WEBVTT - Bloomberg Exclusive: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling

0:00:01.680 --> 0:00:04.439
<v Speaker 1>This is breaking new loose from Bloomberg.

0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:08.840
<v Speaker 2>Here in Washington, we are all focused on the news

0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:13.320
<v Speaker 2>that Bloomberg just exclusively broke the Supreme Court inadvertently today,

0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:16.560
<v Speaker 2>posting a copy of an opinion on its website that

0:00:16.600 --> 0:00:20.560
<v Speaker 2>would suggest the Court is poised to allow emergency abortions

0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:23.600
<v Speaker 2>in the state of Idaho. Joe, this is a big deal,

0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.440
<v Speaker 2>not final yet as this is not a formal issuing

0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:28.920
<v Speaker 2>of an opinion, but still suggests that the Court in

0:00:29.000 --> 0:00:32.200
<v Speaker 2>this case may be delivering a win for abortion rights.

0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:35.000
<v Speaker 1>That's right, and for Joe Biden the day before the

0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>first presidential debate. The timing here is remarkable, Kaylee. We're

0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:41.720
<v Speaker 1>in the midst of a three day tour here. When

0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:45.000
<v Speaker 1>it comes to opinions, we did expect and still do

0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:47.080
<v Speaker 1>to get more tomorrow, but we thought the Court was

0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:49.360
<v Speaker 1>done for the day. We got to this morning and

0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:52.040
<v Speaker 1>this dropped a short time ago. Thanks to our team

0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:56.640
<v Speaker 1>at Bloomberg News and at Bloomberg Law bringing this to us. Now,

0:00:56.680 --> 0:00:59.840
<v Speaker 1>the question remains, once again, will the Court do anything formal?

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>We want to turn to June Grosso from Bloomberg Law,

0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.840
<v Speaker 1>the host of Bloomberg Law here on Bloomberg radio and

0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:08.640
<v Speaker 1>TV and June, it's great to see you here. I

0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:10.920
<v Speaker 1>suspect you didn't think we'd be talking about this either

0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:14.920
<v Speaker 1>after this morning's opinions were released. This is going to

0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:17.240
<v Speaker 1>lead to a whole investigation. We have no idea how

0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:18.880
<v Speaker 1>this was posted right right.

0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:22.959
<v Speaker 3>You know, it could have just been some administrative assistant

0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:25.920
<v Speaker 3>by mistake posted it and then took it back. I mean,

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.320
<v Speaker 3>I'm sure there'll be an investigation into this, and hopefully

0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.600
<v Speaker 3>you'll get more information than you did on the political

0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:35.640
<v Speaker 3>leak of the Dobbs decision. But if you know what

0:01:35.720 --> 0:01:39.520
<v Speaker 3>we see is true, it's a huge decision and it

0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.760
<v Speaker 3>means and it also affects other states like Texas that

0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.320
<v Speaker 3>have similar laws. I mean, this case was so important

0:01:45.360 --> 0:01:48.920
<v Speaker 3>that the trial judge had issued a ruling putting this

0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:51.800
<v Speaker 3>law on hold and saying that, you know, the emergency

0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:55.880
<v Speaker 3>procedures could go forward, and the Supreme Court said no,

0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.800
<v Speaker 3>they they put a stop to that, and then they

0:01:59.840 --> 0:02:02.280
<v Speaker 3>just ought to take the case without it going to

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:06.320
<v Speaker 3>an appellate court. So that's how important this is. And

0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:10.000
<v Speaker 3>you know, it could show whether or not the federal

0:02:10.080 --> 0:02:13.680
<v Speaker 3>law is going to take the place or supersede the

0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:16.880
<v Speaker 3>state law, which is what the Biden administration argued in

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:19.440
<v Speaker 3>this case. They said, if you're taking, as Kelly said,

0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:23.040
<v Speaker 3>you're taking Medicare funds, you have to follow the Atala law,

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:27.399
<v Speaker 3>and that provides for emergency room procedures of abortion if

0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:30.600
<v Speaker 3>a woman's life is seriously at risk. And during the

0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:35.080
<v Speaker 3>oral arguments, Justice Kagan was really sort of you know,

0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.760
<v Speaker 3>I want to say, she was emphatic about saying that,

0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.079
<v Speaker 3>you know, you don't have to wait until the woman's

0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:44.720
<v Speaker 3>life is in jeopardy, is in threat, in order to

0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.400
<v Speaker 3>have this procedure. And it was very the oral argument,

0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:50.320
<v Speaker 3>you couldn't tell which way the court was going to go.

0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:52.639
<v Speaker 3>I mean, you knew that the three liberals were going

0:02:52.680 --> 0:02:55.080
<v Speaker 3>one way and the three very conservatives were going the

0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:57.600
<v Speaker 3>other way. But then the three in the middle, Justice

0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:01.960
<v Speaker 3>Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Tony Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh,

0:03:02.880 --> 0:03:04.799
<v Speaker 3>where were they? They were all over the place.

0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:10.200
<v Speaker 2>Well, of course, we'll await finding out for sure who

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:13.560
<v Speaker 2>the drafter of the final opinion is. But in what

0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:16.880
<v Speaker 2>was briefly posted online, they indicated that the majority is

0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:20.160
<v Speaker 2>going to dismiss this case as improvidently granted, which probably

0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:22.320
<v Speaker 2>relates to what you were just speaking to June whether

0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:24.960
<v Speaker 2>the Court should have taken this up in the first place.

0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.480
<v Speaker 2>But this is a kind of a pattern I've noticed

0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:29.919
<v Speaker 2>to merge with recent opinions where the court doesn't seem

0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:33.080
<v Speaker 2>to necessarily be deciding the merits of the case, but

0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 2>rather standing, as was the case in the social media

0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.600
<v Speaker 2>Biden administration relationship ruling they made earlier this morning, and

0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 2>in the other abortion related case, access to mif A Pristone,

0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:44.800
<v Speaker 2>which they did rule in favor of, they did so

0:03:44.960 --> 0:03:47.480
<v Speaker 2>on the grounds of standing. It doesn't seem that they're

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:50.320
<v Speaker 2>necessarily deciding the merits around these abortion rates.

0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 3>You're right, throwing this at is improvidently granted. Is another

0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.240
<v Speaker 3>way to dispose of it, and it's because they're trying

0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:00.000
<v Speaker 3>to get you know, they're trying to get five vote

0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:04.400
<v Speaker 3>in order to decide the case. And in a lot

0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.400
<v Speaker 3>of these cases, the easiest way is to say there

0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:10.040
<v Speaker 3>was no standing. Now, the MYFI pristone case, that really

0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:13.320
<v Speaker 3>there was no standing there. Everyone who saw that initially

0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:16.560
<v Speaker 3>said why why do these doctors have the right to sue?

0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:19.520
<v Speaker 3>And it's still going to go. States are still trying

0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:21.960
<v Speaker 3>to sue over that. So in the mif of pristone

0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:24.159
<v Speaker 3>case that was definitely no standing. But in the you know,

0:04:24.240 --> 0:04:28.240
<v Speaker 3>in the case today they found no standing and that

0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:30.600
<v Speaker 3>you know, they could have gone either way, so it's

0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:32.720
<v Speaker 3>an easier way for them to deal with it. But

0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:36.040
<v Speaker 3>what happens is the lower courts don't get guidance and

0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:39.159
<v Speaker 3>we don't get information as far as the public to

0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:42.000
<v Speaker 3>know where they stand on these issues. You know, how

0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:47.599
<v Speaker 3>far can the Biden administration go in correcting misinformation online? Now?

0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:51.200
<v Speaker 3>We don't know that because the decision is off on

0:04:51.240 --> 0:04:54.120
<v Speaker 3>a procedural ground. And I had a professor I talked

0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.480
<v Speaker 3>to recently say that, you know, lawyers can find a

0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:01.080
<v Speaker 3>procedural reason for anything which is true. I can find

0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:04.320
<v Speaker 3>a procedural reason if you're looking for it, and they're

0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:05.960
<v Speaker 3>lo it seems.

0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:09.560
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, all right. Jane Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law, thank

0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:12.160
<v Speaker 2>you so much for your instant analysis on this breaking

0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:15.480
<v Speaker 2>news story exclusive to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court poised to

0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 2>allow emergency abortions in Idaho. We want to get more

0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:21.280
<v Speaker 2>reaction now with a special guest, I'm pleased to say

0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:23.880
<v Speaker 2>who is joining us here in our Washington, d C studio.

0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:28.000
<v Speaker 2>Dana Nessel the Attorney General of the state of Michigan

0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:30.640
<v Speaker 2>is now joining us. Welcome to Balance the Power. Thank

0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:33.680
<v Speaker 2>you so much for being here. While you're here in Washington,

0:05:33.720 --> 0:05:37.159
<v Speaker 2>could I just ask you first about your reaction to

0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 2>the news Bloomberg has broken today, this opinion that seems

0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:42.600
<v Speaker 2>inadvertently to have been posted on the website, but as

0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.480
<v Speaker 2>a court ruling in favor of abortion rates, it seems

0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:46.000
<v Speaker 2>are poised to.

0:05:46.080 --> 0:05:49.359
<v Speaker 4>At least well, you know, fortunately in Michigan, in the

0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.799
<v Speaker 4>wake of Dobbs. You know, we had very restrictive laws

0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:54.960
<v Speaker 4>that were on the books that were unenforceable, but in

0:05:55.000 --> 0:06:00.280
<v Speaker 4>twenty twenty two, we passed the Reproductive Freedom for All Ballots,

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:05.640
<v Speaker 4>which you know, enshrined reproductive freedoms into our state constitution.

0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 4>So we haven't been worried about this particular situation in

0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:11.719
<v Speaker 4>my state. But I've met with women in states with

0:06:11.839 --> 0:06:15.039
<v Speaker 4>very restrictive bands all over the country, and I can

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:18.400
<v Speaker 4>tell you that women of reproductive age and the people

0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.000
<v Speaker 4>who love them all around the United States are probably

0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 4>collectively signing some you know, a breath of relief right

0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:30.040
<v Speaker 4>now because of how incredibly scary it is to think

0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.200
<v Speaker 4>that you could be in this situation where you need

0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:36.320
<v Speaker 4>emergency medical care, you're facing the loss of an organ,

0:06:37.520 --> 0:06:40.840
<v Speaker 4>your fertility is at stake, and you know you're literally

0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:45.919
<v Speaker 4>looking at potentially dying and having physicians have to, you know,

0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:48.839
<v Speaker 4>violate their hippocratic growth and say I can't treat you

0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 4>because I'm afraid of going to jail for it. So

0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:56.680
<v Speaker 4>I think for women all across America, this is a victory.

0:06:56.839 --> 0:07:00.640
<v Speaker 4>If that is in fact an accurate meant what was

0:07:00.680 --> 0:07:03.080
<v Speaker 4>on the website. It does give me some pause that

0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:05.719
<v Speaker 4>now this is the second time in a few years

0:07:05.720 --> 0:07:09.359
<v Speaker 4>that we're seeing something accidentally posted or distributed, and it

0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:11.520
<v Speaker 4>makes me wonder what's going on at the United States

0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:16.440
<v Speaker 4>Supreme Court right now. But you know, we've seen this

0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:21.400
<v Speaker 4>exponential rise in both maternal mortality as well as infant

0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.320
<v Speaker 4>mortality ever since the Dab's decision came out, and hopefully,

0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:28.680
<v Speaker 4>if this is a real ruling from the court, it

0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.760
<v Speaker 4>will do something to curtail the number of deaths we've seen.

0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:35.280
<v Speaker 1>So are you encouraged then to see what is apparently

0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 1>forthcoming from the court. And I wonder if you think

0:07:37.800 --> 0:07:39.720
<v Speaker 1>they should just come out with it today following the

0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:43.280
<v Speaker 1>ruling on mifipristoe maintaining access to the abortion pill, or

0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:47.240
<v Speaker 1>you discourage that both, to Kaylee's point, earlier have been

0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:48.960
<v Speaker 1>essentially rulings on standing.

0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:53.160
<v Speaker 4>Yeah. I have a theory about that. Yeah. I think

0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:56.720
<v Speaker 4>that these are not cases that the High Court wanted

0:07:56.760 --> 0:07:58.800
<v Speaker 4>to hear. I think they were sort of forced upon

0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 4>them by incredibly conservative circuit courts of appeal that really

0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:07.720
<v Speaker 4>have forced the hand now of the United States Supreme Court.

0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 4>And I've seen decision after decision where I don't think

0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:14.280
<v Speaker 4>that the justices wanted to rule on this particular case

0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.760
<v Speaker 4>at this particular time. I don't think that the majority

0:08:17.800 --> 0:08:20.040
<v Speaker 4>of justices by that, I mean six of them on

0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:26.320
<v Speaker 4>the Supreme Court have an interest in restricting Second Amendment

0:08:26.760 --> 0:08:33.520
<v Speaker 4>related rights. They don't like in general the gun safety laws.

0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:36.880
<v Speaker 4>They don't like the use of mifipristom. But these are

0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:40.360
<v Speaker 4>poor vehicles that have come to them to allow them

0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:45.160
<v Speaker 4>to further restrict abortion rights or gun safety measures or

0:08:45.240 --> 0:08:48.520
<v Speaker 4>things of that nature. So what we're seeing is they

0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:53.160
<v Speaker 4>are finding other ways to dispose of these cases without

0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:55.559
<v Speaker 4>having a rule on the merits, and that allows them

0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:57.840
<v Speaker 4>the freedom in the future to say, well, we're not

0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:05.160
<v Speaker 4>contradicting a prime decision. We're not overturning any sort of precedent.

0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:07.480
<v Speaker 4>We got rid of that case on standing, and that's

0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:08.560
<v Speaker 4>what they're continuing to do.

0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:11.080
<v Speaker 2>But should the Court not have expected these kind of

0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:14.760
<v Speaker 2>challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled and Dabbs

0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.760
<v Speaker 2>to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. It

0:09:17.800 --> 0:09:20.760
<v Speaker 2>was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to

0:09:20.800 --> 0:09:24.400
<v Speaker 2>certain procedures or medications we're going to have to be

0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:27.800
<v Speaker 2>called into question just because of the uncertainty that ruling created.

0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.600
<v Speaker 4>Now, you would think so, and you would think that

0:09:30.600 --> 0:09:33.760
<v Speaker 4>that would be their thought as well. But I think

0:09:34.080 --> 0:09:37.680
<v Speaker 4>some of these cases are just so controversial and so

0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:41.720
<v Speaker 4>anathetical to public opinion. And you already have the Supreme

0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:44.040
<v Speaker 4>Court in a place where, you know, we've never had

0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:49.040
<v Speaker 4>such low confidence or respect for this court, and they've

0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:53.679
<v Speaker 4>been mired in ethical scandals, and every time they issue

0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:57.920
<v Speaker 4>a ruling that is deeply unpopular with the public, they

0:09:58.280 --> 0:10:01.920
<v Speaker 4>risk having their integrity impugned more and more. And so

0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:03.960
<v Speaker 4>I think that might be part of the calculus with

0:10:04.040 --> 0:10:07.200
<v Speaker 4>some of these rulings as well. And again, because these

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:10.800
<v Speaker 4>are cases that are being you know, essentially tossed on

0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:14.800
<v Speaker 4>standing or improvidently granted or something of that nature. It

0:10:14.840 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 4>does still leave room for future rulings where they can

0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:22.480
<v Speaker 4>still continue to chip away at reproductive rights or the

0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:25.720
<v Speaker 4>rights of people to have, you know, gun safety laws

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:29.080
<v Speaker 4>or other things that are frankly very popular in America.

0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:33.000
<v Speaker 1>Is breaking new when he was from Bloomberg