1
00:00:00,600 --> 00:00:05,360
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June grassof from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,280 --> 00:00:13,600
Speaker 1: Broatesters from opposite sides of the abortion issue demonstrated outside

3
00:00:13,600 --> 00:00:17,200
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court as the Justices heard arguments in its

4
00:00:17,239 --> 00:00:20,639
Speaker 1: first abortion case in four years, a challenge to a

5
00:00:20,680 --> 00:00:25,120
Speaker 1: Louisiana law requiring clinic doctors to have admitting privileges at

6
00:00:25,120 --> 00:00:28,400
Speaker 1: a nearby hospital. My guest is Steve Sanders, a professor

7
00:00:28,440 --> 00:00:33,880
Speaker 1: at Indiana University's Moral School of Law. In the court

8
00:00:34,000 --> 00:00:38,640
Speaker 1: struck down a very similar Texas law. So shouldn't that

9
00:00:38,720 --> 00:00:42,240
Speaker 1: be precedent here? Well, that's what many people think. Many

10
00:00:42,280 --> 00:00:45,600
Speaker 1: people were very surprised when the Court agreed to hear

11
00:00:45,640 --> 00:00:48,400
Speaker 1: this case. In twenty six and a case is known

12
00:00:48,440 --> 00:00:50,879
Speaker 1: as the Whole Women's Health Case after the name of

13
00:00:50,880 --> 00:00:54,760
Speaker 1: the abortion clinics in Texas. The Supreme Court struck down

14
00:00:55,160 --> 00:00:59,720
Speaker 1: a couple of different Texas laws, which everybody knew had

15
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:04,080
Speaker 1: been passed in an effort to try to close abortion clinics.

16
00:01:04,080 --> 00:01:07,560
Speaker 1: To make it more difficult for abortion clinics to operate,

17
00:01:08,160 --> 00:01:13,319
Speaker 1: those laws required very high standards of equipment and facilities

18
00:01:13,360 --> 00:01:15,760
Speaker 1: at abortion clinics. Basically, they had to be sort of

19
00:01:15,800 --> 00:01:19,360
Speaker 1: full blown surgical centers, and they also required the doctors

20
00:01:19,360 --> 00:01:24,240
Speaker 1: that abortion clinics had admitting privileges at hospitals. The Supreme Court,

21
00:01:24,440 --> 00:01:27,440
Speaker 1: by a five to three decision in that case, struck

22
00:01:27,480 --> 00:01:32,280
Speaker 1: those down, basically saying those imposed a substantial obstacle to

23
00:01:32,360 --> 00:01:37,160
Speaker 1: a woman's ability to get an abortion without providing any benefit.

24
00:01:37,440 --> 00:01:40,560
Speaker 1: Abortion is known to be actually one of the safest

25
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:44,319
Speaker 1: medical procedures, safer than actual childbirth in terms of its

26
00:01:44,680 --> 00:01:48,360
Speaker 1: number of complications and its danger, and so the need

27
00:01:48,440 --> 00:01:52,320
Speaker 1: for these elaborate standards and for admitting privileges simply wasn't necessary.

28
00:01:52,600 --> 00:01:55,960
Speaker 1: But Louisiana had passed a similar law two years earlier

29
00:01:56,000 --> 00:02:01,040
Speaker 1: in fourteen, and after the Louisiana law was challenged, a

30
00:02:01,160 --> 00:02:05,600
Speaker 1: federal district court struck down Louisiana law, basically saying, this

31
00:02:05,680 --> 00:02:08,760
Speaker 1: is essentially what the Supreme Court decided and whole women's health.

32
00:02:08,840 --> 00:02:13,120
Speaker 1: The Louisiana law is just about admitting privileges. The district

33
00:02:13,160 --> 00:02:16,000
Speaker 1: court said, this looks like exactly the situation the Supreme

34
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,800
Speaker 1: Court faced in Texas. Law violates the Constitution, violates whole

35
00:02:20,800 --> 00:02:24,040
Speaker 1: women's health. But the Fifth Circuit, the Court of Appeals

36
00:02:24,360 --> 00:02:29,959
Speaker 1: found some fairly narrow, fine grained differences between the situations

37
00:02:30,000 --> 00:02:33,280
Speaker 1: in Louisiana and Texas, and so it upheld the law.

38
00:02:33,560 --> 00:02:35,880
Speaker 1: And that's how we got to the Supreme Court arguments

39
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:39,240
Speaker 1: this week about whether or not these two cases are

40
00:02:39,280 --> 00:02:43,680
Speaker 1: really distinguishable, or did the Supreme Court take this case

41
00:02:44,280 --> 00:02:47,520
Speaker 1: now with two new conservative justices who weren't on the

42
00:02:47,560 --> 00:02:51,480
Speaker 1: court back in twos sixteen Justice core such Injustice Kavanaugh,

43
00:02:51,800 --> 00:02:55,760
Speaker 1: did the Court take this case essentially to reverse whole

44
00:02:55,760 --> 00:02:59,200
Speaker 1: women's health or at least to poke some significant holes

45
00:02:59,240 --> 00:03:03,840
Speaker 1: in it? In the arguments, did you see the questions

46
00:03:03,960 --> 00:03:08,120
Speaker 1: falling down ideological lines. Well, you know, there's a certain

47
00:03:08,120 --> 00:03:11,880
Speaker 1: amount of kabuki theater involved in Supreme Court arguments all

48
00:03:11,880 --> 00:03:14,000
Speaker 1: the time. As I said, you know, sort of everybody

49
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:16,600
Speaker 1: knows that often you're sort of too polite to say

50
00:03:16,639 --> 00:03:19,800
Speaker 1: it in court. Everybody knows that these laws were passed

51
00:03:19,800 --> 00:03:22,920
Speaker 1: in states because lawmakers wanted to try to make it

52
00:03:22,960 --> 00:03:27,120
Speaker 1: as difficult as possible for abortion clinic operators to operate.

53
00:03:27,600 --> 00:03:30,440
Speaker 1: But the Court can't actually say that because that's a

54
00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:33,519
Speaker 1: political statement. So instead, what you saw in the oral

55
00:03:33,680 --> 00:03:40,080
Speaker 1: arguments were the conservative justices trying to emphasize that there

56
00:03:40,080 --> 00:03:43,120
Speaker 1: could be state by state differences, in other words, and

57
00:03:43,200 --> 00:03:48,320
Speaker 1: admitting privileges requirement in one state might have a different

58
00:03:48,520 --> 00:03:52,400
Speaker 1: impact on the availability abortion, or it might be more

59
00:03:52,520 --> 00:03:57,280
Speaker 1: justifiable in terms of medical safety and credentialing of doctors

60
00:03:57,640 --> 00:04:00,160
Speaker 1: than a law in another state. And so you saw

61
00:04:00,280 --> 00:04:04,320
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh pursuing that line of questioning,

62
00:04:04,800 --> 00:04:07,560
Speaker 1: isn't it possible that there could be some state by

63
00:04:07,600 --> 00:04:11,040
Speaker 1: state variations here, so that we would say whole women's

64
00:04:11,080 --> 00:04:14,400
Speaker 1: health was about Texas and in a case about another

65
00:04:14,480 --> 00:04:18,360
Speaker 1: state could come out differently. And you saw the more

66
00:04:18,440 --> 00:04:22,559
Speaker 1: progressive justices, the more liberal justices, Justice Kagan, Justice Bryan,

67
00:04:22,720 --> 00:04:26,200
Speaker 1: Justice sort of Mayorc really trying to push back against

68
00:04:26,279 --> 00:04:30,760
Speaker 1: the idea that there were meaningful differences between the factual

69
00:04:30,880 --> 00:04:33,960
Speaker 1: situations in these two cases. So much of the oral

70
00:04:34,080 --> 00:04:38,160
Speaker 1: argument came down to debates about whether the doctors in

71
00:04:38,200 --> 00:04:40,560
Speaker 1: this case had actually made enough of an effort to

72
00:04:40,600 --> 00:04:44,679
Speaker 1: get admitting privileges, whether they already had admitting privileges, whether

73
00:04:44,680 --> 00:04:47,520
Speaker 1: they would get admitting privileges if they asked for them.

74
00:04:47,560 --> 00:04:49,680
Speaker 1: So it ended up being a lot of sort of

75
00:04:49,720 --> 00:04:54,520
Speaker 1: skirmishing on the specific facts involved in this case. Did

76
00:04:54,839 --> 00:04:59,279
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts suggest that he didn't see a factual distinction

77
00:04:59,440 --> 00:05:03,960
Speaker 1: between of Texas and Louisiana cases. I think Justice Roberts

78
00:05:04,040 --> 00:05:08,960
Speaker 1: was at least probing whether the existence of factual distinctions

79
00:05:09,040 --> 00:05:11,599
Speaker 1: could mean that just because the law was struck down

80
00:05:11,640 --> 00:05:14,600
Speaker 1: in one state doesn't necessarily mean a similar law would

81
00:05:14,640 --> 00:05:17,080
Speaker 1: be struck down in another state. I didn't read Justice

82
00:05:17,240 --> 00:05:20,840
Speaker 1: Roberts is getting into the details as much. I read

83
00:05:21,000 --> 00:05:24,159
Speaker 1: his questions, as you know, can we at least agree

84
00:05:24,320 --> 00:05:27,920
Speaker 1: that there could be differences from state to state such

85
00:05:28,000 --> 00:05:32,000
Speaker 1: that whole women's health doesn't create a sort of blanket

86
00:05:32,160 --> 00:05:35,600
Speaker 1: rule of facial rule against any sort of admitting privileges

87
00:05:35,680 --> 00:05:38,240
Speaker 1: you saw. I think Justice a Lado and maybe to

88
00:05:38,320 --> 00:05:41,840
Speaker 1: some extent, Justice Kavanaugh engaging a little bit more directly

89
00:05:42,320 --> 00:05:45,520
Speaker 1: in trying to say the situation here is different. The

90
00:05:45,560 --> 00:05:50,240
Speaker 1: admitting privileges law serves a stronger medical purpose and is

91
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:54,200
Speaker 1: more justifiable in this Louisiana case than perhaps it was

92
00:05:54,240 --> 00:05:58,320
Speaker 1: in the Texas case. In the Texas case, Justice Roberts

93
00:05:58,400 --> 00:06:01,280
Speaker 1: was in the descent. Where does that leave him? Now?

94
00:06:01,560 --> 00:06:04,760
Speaker 1: You're right, Chief Justice Roberts was was among the three dissenters,

95
00:06:04,760 --> 00:06:08,080
Speaker 1: and whole women's health, he would have upheld the Texas

96
00:06:08,200 --> 00:06:12,440
Speaker 1: law in this case. In an earlier part of this case,

97
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:16,479
Speaker 1: he voted with the Court's progressive justices to at least

98
00:06:16,560 --> 00:06:19,280
Speaker 1: put a hold on the Court of Appeals decisions so

99
00:06:19,320 --> 00:06:22,400
Speaker 1: it couldn't go into effect, meaning that the law remained

100
00:06:23,000 --> 00:06:26,200
Speaker 1: enjoined until the Supreme Court can decide. I think Chief

101
00:06:26,240 --> 00:06:28,839
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts here faces a choice. On the one hand,

102
00:06:29,320 --> 00:06:32,000
Speaker 1: you know, his vote in the Texas case in twenty

103
00:06:32,120 --> 00:06:35,880
Speaker 1: six indicates he thinks there should be greater ability for

104
00:06:36,000 --> 00:06:39,320
Speaker 1: states to regulate and put obstacles in the way of

105
00:06:39,360 --> 00:06:42,919
Speaker 1: women's ability to get abortion. On the other hand, we

106
00:06:43,040 --> 00:06:46,960
Speaker 1: know from his votes in previous cases and other contexts,

107
00:06:47,040 --> 00:06:50,520
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice Roberts as the Chief Justice, also worries

108
00:06:50,600 --> 00:06:56,520
Speaker 1: about the Court's institutional legitimacy, its credibility, how it is perceived,

109
00:06:56,600 --> 00:07:01,080
Speaker 1: whether it is perceived as a political body or judicial body.

110
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:03,640
Speaker 1: And so I think he's going to face a sort

111
00:07:03,640 --> 00:07:08,480
Speaker 1: of internal tug of war to go with his ideological beliefs.

112
00:07:08,600 --> 00:07:10,720
Speaker 1: I think about what the law should be in this

113
00:07:10,800 --> 00:07:14,800
Speaker 1: case versus if he ends up deciding that the cases

114
00:07:14,840 --> 00:07:18,360
Speaker 1: are just too similar, and it would look frankly shocking

115
00:07:18,440 --> 00:07:21,200
Speaker 1: for the Court to effectively overturn one of its own

116
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:25,400
Speaker 1: decisions after only four years. That might lead him to

117
00:07:25,520 --> 00:07:29,400
Speaker 1: actually vote to strike down the Louisiana law. They will

118
00:07:29,440 --> 00:07:32,000
Speaker 1: face a conflict between what he may think is the

119
00:07:32,080 --> 00:07:37,520
Speaker 1: legally correct position from his judicial ideological perspective versus what

120
00:07:37,680 --> 00:07:42,640
Speaker 1: he thinks the court's long term institutional credibility demands. He's

121
00:07:42,720 --> 00:07:46,200
Speaker 1: reluctant to overturn precedent more than some of his other

122
00:07:46,560 --> 00:07:50,600
Speaker 1: conservative colleagues are in this case. Does it seem to

123
00:07:50,640 --> 00:07:53,720
Speaker 1: you as if the conservatives other than Justice Roberts on

124
00:07:53,800 --> 00:07:58,559
Speaker 1: the Court would be willing to overturn that Texas case?

125
00:07:58,960 --> 00:08:00,960
Speaker 1: I think the answer for just To Salito would have

126
00:08:01,040 --> 00:08:03,880
Speaker 1: to be yes. Justice Salto, in the time he's been

127
00:08:03,880 --> 00:08:06,240
Speaker 1: on the Court has been tagged as, you know, some

128
00:08:06,280 --> 00:08:09,360
Speaker 1: people have said, a conservative activist. He was perhaps the

129
00:08:09,480 --> 00:08:14,119
Speaker 1: most vigorous at oral argument in defense of the Louisiana law.

130
00:08:14,560 --> 00:08:17,120
Speaker 1: Justice Kevinaugh hung back a little bit. He and the

131
00:08:17,200 --> 00:08:21,200
Speaker 1: Chief Justice sort of circled around the edges trying to say, well,

132
00:08:21,240 --> 00:08:23,800
Speaker 1: you know, if there are differences between these two laws,

133
00:08:23,880 --> 00:08:26,400
Speaker 1: then could there be the possibility that one could be

134
00:08:26,480 --> 00:08:30,240
Speaker 1: constitutional and another couldn't be Interestingly, Justice Gorsage did not

135
00:08:30,320 --> 00:08:34,720
Speaker 1: ask anything. He liked. Justice Thomas, traditionally who's traditionally very

136
00:08:34,800 --> 00:08:37,800
Speaker 1: quiet oral argument, didn't have any questions, and so we

137
00:08:37,880 --> 00:08:41,440
Speaker 1: just couldn't get a read on them. You know, you said,

138
00:08:41,480 --> 00:08:45,000
Speaker 1: the Chief Justice Roberts is reluctant to overturn the courts precedent,

139
00:08:45,160 --> 00:08:49,000
Speaker 1: And a slightly more cynical view or realistic view might

140
00:08:49,080 --> 00:08:52,320
Speaker 1: be that the Chief Justice is reluctant to see the

141
00:08:52,440 --> 00:08:56,440
Speaker 1: Court engaging or turning on a dime doing things that

142
00:08:56,480 --> 00:09:00,240
Speaker 1: are overtly political. But Justice Roberts has been complex, said

143
00:09:00,280 --> 00:09:03,080
Speaker 1: in a number of cases over the years where the

144
00:09:03,120 --> 00:09:08,439
Speaker 1: Court hasn't expressly overturned a precedent, but has limited a precedent,

145
00:09:08,520 --> 00:09:11,440
Speaker 1: has poked holes in a precedent, has found a way

146
00:09:11,480 --> 00:09:14,840
Speaker 1: to distinguish a new case from an old precedent in

147
00:09:14,840 --> 00:09:18,720
Speaker 1: a way that weakens the precedent, but stop short of

148
00:09:18,720 --> 00:09:23,160
Speaker 1: actually repudiating it or overturning it. And so that maybe

149
00:09:23,200 --> 00:09:26,640
Speaker 1: one possible outcome in this case. In other words, they

150
00:09:26,679 --> 00:09:30,320
Speaker 1: could rule in a very narrow way and uphold the

151
00:09:30,400 --> 00:09:35,160
Speaker 1: Louisiana law without reversing the Texas case. They could they

152
00:09:35,200 --> 00:09:39,080
Speaker 1: could say that there are enough meaningful differences between the

153
00:09:39,160 --> 00:09:43,480
Speaker 1: situations in these two cases, mostly focusing on whether the

154
00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:48,760
Speaker 1: admitting privileges requirements serves any legitimate, meaningful medical benefit or not.

155
00:09:49,120 --> 00:09:51,080
Speaker 1: They could say that this one is different, and so

156
00:09:51,400 --> 00:09:54,760
Speaker 1: this law can be upheld, and that would indicate then

157
00:09:54,920 --> 00:09:57,720
Speaker 1: we're going to be kind of battling state by state,

158
00:09:57,800 --> 00:10:02,400
Speaker 1: and the lower federal courts maybe very busy adjudicating similar

159
00:10:02,480 --> 00:10:05,400
Speaker 1: laws that states either have passed or may attempt to pass.

160
00:10:05,840 --> 00:10:09,160
Speaker 1: There's another way this case could be resolved, and that

161
00:10:09,320 --> 00:10:13,240
Speaker 1: is there was sort of a side skirmish that a

162
00:10:13,280 --> 00:10:16,679
Speaker 1: few of the justices were interested in about whether the

163
00:10:16,760 --> 00:10:21,120
Speaker 1: doctors who brought this lawsuit have what's called standing, whether

164
00:10:21,200 --> 00:10:24,440
Speaker 1: they can represent the legal interest. We're talking here about

165
00:10:24,480 --> 00:10:26,440
Speaker 1: the right of women to have an abortion and the

166
00:10:26,440 --> 00:10:29,959
Speaker 1: extent to which the Constitution protects that. But the plaintiffs

167
00:10:29,960 --> 00:10:32,880
Speaker 1: in this case, we're not women. They were doctors. They

168
00:10:32,880 --> 00:10:37,080
Speaker 1: were abortion providers, and so this gets into whether or

169
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:41,240
Speaker 1: not so called third parties that the doctors can um

170
00:10:41,640 --> 00:10:45,439
Speaker 1: litigate a case that is really about the constitutional rights

171
00:10:45,640 --> 00:10:49,120
Speaker 1: of the women. That was another point that Justice Alito

172
00:10:49,240 --> 00:10:53,800
Speaker 1: made quite vigorously. He basically insisted that the doctors here

173
00:10:53,840 --> 00:10:57,800
Speaker 1: didn't properly have standing. They weren't the proper plaintiffs in

174
00:10:57,880 --> 00:11:01,000
Speaker 1: this case. If the court went that direction, if it

175
00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:05,000
Speaker 1: essentially punted and said, well, the plaintiffs here didn't have standing,

176
00:11:05,320 --> 00:11:07,920
Speaker 1: we didn't have jurisdiction, the case has to be dismissed.

177
00:11:08,320 --> 00:11:11,360
Speaker 1: That would mean the Louisiana Low stands at least until

178
00:11:11,400 --> 00:11:14,960
Speaker 1: it could be challenged by somebody who actually did have standing.

179
00:11:15,280 --> 00:11:17,880
Speaker 1: A problem with that argument is there have been a

180
00:11:18,000 --> 00:11:21,840
Speaker 1: number of other abortion cases over the years where doctors

181
00:11:21,880 --> 00:11:25,640
Speaker 1: have been the plaintiffs, essentially representing the rights of the women,

182
00:11:25,800 --> 00:11:29,480
Speaker 1: and those cases went forward and were decided. So to

183
00:11:29,559 --> 00:11:32,480
Speaker 1: say at this point that we're going to stand on

184
00:11:32,520 --> 00:11:35,400
Speaker 1: this principle that a doctor can't litigate the rights of

185
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:40,280
Speaker 1: a patient would seem to be again a bit opportunistic

186
00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:43,280
Speaker 1: at a break with the court's own precedence on that question.

187
00:11:43,360 --> 00:11:46,160
Speaker 1: That I'm not sure the court is actually squarely decided

188
00:11:46,200 --> 00:11:49,360
Speaker 1: that question. But that problem has not stood in the

189
00:11:49,400 --> 00:11:53,800
Speaker 1: way of the court adjudicating previous abortion cases. Is this

190
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:59,760
Speaker 1: one of the cases that anti abortion activists are hoping

191
00:12:00,120 --> 00:12:04,480
Speaker 1: will allow the court to chip away at abortion rights.

192
00:12:04,480 --> 00:12:07,199
Speaker 1: Oh absolutely. As I said the court, it has to

193
00:12:07,240 --> 00:12:10,440
Speaker 1: be in a sense too polite to say what people

194
00:12:10,600 --> 00:12:15,000
Speaker 1: know are the real politics behind these laws when they're litigated.

195
00:12:15,080 --> 00:12:18,400
Speaker 1: We have to essentially pretend that this is really about

196
00:12:18,840 --> 00:12:22,400
Speaker 1: whether the state was truly trying to protect women's medical

197
00:12:22,640 --> 00:12:26,240
Speaker 1: health and protect the safety of abortion and so forth.

198
00:12:26,240 --> 00:12:29,440
Speaker 1: That I think it's almost inarguable that if you know

199
00:12:29,559 --> 00:12:32,880
Speaker 1: the politics of these laws, why these laws were passed,

200
00:12:32,920 --> 00:12:35,960
Speaker 1: the coordinated way to get these kinds of laws passed

201
00:12:36,280 --> 00:12:39,200
Speaker 1: around the country, you know that the effort was to

202
00:12:39,280 --> 00:12:42,199
Speaker 1: try to make it difficult for abortion clinics to stay

203
00:12:42,200 --> 00:12:46,079
Speaker 1: in business. It's an effort to limit access to abortion

204
00:12:46,280 --> 00:12:49,800
Speaker 1: by putting pressure on the ability of abortion clinics to

205
00:12:49,880 --> 00:12:53,720
Speaker 1: actually stay in business. So of course this was a

206
00:12:53,800 --> 00:12:57,680
Speaker 1: coordinated strategy over the years prior to the Texas case.

207
00:12:57,679 --> 00:13:02,480
Speaker 1: That these are sometimes called trap laws targeting of abortion providers,

208
00:13:02,559 --> 00:13:06,440
Speaker 1: and so of course anti abortion activists will look very

209
00:13:06,440 --> 00:13:10,480
Speaker 1: closely at what this case says about the attitude of

210
00:13:10,480 --> 00:13:13,840
Speaker 1: the court. This is the first major abortion decision that

211
00:13:13,960 --> 00:13:19,000
Speaker 1: the Court has fully decided since Justice Kennedy retired, and

212
00:13:19,040 --> 00:13:21,719
Speaker 1: since we have two new justices, and now this is

213
00:13:21,760 --> 00:13:24,760
Speaker 1: a This is a different court than it was four

214
00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:28,640
Speaker 1: years ago, so it remains to be seen. People will

215
00:13:28,640 --> 00:13:33,360
Speaker 1: be watching closely for signals about um Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Gore,

216
00:13:33,400 --> 00:13:37,520
Speaker 1: such Justice Roberts, what the chemistry of the court and

217
00:13:37,640 --> 00:13:41,480
Speaker 1: the lineup ideologically of the justices, whether and how that

218
00:13:41,640 --> 00:13:47,640
Speaker 1: has changed since. I think most people are curious that

219
00:13:47,840 --> 00:13:51,719
Speaker 1: it's almost become a litmus test for Supreme Court justices

220
00:13:52,120 --> 00:13:55,720
Speaker 1: when they're going through their confirmation hearings to be asked

221
00:13:55,720 --> 00:13:59,679
Speaker 1: about Roe v. Wade, and they inevitably say it's precedent.

222
00:14:00,200 --> 00:14:03,439
Speaker 1: And I think that Kavanaugh said it's precedent on precedent.

223
00:14:04,120 --> 00:14:08,240
Speaker 1: So can you ever be confident of that when we've

224
00:14:08,280 --> 00:14:12,480
Speaker 1: seen cases where they reverse precedent all the time. The

225
00:14:12,600 --> 00:14:16,080
Speaker 1: issue is, I think Roll versus Weight is not the issue.

226
00:14:16,160 --> 00:14:19,280
Speaker 1: I think that no one thinks that the Court would

227
00:14:19,280 --> 00:14:24,400
Speaker 1: be bold enough or were reckless enough to completely overturn

228
00:14:24,560 --> 00:14:28,840
Speaker 1: Roversus Wade. The key case here. The key precedent is

229
00:14:28,880 --> 00:14:32,720
Speaker 1: not roversus Weight itself. It's a decision that was decided

230
00:14:33,040 --> 00:14:36,200
Speaker 1: um more than a decade after Roll Versus Weight, Casey

231
00:14:36,280 --> 00:14:40,400
Speaker 1: versus Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. It's the Casey decision.

232
00:14:40,440 --> 00:14:43,360
Speaker 1: That upheld the basic idea of Row that a woman

233
00:14:43,400 --> 00:14:47,400
Speaker 1: has a constitutional right to abortion, but approved the idea

234
00:14:47,400 --> 00:14:51,160
Speaker 1: of that a state could express its view against abortion,

235
00:14:51,320 --> 00:14:55,720
Speaker 1: could legislate more aggressively to protect the woman's health and

236
00:14:55,760 --> 00:14:58,880
Speaker 1: to regulate the procedure, as long as it didn't create

237
00:14:58,880 --> 00:15:02,480
Speaker 1: what's called a uh substantial obstacle, as long as it

238
00:15:02,480 --> 00:15:06,480
Speaker 1: didn't create an undue burden to the women's access to

239
00:15:06,520 --> 00:15:09,720
Speaker 1: an abortion. So what these cases are about is whether

240
00:15:09,840 --> 00:15:14,680
Speaker 1: the Louisiana Admitting privileges law does create an undue burden

241
00:15:14,880 --> 00:15:19,240
Speaker 1: by restricting the availability of abortion because clinics have to

242
00:15:19,400 --> 00:15:23,440
Speaker 1: shut down. So if abortion rights are going to be

243
00:15:23,800 --> 00:15:26,720
Speaker 1: chipped away are going to be put in danger, it's

244
00:15:26,800 --> 00:15:29,760
Speaker 1: not because in one fell swoop the court is going

245
00:15:29,800 --> 00:15:32,760
Speaker 1: to overturn roll versus Weight. I think it's quite clear

246
00:15:32,840 --> 00:15:36,360
Speaker 1: that if that happens, it's going to be because the

247
00:15:36,440 --> 00:15:41,200
Speaker 1: availability of abortion is chipped away, the ability of states

248
00:15:41,280 --> 00:15:44,560
Speaker 1: to throw up more roadblocks in a woman's path to

249
00:15:44,600 --> 00:15:48,480
Speaker 1: an abortion, the court will see in a more sympathetic way.

250
00:15:48,560 --> 00:15:50,840
Speaker 1: I think there's going to be a lot of skirmishing

251
00:15:50,880 --> 00:15:56,040
Speaker 1: around these issues in ways that could erode the meaningfulness

252
00:15:56,080 --> 00:15:59,240
Speaker 1: of the idea that there is a constitutional right to abortion.

253
00:15:59,320 --> 00:16:02,480
Speaker 1: The large your picture here, I think is that the

254
00:16:02,560 --> 00:16:07,160
Speaker 1: Court's jurisprudence about abortion, meaning it there is a constitutional right,

255
00:16:07,440 --> 00:16:10,640
Speaker 1: there is the ability of states to regulate it. There

256
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:14,800
Speaker 1: comes a point after viability when abortion can be banned. Altogether,

257
00:16:15,040 --> 00:16:17,440
Speaker 1: I think the law of abortion right now that the

258
00:16:17,480 --> 00:16:21,120
Speaker 1: Supreme Court has developed over the past forty five years

259
00:16:21,560 --> 00:16:24,560
Speaker 1: really reflects where the country is. There's a quite stable

260
00:16:24,560 --> 00:16:27,720
Speaker 1: consensus in public opinion that most people don't want to

261
00:16:27,760 --> 00:16:30,800
Speaker 1: see abortion available on demand. Most people don't want to

262
00:16:30,800 --> 00:16:34,960
Speaker 1: see abortion completely eliminated. A majority of Americans believes that

263
00:16:35,000 --> 00:16:40,480
Speaker 1: abortion should generally be available with some reasonable restrictions, and

264
00:16:40,840 --> 00:16:43,880
Speaker 1: that's essentially reflects the law we have right now. That's

265
00:16:43,920 --> 00:16:47,840
Speaker 1: Steve Sanders, a professor at Indiana University's Mara School of Law.

266
00:16:48,440 --> 00:16:51,040
Speaker 1: And that's it for this edition of Bloomberg Law. I'm

267
00:16:51,120 --> 00:16:54,000
Speaker 1: June Grosso. Thanks so much for listening, and remember to

268
00:16:54,040 --> 00:16:57,320
Speaker 1: tune into The Bloomberg Law Show weeknights at ten pm

269
00:16:57,360 --> 00:17:03,440
Speaker 1: here on Bloomberg Radio. The Pendent and the Contendent to

270
00:17:03,840 --> 00:17:05,959
Speaker 1: DAK the dependent Ducal