21:48.400 --> 0:21:51.040 It was incredibly odd that he would even try to 0:21:51.119 --> 0:21:54.600 do that. Now, as you mentioned, many of the arrests 0:21:54.640 --> 0:21:58.680 are related to drug use. Yeah, our reportings found out, 0:21:58.800 --> 0:22:01.320 and it was kind of shocking to me that their 0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:06.439 statutes on the books designed to protect children, toddlers whose 0:22:06.440 --> 0:22:09.760 parents maybe operate a meth lab. So these laws were 0:22:09.800 --> 0:22:14.000 created child endangerment laws to protect children from you know, say, 0:22:14.359 --> 0:22:17.760 getting burned or in an explosion, or getting exposed to 0:22:17.800 --> 0:22:21.920 toxic substances because their parents are making meth amphetamines in 0:22:21.960 --> 0:22:25.440 the garage. But what these laws are now being used for, 0:22:25.920 --> 0:22:28.879 which is kind of like that third party example I 0:22:28.960 --> 0:22:32.280 gave about laws originally designed to protect the pregnant woman 0:22:32.320 --> 0:22:35.520 and her fetus are now being used against the pregnant person. 0:22:36.000 --> 0:22:39.919 And they're saying that the chemical endangerment or the child 0:22:40.080 --> 0:22:45.800 endangerment is being done by the mother who exposes the child. 0:22:46.119 --> 0:22:48.440 And some examples were given to me by some of 0:22:48.480 --> 0:22:51.639 the lawyers. They've had cases where the woman took a 0:22:51.760 --> 0:22:55.240 valiant that authorized by her doctor, or the woman was 0:22:55.320 --> 0:22:58.840 like saying, a car accident and took a painkiller, and 0:22:58.880 --> 0:23:03.800 then there's an episode of a miscarriageter still burst inexplicably right, 0:23:04.240 --> 0:23:06.560 And then the woman goes to the hospital and then 0:23:06.560 --> 0:23:09.640 suddenly they asked her what did you take? And then 0:23:09.640 --> 0:23:12.320 she says, well that I took the prescription drug medication 0:23:12.400 --> 0:23:15.320 given to me by my doctor, and they say, ah ha, 0:23:15.800 --> 0:23:19.360 but the mother is taking it for herself. And one 0:23:19.440 --> 0:23:22.920 court opinion I saw that analyze this said, if we 0:23:23.040 --> 0:23:27.080 take this to the logical conclusion that the prosecutor had 0:23:27.160 --> 0:23:30.440 operated under, then it would mean that any mother who 0:23:30.480 --> 0:23:35.520 even takes an aspirant might face prosecution for endangering the 0:23:35.640 --> 0:23:38.879 child under this theory, which is not what the laws 0:23:38.920 --> 0:23:43.720 were designed to do. But it's becoming that the unborn 0:23:43.840 --> 0:23:48.119 fetus is being given fetal personhood at the same level 0:23:48.320 --> 0:23:52.760 as the pregnant person. Abortion rights and reproductive rights lawyers 0:23:52.800 --> 0:23:56.879 have told me this is now going to possibly throw 0:23:57.000 --> 0:24:01.120