WEBVTT - Planned Parenthood Win & Ghislaine Maxwell Appeal 0:00:02.759 --> 0:00:07.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brossel from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:08.560 --> 0:00:12.200 Elane Maxwell is serving a twenty year sentence for her 0:00:12.320 --> 0:00:15.920 role in a scheme to sexually exploit and abuse minor 0:00:16.000 --> 0:00:20.240 girls with Jeffrey Epstein. This week, Maxwell asked the Supreme 0:00:20.360 --> 0:00:23.400 Court to take up her appeal of her federal sex 0:00:23.480 --> 0:00:27.440 trafficking conviction. Her appeal is based on a non prosecution 0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:32.239 agreement that Epstein struck with federal prosecutors in Miami in 0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:36.239 two thousand and seven, and Maxwell argues it should have 0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:41.280 barred her prosecution in New York fourteen years later. Joining 0:00:41.280 --> 0:00:45.000 me is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter 0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:49.440 in English. Bob start by telling us about this broad 0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:55.600 non prosecution agreement that Epstein reached with federal prosecutors in 0:00:55.640 --> 0:00:56.880 two thousand and seven. 0:00:58.040 --> 0:01:01.400 The document that's at the heart of the Galaine Maxwell 0:01:01.560 --> 0:01:05.560 appeal to the Supreme Court is a non prosecution agreement 0:01:05.640 --> 0:01:09.600 that was signed in two thousand and seven with the 0:01:09.720 --> 0:01:15.080 US Attorney in Southern Florida involving Jeffrey Epstein, and in 0:01:15.080 --> 0:01:20.039 that case he was facing both federal and potential state charges. 0:01:20.160 --> 0:01:23.839 The deal that he ultimately Struck allowed him to plead 0:01:23.920 --> 0:01:28.240 guilty to two Florida state charges, and in exchange for that, 0:01:28.280 --> 0:01:31.520 the Department of Justice agreed not to bring any federal 0:01:31.640 --> 0:01:35.520 charges against him. But the critical language in the agreement 0:01:35.840 --> 0:01:39.360 said that the United States also agrees that it will 0:01:39.400 --> 0:01:44.480 not institute any criminal charges against any potential co conspirators 0:01:44.600 --> 0:01:48.720 of Epstein. And that is the language that Maxwell's lawyers 0:01:48.840 --> 0:01:53.200 have lacked onto to argue that her subsequent sex trafsking 0:01:53.320 --> 0:01:57.280 charges in New York were actually barred by that non 0:01:57.320 --> 0:01:58.440 prosecution agreement. 0:01:58.800 --> 0:02:02.120 How unusual is it to have a non prosecution agreement 0:02:02.720 --> 0:02:07.960 made by one US attorney bind other US attorneys in 0:02:08.080 --> 0:02:09.200 different districts. 0:02:09.800 --> 0:02:14.360 That would be highly unusual. As a federal prosecutor, I 0:02:14.520 --> 0:02:18.000 had been involved in hundreds of plea agreements, and the 0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:22.000 standard language in all these plea agreements says that that 0:02:22.160 --> 0:02:26.240 agreement is limited to the district that is prosecuting you 0:02:26.360 --> 0:02:28.720 or potentially prosecuting you in that case, and that it 0:02:28.960 --> 0:02:33.000 expressly does not bind any other district in the country. 0:02:33.280 --> 0:02:36.480 So to have language as broad as that which says 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:40.119 that the US attorney in the southern districts of Florida 0:02:40.520 --> 0:02:44.359 can bind every other judicial district in the United States 0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:48.280 is something that would be highly unusual. But nonetheless, the 0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:51.320 language that was in that agreement is on its face, 0:02:51.840 --> 0:02:54.440 very broad, and that is at the heart of the 0:02:54.480 --> 0:02:56.560 Maxwell appeal before the Supreme Court. 0:02:57.360 --> 0:03:00.160 What about the fact that in Jeffrey Epstein's n on 0:03:00.240 --> 0:03:05.600 prosecution agreement US attorney is also promising not to prosecute 0:03:05.639 --> 0:03:07.560 anyone else? Does that happen? 0:03:08.560 --> 0:03:12.040 Typically, what a plea ariement will say is that in 0:03:12.120 --> 0:03:16.800 exchange for a plead or particular crime, the US Attorney's 0:03:16.840 --> 0:03:21.880 office will not prosecute that individual for any other crimes 0:03:22.040 --> 0:03:26.760 related to that criminal activity. It doesn't typically say anything 0:03:26.840 --> 0:03:31.400 about not bringing charges against any other individual. So in 0:03:31.440 --> 0:03:35.160 this case, that language is incredibly broad because it talks 0:03:35.200 --> 0:03:39.920 about not bringing any other federal charges against any unspecified 0:03:40.000 --> 0:03:43.840 co conspirators. It doesn't even list who those individuals may be, 0:03:44.280 --> 0:03:47.840 So it makes that language incredibly broad. And that's why 0:03:48.040 --> 0:03:51.400 when that case was first appeal to the Second Circuit 0:03:51.440 --> 0:03:55.520 Court of appealed, the Second Circuit did not agree that 0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:59.120 that plea agreement barred the prosecution in New York that 0:03:59.240 --> 0:04:01.440 was ultimately against Gallaine Maxwell. 0:04:01.960 --> 0:04:07.240 That Epstein non prosecution agreement has been widely criticized. In fact, 0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:10.600 the Justice Department said in twenty twenty that then US 0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:15.360 Attorney for the South District of Florida, alex Acosta, used 0:04:15.440 --> 0:04:19.279 poor judgment in handling the case, and the Second Circuit 0:04:19.360 --> 0:04:22.960 reviewed the NPA before upholding her conviction. 0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:26.840 The central question raised by Maxwell's appeals to the Supreme 0:04:26.920 --> 0:04:29.440 Court is whether a promise on behalf of the United 0:04:29.480 --> 0:04:33.000 States that is made by one US attorney in one 0:04:33.040 --> 0:04:37.680 district combined federal prosecutors in other districts. But it really 0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:41.200 is more complex than even that, because here it involved 0:04:41.640 --> 0:04:45.440 not a situation where the individual who pled guilty in 0:04:45.480 --> 0:04:49.120 Florida is being prosecuted by another US attorney's office and 0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:52.679 another part of the country. We're talking about another person 0:04:52.960 --> 0:04:55.919 who was not even a party to that plea agreement 0:04:55.960 --> 0:04:59.880 in Florida, arguing that the plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein 0:05:00.279 --> 0:05:04.520 somehow barres a prosecution of Glaine Maxwell in New York 0:05:04.760 --> 0:05:08.120 many years later, So it would be an incredibly broad 0:05:08.200 --> 0:05:12.000 reading of that language. And in fact, the Second Circuit 0:05:12.000 --> 0:05:15.479 Court of Appeals looked at the plea agreement and said 0:05:15.520 --> 0:05:19.920 that on its face, while it's possible that the United 0:05:19.920 --> 0:05:23.760 States could conceivably refer to the entire federal government. When 0:05:23.800 --> 0:05:26.800 they look at the context and the entirety of that 0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.440 non prosecution agreement, it makes clear that when they refer 0:05:30.640 --> 0:05:34.440 to the government or to the United States, they're only 0:05:34.520 --> 0:05:37.440 referring to the US Attorney's office in the Southern District 0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:41.880 of Florida. And therefore that language, as Glaine Maxwell' attorneys 0:05:41.880 --> 0:05:45.080 are arguing, is really being taken out of context because 0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.960 it really involved only the Southern District of Florida. But 0:05:49.040 --> 0:05:51.599 once again, there's really two questions that are being raised here. 0:05:51.880 --> 0:05:54.360 One is whether it could apply to other US Attorney's 0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:58.600 offices as against the individual who's pleading guilty in Florida. 0:05:58.680 --> 0:06:02.479 But also here talking about another individual, not even a 0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:05.000 party to the Florida agreement, who's trying to use it 0:06:05.040 --> 0:06:07.239 as a bart prostitution in another district. 0:06:07.839 --> 0:06:11.360 The Justice Department file paper is asking the Supreme Court 0:06:11.880 --> 0:06:13.839 not to take Maxwell's case. 0:06:14.520 --> 0:06:18.719 Yeah, the Justice Department is opposing Maxwell's petition and essentially 0:06:18.960 --> 0:06:23.240 arguing that it's clear in the context of that non 0:06:23.279 --> 0:06:26.800 prosecution agreement that it was only referring to the Southern 0:06:26.800 --> 0:06:30.200 District of Florida and was not attempting to bind other 0:06:30.320 --> 0:06:32.400 judicial districts around the country. 0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:36.000 Gleam Maxwell's attorneys are saying that there's a split in 0:06:36.040 --> 0:06:39.200 the circuits, and that is something that the Supreme Court 0:06:39.600 --> 0:06:43.919 often considers when taking a case. But they received thousands 0:06:43.960 --> 0:06:48.280 of petitions every year, and they grant review in fewer 0:06:48.320 --> 0:06:51.560 than one hundred, so the odds of the Supreme Court 0:06:51.600 --> 0:06:54.800 granting review here are pretty slim. 0:06:55.440 --> 0:06:58.960 So that's exactly right. It's very rare for the Supreme 0:06:59.000 --> 0:07:02.800 Court to take these appeals. They do receive thousands of petitions, 0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:07.279 it takes four justices to grant review, and it seems, 0:07:07.680 --> 0:07:11.200 in my opinion, unlikely they're going to take this because 0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:14.640 while there may be a split in the circuits around 0:07:14.680 --> 0:07:17.080 the country, this is not an issue that comes up 0:07:17.080 --> 0:07:20.000 on a regular basis, and I think in this case, 0:07:20.280 --> 0:07:23.360 the Supreme Court is likely just to leave the Second 0:07:23.400 --> 0:07:25.880 Circuit decision in place and not take it up. 0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:29.920 This case is unusual in a lot of different ways, 0:07:30.760 --> 0:07:34.160 one being that her attorney not only appeal to the 0:07:34.200 --> 0:07:39.000 Supreme Court but also appeal to President Trump, saying, quote, 0:07:39.120 --> 0:07:42.320 President Trump built his legacy in part on the power 0:07:42.320 --> 0:07:45.080 of a deal, and surely he would agree that when 0:07:45.120 --> 0:07:48.760 the United States gives its word, it must stand by it. 0:07:49.120 --> 0:07:51.679 Yeah, so what we're seeing here really is the court 0:07:51.760 --> 0:07:55.080 filing in the form of this petition to the United 0:07:55.120 --> 0:07:59.000 States Supreme Court that, on his face, is fairly typical. 0:07:59.080 --> 0:08:01.920 They're raising a le issue. They're arguing that there is 0:08:01.960 --> 0:08:04.840 a split in the federal circuits, which is something that 0:08:04.880 --> 0:08:07.480 the Supreme Court considers when it decides whether or not 0:08:07.480 --> 0:08:10.680 to take a case, and they're trying to argue that 0:08:10.800 --> 0:08:14.160 the question of whether one US attorney's office can in 0:08:14.200 --> 0:08:17.120 fact bind the entire United States is something that's important 0:08:17.200 --> 0:08:19.480 enough that the Supreme Court ought to take it up. 0:08:19.760 --> 0:08:23.240 On the other hand, you cannot ignore the fact that 0:08:23.320 --> 0:08:27.040 there is a political backdrop to this appeal, in that 0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:30.880 there's been tremendous backlash against the Department of Justice and 0:08:30.960 --> 0:08:34.840 some of President Trump's supporters regarding the decision, not really 0:08:35.000 --> 0:08:39.280 additional information related to the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution, and all 0:08:39.360 --> 0:08:42.760 of that is getting swept up in this Supreme Court appeal, 0:08:42.960 --> 0:08:46.320 which is why we're seeing her lawyer appeal not only 0:08:46.520 --> 0:08:50.760 to the Supreme Court, but expressly appealing to President Trump. 0:08:51.000 --> 0:08:53.880 In the reply brief that was just recently filed with 0:08:53.960 --> 0:08:58.240 the Supreme Court. Her lawyer specifically referenced not only the 0:08:58.360 --> 0:09:01.120 United States Supreme Court where the brief was filed, but 0:09:01.280 --> 0:09:05.040 also mans President Trump and said, we are appealing not 0:09:05.120 --> 0:09:08.359 only to the Supreme Court, but to the President himself 0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:12.800 to recognize how profoundly unjust it is to scapegoat Delanne 0:09:12.880 --> 0:09:17.120 Maxwell for Epstein's crime, especially when the government promised he 0:09:17.160 --> 0:09:20.480 would not be prosecuted. So this is a quite direct 0:09:20.480 --> 0:09:24.360 appeal not only to the court but also to President 0:09:24.400 --> 0:09:27.199 Trump in the hope that maybe he will pardon her 0:09:27.320 --> 0:09:31.200 or reduce her sentence, because they know that it's unlike 0:09:31.320 --> 0:09:33.400 the Supreme Court is going to take this appeal. 0:09:34.320 --> 0:09:37.520 The court filing, of course, doesn't refer to the let's 0:09:37.559 --> 0:09:41.840 say unusual out of court developments, like her meeting last 0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:46.320 week with the Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for two days. 0:09:46.760 --> 0:09:50.920 She was also subpoena to testify by the House Oversight Committee, 0:09:50.960 --> 0:09:54.480 and her attorney put conditions on her testimony. In addition 0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:58.760 to immunity, he wanted to be provided with the questions 0:09:58.840 --> 0:10:02.480 the lawmakers inten to ask her, and he asked that 0:10:02.559 --> 0:10:07.920 the deposition be rescheduled until after her appeal is resolved 0:10:07.960 --> 0:10:10.880 before the Supreme Court. The court won't even be in 0:10:10.920 --> 0:10:14.679 session until October. Are his requests within the scope of 0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:19.320 what a defense attorney would normally request if his client 0:10:19.440 --> 0:10:22.439 who was waiting on an appeal was asked to testify 0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:23.439 before Congress. 0:10:23.880 --> 0:10:28.640 Yeah, these are not really unusual requests given her circumstance. 0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:32.200 But there also requests that the House Oversight Committee has 0:10:32.240 --> 0:10:35.880 already determined they would not grant. What the defense lawyer 0:10:35.920 --> 0:10:38.320 here is really trying to do is to protect his 0:10:38.520 --> 0:10:43.080 client who is actively seeking post conviction relief, both in 0:10:43.120 --> 0:10:46.200 the pending petition before the United States Supreme Court and 0:10:46.400 --> 0:10:49.320 in a habeas petition they intend to file, and he 0:10:49.440 --> 0:10:53.680 is arguing that her testimony before the committee could compromise 0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:57.800 her constitutional rights to prejudice her legal claims and could 0:10:57.800 --> 0:11:01.920 potentially take a future jury if the Supreme Court were 0:11:01.920 --> 0:11:04.760 to take the case and overturn the lower course decision 0:11:04.760 --> 0:11:08.200 and remand the case for another trial. So those requests 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:11.840 are really not unusual, but it was also highly unlikely 0:11:11.880 --> 0:11:14.480 that they were going to be granted by the committee. 0:11:14.720 --> 0:11:19.480 The most significant in condition that Maxwell's attorneys put on 0:11:19.559 --> 0:11:22.719 her agreement to testify before Congress, was this grant a 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:27.680 formal immunity that witness immunity comes in several forms, or 0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:30.760 something called transactional immunity, which is a blanket or a 0:11:30.840 --> 0:11:34.720 total immunity which completely protects a witness from future prosecution 0:11:35.120 --> 0:11:38.440 for crimes related to their testimony. Then there's something called 0:11:38.559 --> 0:11:41.880 use or derivative use community, which means that you can't 0:11:41.960 --> 0:11:45.760 use the witness's testimony or any evidence derived from that 0:11:45.880 --> 0:11:51.040 testimony against that witness, but does allow prosecutors to prosecute 0:11:51.120 --> 0:11:56.199 for evidence that is independently derived separate from the witness's testimony. 0:11:56.480 --> 0:11:59.559 But what's happening here was that her lawyers were asking 0:11:59.640 --> 0:12:04.040 Congress to grant this broad immunity in exchange for her testimony, 0:12:04.280 --> 0:12:07.800 and that's something that Congress was likely unwilling to do, 0:12:07.920 --> 0:12:12.120 and in fact, the Committee has already rejected that request, Bob. 0:12:12.200 --> 0:12:14.800 Another thing that's been going on is that the Justice 0:12:14.840 --> 0:12:20.160 Department has asked judges in Florida and Manhattan to unseal 0:12:20.280 --> 0:12:25.119 grand jury transcripts in both the Jeffrey Epstein and Galaine 0:12:25.120 --> 0:12:29.160 Maxwell cases. And we've talked before about how you're not 0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.800 going to learn much in those grand jury transcripts, And 0:12:32.840 --> 0:12:37.080 now we found out that the grand jury transcripts that 0:12:37.440 --> 0:12:41.880 the Justice Department is seeking only include testimony from two witnesses, 0:12:42.000 --> 0:12:46.840 both of them law enforcement officers. Law enforcement officers often testify, 0:12:46.960 --> 0:12:49.440 but what kind of information are you going to get 0:12:49.480 --> 0:12:50.280 from them? 0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:54.000 So there are essentially two ways of prosecutors use grand curies. 0:12:54.040 --> 0:12:57.800 One is as an investigative tool. The other is as 0:12:57.840 --> 0:13:01.960 a means for obtaining and a diet. Most of the time, 0:13:02.280 --> 0:13:06.480 prosecutors use the grand jury for that second purpose, simply 0:13:06.600 --> 0:13:10.880 to obtain an indictment, because under the constitution, prosecutors do 0:13:10.920 --> 0:13:14.400 not have the ability to bring charges directly against individuals. 0:13:14.679 --> 0:13:17.720 Only a federal grand jury can do that in federal 0:13:17.760 --> 0:13:21.200 criminal cases. So what prosecutors have to do when they're 0:13:21.200 --> 0:13:24.000 ready to present their case and ready to bring charges 0:13:24.040 --> 0:13:28.320 against an individual is bring a witness into the grand jury, 0:13:28.600 --> 0:13:32.239 generally a law enforcement officer, an FBI agent, a dasent, 0:13:32.400 --> 0:13:35.160 or some other representative of a federal agency, and that 0:13:35.200 --> 0:13:39.880 witness can effectively summarize the entire case and the evidence. 0:13:40.240 --> 0:13:43.320 And by doing that, they can summarize witness testimony, they 0:13:43.320 --> 0:13:46.560 can talk about documents they reviewed. But that is really 0:13:46.760 --> 0:13:50.040 a high level summary of the evidence, and it is 0:13:50.280 --> 0:13:53.720 just enough for prosecutors to obtain that indictment. It is 0:13:53.760 --> 0:13:56.400 by no means a complete recitation of all of the 0:13:56.440 --> 0:13:59.640 evidence the prosecutors have, and it is certainly not a 0:13:59.640 --> 0:14:03.200 complete recitation of all of the witness interviews that were 0:14:03.200 --> 0:14:06.920 done in connection with the investigation. So it really is 0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:10.280 a very targeted presentation in front of the grand jury. 0:14:10.600 --> 0:14:15.040 Sometimes witnesses are used in order to actually conduct an investigation, 0:14:15.400 --> 0:14:18.240 but it's unusual, and it's usually done in order to 0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:21.800 lock in witness testimony. If a prosecutor believes that there 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:24.720 is an uncooperative witness that they don't want to be 0:14:24.800 --> 0:14:27.640 surprised what they're going to say at a trial, if 0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:29.960 they might testify the trial, they bring them into the 0:14:30.000 --> 0:14:33.400 grand jury. They let them testify, even if prosecutors believe 0:14:33.560 --> 0:14:37.000 that that testimony may be false, but it locks them in. 0:14:37.400 --> 0:14:39.520 So whatever their story is in front of the grand jury, 0:14:39.560 --> 0:14:42.000 they can't change it down the road at a trial. 0:14:42.600 --> 0:14:46.680 So a Florida judge has already rejected request for the 0:14:46.720 --> 0:14:52.040 grand jury transcripts of Epstein's proceedings down there, How likely 0:14:52.280 --> 0:14:55.320 is it that the New York judges will do the same. 0:14:56.000 --> 0:14:59.400 Well. For a judge to unseal grand jury testimony is 0:14:59.560 --> 0:15:02.400 really an usual Now it is less largely to the 0:15:02.480 --> 0:15:05.400 discretion of the judge, but a judge would have to 0:15:05.440 --> 0:15:09.600 find extraordinary circumstances, and the fact that there is a 0:15:09.640 --> 0:15:13.480 strong public desire to get more information about this case 0:15:14.080 --> 0:15:17.400 really is probably not enough for a judge to agree 0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:20.600 to release that grand jury testimony. And there's good reason 0:15:20.680 --> 0:15:23.680 for that, because lots of information and lots of testimony 0:15:23.880 --> 0:15:27.120 and lots of evidence that's presented in front of a 0:15:27.160 --> 0:15:31.800 grand jury may mention other individuals who ultimately are not charged. 0:15:32.240 --> 0:15:35.680 It may mention victims and other sensitive information. And the 0:15:35.720 --> 0:15:39.200 whole reason that testimony in front of a grand jury 0:15:39.440 --> 0:15:42.400 is protected by a federal rule known as dix E 0:15:43.280 --> 0:15:46.800 is because there is a decision that's made. An information 0:15:46.960 --> 0:15:50.000 that does not ultimately lead to an indictment so an 0:15:50.000 --> 0:15:54.080 individual has an opportunity to respond to those charges is 0:15:54.120 --> 0:15:56.840 not information that ought to be revealed to the public, 0:15:57.120 --> 0:16:00.880 because if it is revealed, those people whose names may 0:16:00.880 --> 0:16:03.240 be mentioned, who have come up in the course of 0:16:03.280 --> 0:16:07.120 an investigation really have no opportunity to clear their name 0:16:07.280 --> 0:16:09.440 since they'll never be a trial they'll never be a 0:16:09.440 --> 0:16:13.680 core proceeding, and it really is simply a guilt by 0:16:13.720 --> 0:16:17.600 association in some cases, which is what the grand jury 0:16:17.880 --> 0:16:20.080 is designed expressly to prevent. 0:16:20.360 --> 0:16:25.080 A lot of issues around these Epstein files. Thanks so much, Bob. 0:16:25.920 --> 0:16:29.880 That's former federal prosecutor Robert Mints of Macarter and English. 0:16:30.560 --> 0:16:33.840 In a set back to abortion opponents, a federal judge 0:16:33.880 --> 0:16:38.960 this week ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide must continue 0:16:39.040 --> 0:16:43.480 to be reimbursed for Medicaid funding. A provision in President 0:16:43.480 --> 0:16:48.400 Trump's signature tax legislation was written to prohibit Planned Parenthood 0:16:48.440 --> 0:16:52.280 from receiving any Medicaid funds even when abortions are not 0:16:52.360 --> 0:16:57.200 being provided. Massachusetts judge in Derah Talwani found that the 0:16:57.240 --> 0:17:01.920 provision likely violates the Constitution in three different ways. My 0:17:02.000 --> 0:17:05.760 guest is reproductive rights expert Mary Ziegler, a professor at 0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:09.440 UC Davis Law School. Mary, how would the medicaid cuts 0:17:09.680 --> 0:17:13.119 in Chump's tax bill affect Planned Parenthood? 0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:13.800 So? 0:17:13.960 --> 0:17:16.760 I think there are knowns and unknowns. We are pretty 0:17:16.800 --> 0:17:19.639 sure that it would take away about a third of 0:17:19.680 --> 0:17:23.199 Planned Parenthood's funding, and what that would translate into in 0:17:23.280 --> 0:17:26.000 terms of closures is a little bit more complicated and 0:17:26.040 --> 0:17:28.880 may not be evenly distributed across the universe of planed 0:17:28.880 --> 0:17:31.679 paranoid affiliates. It'll depend on a variety of things, like 0:17:32.160 --> 0:17:35.680 whether fundraising can cover some of those losses, whether Planned 0:17:35.720 --> 0:17:37.760 Parenthood can try to run out the cloth. Because at 0:17:37.840 --> 0:17:40.800 least at the moment, the Big Beautiful build that provision 0:17:40.800 --> 0:17:42.760 of it is set to expire in a year, just 0:17:42.840 --> 0:17:45.400 in time for the midterms. It could obviously be extended, 0:17:45.440 --> 0:17:47.679 but at the moment it hasn't been, so we do 0:17:47.760 --> 0:17:50.280 know it's going to have some pretty devastating effects on 0:17:50.320 --> 0:17:53.480 plan Parenthood. We've already seen some affiliates close, but exactly 0:17:53.840 --> 0:17:56.040 what beyond that, I think we still have to see. 0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:59.600 Planned Parenthood went to court and argued that the laws 0:17:59.680 --> 0:18:05.320 paw on medicaid reimbursements amount to a targeted exclusion that 0:18:05.480 --> 0:18:09.080 violates the Constitution. Tell us about their arguments. 0:18:09.320 --> 0:18:12.679 They argued first that the Big Beautiful Bill was actually 0:18:12.720 --> 0:18:16.800 punishing Planned Parenthood for its expression and its speech. So 0:18:16.920 --> 0:18:19.919 the argument was that the bill was penalizing affiliates not 0:18:20.000 --> 0:18:24.000 for performing abortions, but for associating with Planned Parenthood, an 0:18:24.080 --> 0:18:27.240 organization that advocates for reproductive rights, and the logic was 0:18:27.359 --> 0:18:29.879 Planned Parenthood can't get the money back, and affiliate couldn't 0:18:29.920 --> 0:18:32.639 get the money back by simply not providing abortions itself. 0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:35.439 It would have to disaffiliate from Planned Parenthood. There was 0:18:35.680 --> 0:18:38.520 a related argument under the equal protection cause, and then 0:18:38.560 --> 0:18:40.600 the final argument that this amounted to what's called a 0:18:40.640 --> 0:18:45.159 bill of attainder, which is when the legislature punishes someone 0:18:45.200 --> 0:18:48.200 for past conduct without a trial. So Planned Parenthood was 0:18:48.280 --> 0:18:50.760 arguing that this bill amounted to a punishment of Planned 0:18:50.800 --> 0:18:54.719 Parenthood for having done abortions in the past or advocated 0:18:54.720 --> 0:18:57.360 for abortions in the past. So those were the arguments 0:18:57.359 --> 0:18:58.640 that are really at the center. 0:18:58.440 --> 0:18:58.920 Of the case. 0:18:59.320 --> 0:19:01.919 And why did the judge fine for Planned Parenthood. 0:19:02.600 --> 0:19:06.080 Yeah, the judge agreed with Planned Parenthood on all three arguments, 0:19:06.320 --> 0:19:09.800 essentially in joining the big beautiful builds permanently on all 0:19:09.840 --> 0:19:12.240 three grounds. So this was, you know, at the moment, 0:19:12.240 --> 0:19:14.159 as big of a win as Planned Parenthood could have 0:19:14.160 --> 0:19:14.560 asked for. 0:19:15.280 --> 0:19:19.640 Was Planned Parenthood saying if the Medicaid reimbursements were stopped, 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:21.040 they'd go out of business. 0:19:21.600 --> 0:19:25.280 There's varying estimates. I mean, I've heard that a significant 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:29.240 number of affiliates would close. It's not really that Planned 0:19:29.280 --> 0:19:32.480 Parenthood altogether would go out of business, because, as the 0:19:32.520 --> 0:19:35.320 case makes clear, Planned Parenthood is not just a health 0:19:35.359 --> 0:19:38.560 care provider, it's also an advocacy grow and there's no 0:19:38.600 --> 0:19:41.120 reason to think that every single affiliate will go out 0:19:41.119 --> 0:19:43.200 of business as a result of the big, beautiful build. 0:19:43.240 --> 0:19:45.800 But Planned Parenthood does receive a significant portion of its 0:19:45.840 --> 0:19:48.560 funding from Medicaid, so we would expect to see a 0:19:48.600 --> 0:19:50.800 lot of clinic shutter. But how many, I think, we 0:19:50.880 --> 0:19:53.560 won't know unless you're until really the bill goes into 0:19:53.560 --> 0:19:55.000 affect it for long enough. 0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:59.879 The judges July twenty first Order preliminary Order has already 0:20:00.000 --> 0:20:02.480 appealed to the First Circuit. Do you think the First 0:20:02.480 --> 0:20:05.360 Circuit is likely to affirm this ruling? 0:20:05.960 --> 0:20:08.600 It's hard to say, right, I mean, the First Circuit 0:20:08.680 --> 0:20:11.800 is not known to be a particularly conservative circuit. But 0:20:12.600 --> 0:20:15.680 some of these arguments are more of a stretch than 0:20:15.720 --> 0:20:20.240 you might expect. So that unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which is 0:20:20.359 --> 0:20:22.520 part of what the judge relied on, right, is essentially 0:20:22.600 --> 0:20:25.119 not that Planned Parenthood has a right to Medicaid funding, 0:20:25.160 --> 0:20:28.639 but rather that if Planned Parenthood is eligible for Medicaid funding. 0:20:28.640 --> 0:20:31.080 You can't have that taken away because it exercised this 0:20:31.200 --> 0:20:35.200 constitutional right to associate. The problem there is that unconstitutional 0:20:35.200 --> 0:20:38.159 conditions doctrine is just a mess. Like most colors agree, 0:20:38.160 --> 0:20:41.080 it's convoluted. It doesn't make a lot of sense, which 0:20:41.160 --> 0:20:43.440 leaves a lot of room for judges to disagree about 0:20:43.480 --> 0:20:45.880 how to apply it. And the fight here is really 0:20:45.880 --> 0:20:50.640 about whether the bill was penalizing Planned Parenthood for providing 0:20:50.680 --> 0:20:54.720 abortions or whether it was penalizing Planned Parenthood affiliates for 0:20:54.800 --> 0:20:58.280 associating with an organization that advocated for abortions. And it's 0:20:58.280 --> 0:21:00.280 hard to predict which way the first circuit it is 0:21:00.320 --> 0:21:02.160 going to come down on that. Some of the tainder 0:21:02.240 --> 0:21:04.240 cases are kind of the same, so there's not a 0:21:04.240 --> 0:21:06.680 lot of law there. It's a little unpredictable. 0:21:07.080 --> 0:21:10.000 Just to be clear, Medicaid funds are not used for 0:21:10.119 --> 0:21:12.320 abortions at Planned Parenthood. 0:21:12.000 --> 0:21:15.000 So since the nineteen seventy six High Amendment, Planned Parenthood 0:21:15.000 --> 0:21:18.240 has been unable to use Medicaid dollars for abortions. This 0:21:18.359 --> 0:21:23.320 is just punalizing organizations that provide abortions by depriving them 0:21:23.320 --> 0:21:24.840 of Medicaid dollars. For other service. 0:21:25.119 --> 0:21:31.400 So some states have already cut Planned Parenthood's Medicaid funding, 0:21:31.840 --> 0:21:37.320 including Texas and Louisiana. And did the Supreme Court open 0:21:37.359 --> 0:21:39.320 the gate for more states to do that? 0:21:40.680 --> 0:21:41.240 Right? Exactly? 0:21:41.320 --> 0:21:45.000 Yeah, So in a case last June called Medina, the 0:21:45.040 --> 0:21:50.200 Supreme Court made it easier for conservative states to kick 0:21:50.320 --> 0:21:52.560 Planned Parenthood out of their own Medicaid program. So, just 0:21:52.600 --> 0:21:56.399 to be clear, Medicaid is a joint state federal program, 0:21:56.760 --> 0:22:01.680 so states have their own Medicaid reimbursement process, as does 0:22:01.720 --> 0:22:05.600 the federal government. So what states had been looking to 0:22:05.600 --> 0:22:09.600 do was to prevent Planned Parenthood from getting Medicaid reimbursement 0:22:09.680 --> 0:22:13.440 for non abortion services. It had been unclear until June 0:22:13.440 --> 0:22:16.399 about whether that was permissible, and the Supreme Court just 0:22:16.440 --> 0:22:19.960 clarified that it is. So one of the upshots of 0:22:20.000 --> 0:22:22.199 that is that, really, regardless of what happens with the 0:22:22.200 --> 0:22:25.920 big beautiful Bill, either in court or in Congress, right, 0:22:25.960 --> 0:22:28.280 because this thing is set to expire and we don't 0:22:28.280 --> 0:22:31.920 know if Republicans are going to renew it or let 0:22:31.960 --> 0:22:34.920 it expire because it would hurt them in the midterms. 0:22:35.440 --> 0:22:37.760 Regardless of what happens with that, we do expect to 0:22:37.800 --> 0:22:40.920 see more conservative states taking aim at planned parenthood when 0:22:40.920 --> 0:22:42.520 it comes to state a kate dollars. 0:22:42.920 --> 0:22:47.800 So let's turn out to this wrongful death lawsuit. A 0:22:47.880 --> 0:22:51.680 Texas man whose girlfriend used abortion pills to end her 0:22:51.720 --> 0:22:57.200 pregnancies is suing a California doctor who allegedly mailed her 0:22:57.240 --> 0:22:59.800 the medication. Tell us about this lawsuit. 0:23:00.080 --> 0:23:03.919 So this is another interesting lawsuit. It's being brought by 0:23:04.000 --> 0:23:08.639 Jonathan Mitchell, who is a famous anti abortion attorney who's 0:23:08.760 --> 0:23:12.359 probably best known as being the architect of Sbaight, the 0:23:12.480 --> 0:23:13.760 Texas Bounty Bill. 0:23:14.280 --> 0:23:16.240 But it was filed in federal. 0:23:15.920 --> 0:23:19.639 Court, which is interesting, and it argues that a California 0:23:19.680 --> 0:23:23.240 doctor mailed pills not only to a woman, but a 0:23:23.240 --> 0:23:26.439 woman and her kind of estranged ex husband who is 0:23:26.480 --> 0:23:30.359 pressuring her to have an abortion allegedly, and that happens 0:23:30.480 --> 0:23:35.000 and constituted a wrongful death. It's interesting for a number 0:23:35.000 --> 0:23:37.760 of reasons, because why was it a wrongful death if 0:23:37.920 --> 0:23:40.800 in fact it's not a crime in Texas for a 0:23:40.840 --> 0:23:43.720 woman to and her own pregnancy. The answer that the 0:23:43.800 --> 0:23:48.120 lawsuit offers is complicated, but partly that federal law makes 0:23:48.160 --> 0:23:52.760 it a crime allegedly to male abortion pills at all. Right, 0:23:52.840 --> 0:23:55.680