Speaker 1: Hi everyone, I'm Katie Curic and this is next question.
Speaker 1: Something major happened this week breaking news out of Washington,
Speaker 1: an unprecedented leak from the Supreme Courts the draft opinion,
Speaker 1: which shows its conservative majority of justices is ready to
Speaker 1: overturn Roe v. Wade. The Court confirmed the document is authentic,
Speaker 1: but says it does not represent a decision nor the
Speaker 1: final position of any justice. This could be the most
Speaker 1: consequential opinion in decades. Hundreds of protesters rallied outside the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Monday evening afternows of the Court's draft opinion broke,
Speaker 1: and those protests continued all over the country on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: including one right here in New York City. A couple
Speaker 1: of my producers and I headed to Fully Square in
Speaker 1: Lower Manhattan so we could see and hear how abortion
Speaker 1: rights supporters are responding to the shocking is Tell me
Speaker 1: why you wanted to come down here today? Not only
Speaker 1: because I've had an abortion, but my daughter is twenty
Speaker 1: one and this is the world she's in right now.
Speaker 1: So how could we not be here. Anywhere where more
Speaker 1: than two people are gathered for the sake of reproductive
Speaker 1: rights is a gathering I want to be at. I
Speaker 1: came out because I love women. I love the rights
Speaker 1: to their their own autonomy. I love the rights of humanity,
Speaker 1: and I love the laws of humanity as well. It
Speaker 1: was important that people were in the streets today, but
Speaker 1: this cannot be another one day protest where we register
Speaker 1: our descent and then go home and let them strip
Speaker 1: us of our right to be fully human. And if
Speaker 1: I asked you about your side, it says I survived
Speaker 1: in a legal abortion in Birmingham, Alabama, in nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: I woke up this morning I felt like I had
Speaker 1: time traveled. I can't believe we're going back to this.
Speaker 1: We're just regressing so far. And do you remember what
Speaker 1: it was like the Grovy Way was decided? And can
Speaker 1: you describe it for people who don't. I can remember
Speaker 1: being in college and knowing of girls in my college
Speaker 1: who had back alley abortions, and some of them suffered
Speaker 1: grave consequences as a result. There are people finding out
Speaker 1: that they are pregnant and they don't necessarily want to be,
Speaker 1: or they didn't plan to be, or they're thinking about
Speaker 1: what they're gonna do um and I can't imagine being
Speaker 1: in that situation. Right now at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: like a lot of people are lonely and feel like
Speaker 1: they're alone in a decision or in a problem or
Speaker 1: uh So, coming to where there's like thousands of people
Speaker 1: are like hundreds of people is just like reaffirming the
Speaker 1: fact that we are not wrong. I don't believe this
Speaker 1: is an accident, and I don't believe that this is
Speaker 1: all of a sudden So for me, Texas was the
Speaker 1: wake up call and since then it's been pretty rough
Speaker 1: for my mental health. How are you guys feeling after
Speaker 1: this gathering? It feels great empowering. Also, like we also
Speaker 1: know that coming here is just not the end of it.
Speaker 1: That's why Thursday we're calling for nationwide strikes, no school,
Speaker 1: no work. You know, if you're calling sick to work,
Speaker 1: say you're sick of the patriarchy. We're both in law
Speaker 1: school right now, and so it's important for us to
Speaker 1: come out here and do this and do our civic
Speaker 1: duty to protest and hopefully use our legal careers to
Speaker 1: undo whatever the hell is happening right now. This is
Speaker 1: the biggest privilege to be here for democracy, for the
Speaker 1: rights of women. I grew I raised my children in
Speaker 1: South in Atlanta, and I just moved to New York
Speaker 1: and this is how it's supposed to be likely here.
Speaker 1: I am any general call to action. This is a
Speaker 1: fine alarm fire of my friends. This is a time
Speaker 1: to act, and this is not the time to be silent,
Speaker 1: because silence is right now when ree poem rights are
Speaker 1: under attack, what do we do? The news of the
Speaker 1: leak draft and its language was stunning, but the fact
Speaker 1: is it wasn't unexpected given the courts conservative majority. In fact,
Speaker 1: in anticipation of the official ruling which is expected to
Speaker 1: come down in late June, my producer Lauren Hansen, and
Speaker 1: I have been busy putting together an in depth and
Speaker 1: nuanced dive into the history and future of abortion access
Speaker 1: in this country. We've talked to countless people on the topic,
Speaker 1: abortion doctors, clinic staff, activists on the ground, reproductive justice leaders, historians,
Speaker 1: people who have had abortions, and so many more. It's
Speaker 1: been months in the making and it's coming out in
Speaker 1: just a few weeks. In the meantime, today, right now,
Speaker 1: we need to address the big abortion news this week,
Speaker 1: and to do so, we connected with one of the
Speaker 1: legal experts from our series, Mary Ziggler. Mary not only
Speaker 1: helped us understand the league, but what the draft actually
Speaker 1: means for the upcoming road decision. It feels kind of cavalier.
Speaker 1: It feels as if these justices are are siloed right
Speaker 1: from people who disagree with them in ways that are consequential. Um,
Speaker 1: and that we see unfolding. Now we'll have more with
Speaker 1: Mary Ziggler right after this. Mary Ziggler is one of
Speaker 1: the foremost experts on the long history of abortion and
Speaker 1: the law. So, Mary, have you had a chance to
Speaker 1: look over the draft opinion? Yeah? And what was your reaction? Um?
Speaker 1: I mean, in some ways, it's not surprising given what
Speaker 1: we heard at the oral argument in December. This is
Speaker 1: sort of what I was expected at the same expecting
Speaker 1: at the same time, I think I kind of can't
Speaker 1: help but be surprised because I spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time as someone who studies this talking to people with
Speaker 1: different views on abortion, and anyone, regardless of their opinion
Speaker 1: on abortion, should understand that what this is is going
Speaker 1: to be a very big deal for a very lot
Speaker 1: of people. Um. And this opinion, it feels like it's
Speaker 1: certain by people who think this is an easy decision
Speaker 1: this is not really something that requires a lot of
Speaker 1: soul searching. UM. And that's really really striking. I think
Speaker 1: it feels kind of cavalier. Um. It feels it feels
Speaker 1: as if these justices are are siloed right from people
Speaker 1: who disagree with them in ways that are consequential, Um
Speaker 1: that we see unfolding now. Politico called this draft a
Speaker 1: quote full throated, unflinching repudiation of the seventy three decision.
Speaker 1: Do you agree? Oh yeah, there's no question. I mean
Speaker 1: it's I don't know how much more full throated or
Speaker 1: repudiation you could have, so that that characterization of the
Speaker 1: draft is absolutely right. Having said that, how close will
Speaker 1: the opinion itself resemble this draft? Is there a chance
Speaker 1: that the language that's Justice Alito used in writing it
Speaker 1: could be softened or altered to be less of a repudiation? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I mean this draft is from February. UM. We know
Speaker 1: historically when UM planned Parenthod versus Casey, the Court abortion
Speaker 1: decision UM came out. There were leaks that reported the
Speaker 1: Court was going to reverse Row, and we know at
Speaker 1: least one justice changed their mind on that matter. Between
Speaker 1: the time of those leaks and the time of a
Speaker 1: final decision. So it's it's even possible the votes don't
Speaker 1: come out the same way. UM, I would be surprised
Speaker 1: by that, But I think it's it's more likely that
Speaker 1: some of the language in this opinion the final opinion
Speaker 1: may change or be softened. Um. The effect of the
Speaker 1: leak is actually interesting because you could imagine some of
Speaker 1: the justices being more reluctant to make those changes because
Speaker 1: they don't want to be perceived to be caving to
Speaker 1: public pressure. So how the leak ultimately um shapes what's
Speaker 1: going to happen in terms of the final opinion is
Speaker 1: is a really interesting question given the makeup of the
Speaker 1: current court. Even if Chief Justice Roberts uh does not
Speaker 1: agree with this, it is still potentially and likely a
Speaker 1: five for decision, is it not. It is unless Chief
Speaker 1: Justice John roberts decides that for the good of the
Speaker 1: Court he's going to join the majority to make the
Speaker 1: court look more unified. But I mean, I doubt that
Speaker 1: that would change people's perception of this as a as
Speaker 1: a partisan issue because all of the six justices should
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts joined that majority would be Republican nominee. So
Speaker 1: whether it's fiber six. It's going to be similar kind
Speaker 1: of optics. I was going to say, though, My point
Speaker 1: is it is a fatal complaint, isn't it totally? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I hate to say there's never
Speaker 1: a possibility because Plan Pedrotorn versus Casey happened, but I
Speaker 1: would be flabbery gasted and shocked if the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: doesn't overall row um in June, right, I mean, I
Speaker 1: would be pretty blown away. So, I mean, you can
Speaker 1: never say never because wild things happened, but it would
Speaker 1: be anyone who's been paying attention to this would be
Speaker 1: very surprised if that were not to happen. In June,
Speaker 1: Justice Alito wrote Row was egregiously wrong from the start.
Speaker 1: Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had
Speaker 1: damaging consequences, and far from bringing about a national settlement
Speaker 1: of the abortion issue, Row and Casey have inflame debate
Speaker 1: and deepened division. Your reaction, I mean, one of the
Speaker 1: interesting things is that in an opinion that spends so
Speaker 1: much time on history, the comments that the draft makes
Speaker 1: about inflaming opinion are without any historical support. I mean,
Speaker 1: the idea that Row is what left us with our
Speaker 1: current political divide um is something that absolves a lot
Speaker 1: of people, including the members of the current Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: of responsibility for inflaming that divide um. The abortion debate
Speaker 1: proceeded Row Um, it will long outlive Dobbs. It would
Speaker 1: It would be great if the Supreme Court could simply
Speaker 1: wave a magical on and we would all get along
Speaker 1: about abortion. That that's never been the way it is,
Speaker 1: and it will be the way it is now. Um.
Speaker 1: And the idea that row is egregiously wrong. I think
Speaker 1: again hearkens back to the fact that for these justices,
Speaker 1: this is not something that requires a lot of thought. Potentially,
Speaker 1: this is something that's obvious, and that's likely to make
Speaker 1: people even more bitter and unhappy who who support aversion rights,
Speaker 1: because this will not feel as if it was a
Speaker 1: kind of thoughtful, difficult but ultimately necessary conservative decision. This
Speaker 1: is going to feel like it was something that was automatic. Um.
Speaker 1: And that's I think going to make it sit less
Speaker 1: well with some people. It sounds as if Justice A.
Speaker 1: Leado is opposed to Roe v. Wade because he believes
Speaker 1: that abortion was never sort of spoken about in the Constitution.
Speaker 1: There is no right to an abortion. Why, in your
Speaker 1: view is that a specious argument? Well, I think that
Speaker 1: the main problem with that argument is simply that it
Speaker 1: proves too much right. Because if the argument Justice Leado
Speaker 1: makes is essentially that if a right isn't in the
Speaker 1: text of the Constitution, and if something wasn't recognized as
Speaker 1: a right at the time the fourteen Commitment was ratified,
Speaker 1: then it isn't a right. So then the question becomes, well,
Speaker 1: what else wasn't recognized as a right at the time
Speaker 1: the fourteen Commendment was written? Um, interracial marriage was broadly criminal.
Speaker 1: States were beginning to more vigorously criminalize same sex sexual
Speaker 1: intimacy and enforce those bands. Um say, the federal government
Speaker 1: had criminalized contraception and materials on sex education. Um, why
Speaker 1: it laws on voting for people of color were changing
Speaker 1: in negative and rapid ways. And so if that, if
Speaker 1: that's really the guide, the question is why is row different? Um.
Speaker 1: Justice Alito's answer in the draft seems to be that
Speaker 1: abortion effects fetal life, and that fetal life is uniquely valuable.
Speaker 1: But then, of course that's going to open the door
Speaker 1: to the argument that abortion is unconstitutional. That this isn't
Speaker 1: simply a matter of letting states each have their say
Speaker 1: through the democratic process, that this is something that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court is going to intervene in yet again by
Speaker 1: saying abortion has to be criminal. So either way you
Speaker 1: look at it, um, I think the court sense that
Speaker 1: this is just something that the Court can wash its
Speaker 1: hands of is is disingenuous. I think the Court will
Speaker 1: be encouraging one set of challenges or another, if not both.
Speaker 1: So do you think this will ultimately lead to a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision outlying abortion period, no matter what states
Speaker 1: want to do or what state legislator, how state legislatures vote.
Speaker 1: I think that the Court in this draft is not
Speaker 1: closing the door on that possibility, and we already know
Speaker 1: that people in the anti abortion movement are making that argument.
Speaker 1: So whether the Court is receptive to it, I think
Speaker 1: remains to be seen. But this is certainly if this
Speaker 1: app ends up being something like the final opinion, that's
Speaker 1: going to supercharge efforts to get the Court to declare
Speaker 1: abortion and constitutional because people in the anti abortion movement
Speaker 1: are going to, I think correctly view that as an
Speaker 1: encouraging sign. What does this portend for other pieces or
Speaker 1: other Supreme Court decisions that have been handed down visa
Speaker 1: the things like gay marriage, etcetera. Well, the Court in
Speaker 1: this draft tries, I think, in a sort of half
Speaker 1: hearted way to distinguish those things, right, But I think, well,
Speaker 1: do you think this is the case of protesting too much? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I do, And I mean we've seen this on the
Speaker 1: progressive side before. Of course, when the Supreme Court struck
Speaker 1: down bands on sodomy, the court made a point of saying, well,
Speaker 1: sort of marriage is different, right, And then two that
Speaker 1: was in two thousand three, and the Court did recognize
Speaker 1: the right to same sex marriage. So the best way
Speaker 1: to read that language is the Court is not going
Speaker 1: to overrule those decisions today. But does that mean they're
Speaker 1: going to overrule them in five years? Who knows, because
Speaker 1: the reasoning is the same. I mean, if again, our
Speaker 1: guide is what was happening in nineteenth century America. That
Speaker 1: was when you know, women vote right, I mean, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of things that were different in nineteenth
Speaker 1: century American. If that's going to be our guide about
Speaker 1: the contour of constitutional rights, and if our sense of
Speaker 1: what constitutional memory comes from is just the black letter
Speaker 1: of the law, Um, it's not clear what the limiting
Speaker 1: principle is going to be. And we know that Justices
Speaker 1: Alito and Thomas have already called into question um the
Speaker 1: correctness of the Supreme Court's decision recognizing the right for
Speaker 1: same sex couples to marry. We know that Republican lawmakers
Speaker 1: during Katangi Brown Jackson's confirmation hearings have called that that
Speaker 1: precedent into questions. So it's coming, I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: just a question of whether the Court goes for it,
Speaker 1: and whether the justices, who are you know, in the
Speaker 1: conservative coalition the least far to the right, want to
Speaker 1: embark on a mission of dismantling a wide variety of
Speaker 1: precedence and not just Brow. There's reason to think that
Speaker 1: would happen, because, of course we know Row is the
Speaker 1: most recognized Supreme Court opinion. And so if this is
Speaker 1: how the justices behave when everybody is paying attention, you know,
Speaker 1: are they really going to behave differently when people aren't
Speaker 1: paying attention? I would I would submit the answer to
Speaker 1: that is probably not. Can you tell us anything about
Speaker 1: Justice Alito that would help us understand his position when
Speaker 1: it comes to this draft decision? Yeah, I mean Justice
Speaker 1: Alito often approaches things. I mean there's a sort of
Speaker 1: it's hard to describe, but I think intellectually he's very
Speaker 1: self confident and there's almost a sense of um of
Speaker 1: offense he takes when people disagree with him. There's a
Speaker 1: tone in this draft that it almost ridicules the reasoning
Speaker 1: of Row and the people who support it. And that's
Speaker 1: in keeping with other decisions Justice Aldo has rendered. UM.
Speaker 1: We know as well the Justice Leado has a long
Speaker 1: history of being fairly far the right on abortion issues.
Speaker 1: So when he was a justice at the Third Circuit
Speaker 1: Court of Appeals, he was the only justice to hold
Speaker 1: that Pennsylvania could obligate um women and other people who
Speaker 1: are pregnant to tell their their husbands before getting an abortion. UM.
Speaker 1: We know that early in his political career, when he
Speaker 1: was working in republic and presidential administrations, he helped write
Speaker 1: briefs um In laying out strategy to undo Row. So
Speaker 1: intellectually and personally, this draft is not a surprise coming
Speaker 1: from him. I think the fact that this this would
Speaker 1: be the voice of the court speaking would be more surprising,
Speaker 1: because this, of course will have ramifications for the courts
Speaker 1: institutional reputation. If this is how the Court ultimately ends
Speaker 1: up um for the legacy of all the justices who
Speaker 1: signed this opinion, not just for Justice Alito. UM. So
Speaker 1: we know kind of in terms of where the justices fall,
Speaker 1: the Justice Alito and Thomas tend to be on the
Speaker 1: courts for this right flank. But of course all of
Speaker 1: the justices who are part of this opinion. UM, it's
Speaker 1: fair to say this will be their legacy. People will
Speaker 1: likely not remember almost anything else these justices do once
Speaker 1: rovweight is gone. I think this will be the defining
Speaker 1: momentum for this court and everyone on it. In fact,
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh during the confirmation process assured members of Congress
Speaker 1: that he recognized and appreciated precedent and would not tamper
Speaker 1: with Growthy Wade, what do you make of that? Well,
Speaker 1: I think Justice Kavanaugh is a smart man who, you know,
Speaker 1: didn't really ever issue any guarantees, he said. I think
Speaker 1: Susan Collins, who to whom you may be referring in particular,
Speaker 1: wanted to understand him to mean a certain thing, and
Speaker 1: he was vague enough that she could hear what she
Speaker 1: wanted to hear. But he never made any specific guarantees
Speaker 1: that he would do anything with Row And I think
Speaker 1: anyone who knew his background or knew the reasons he
Speaker 1: had been chosen would be utterly unsurprised by the fact
Speaker 1: that he's voting this way. Um. I don't know if
Speaker 1: Susan Collins knew she was lying to herself, but she
Speaker 1: was lying to herself, right, I mean, I don't know
Speaker 1: if this was a case of her lying to everyone
Speaker 1: else because she already didn't believe what brick Havana was saying.
Speaker 1: I think it's more likely that she thought brick Havanaugh
Speaker 1: was since here um and simply was You know, it
Speaker 1: was a case of wishful thinking, I would imagine more
Speaker 1: than anything else, because most people who have been paying
Speaker 1: attention to Justice Kavina are not surprised by where he's
Speaker 1: coming out on this. Justice Alito claims there is no
Speaker 1: right constitutional right to an abortion, but others have questioned.
Speaker 1: I guess that the foundation of Roe v. Wade in
Speaker 1: terms of under the guise of the right to privacy, Um,
Speaker 1: in in terms that sort of the average person can understand.
Speaker 1: Can you tell us the foundational principles behind Roe vi
Speaker 1: Wade and why in some circles they have been controversial? Sure? So,
Speaker 1: Ruby Wade was not based on the text of the Constitution,
Speaker 1: which you know doesn't mention a right to abortion or frankly,
Speaker 1: a right to marry or a lot of other rights.
Speaker 1: And it was right to vote right. It wasn't based
Speaker 1: on the history of the Constitution because, as Justice Leader
Speaker 1: rightly points out, at the time the Nineteenth Amendment was
Speaker 1: being written, no one would have thought there was a
Speaker 1: right to abortion. The Court instead looked at its own precedence,
Speaker 1: which looked at and developed ideas about autonomy and bodily
Speaker 1: integrity related to things like marriage and creation. Um. And
Speaker 1: that was controversial because I think people thought that by
Speaker 1: not looking at texture history, the Court was sort of
Speaker 1: leaving Row open to more criticism. UM. Ruth for the
Speaker 1: late Ruth Vader Gainsburgh, thought it would be better for
Speaker 1: the Court to have relied on equal protection cause and
Speaker 1: the idea of sex discrimination to to create a foundation
Speaker 1: for abortion rights. It's worth emphasizing that that this draft
Speaker 1: is not just an exercise and saying Row was wrong.
Speaker 1: It's an exercise and saying there is no foundation for
Speaker 1: abortion rights full stop, no matter what you come up with.
Speaker 1: And the Court explicitly says there can be no equal
Speaker 1: protection rationale um, ironically, because the Court's precedents say there
Speaker 1: can be no rationale. The reason that's ironical, course, is
Speaker 1: the Court is dismantling fifty years of precedent um and
Speaker 1: then saying part of the reason that that has to
Speaker 1: happen is because of other precedents, saying that discrimination on
Speaker 1: the basis of pregnancy is not the same thing as
Speaker 1: the basis a discrimination on the basis of sex. So
Speaker 1: this is the Court essentially trying to close the door
Speaker 1: to any future constitutional argument for abortion rights, not just
Speaker 1: the ones that Rode relied on. Have he said that
Speaker 1: would it have been a stronger UH decision had it
Speaker 1: been based on as the late Justice Ginsburg had urged
Speaker 1: the equal protection statue, Absolutely, we would have been a
Speaker 1: stronger opinion. I think the drafts suggests that it ultimately
Speaker 1: wouldn't have mattered, and that if these were the people
Speaker 1: on the court, they probably would have overruled Row anyway.
Speaker 1: It would have made their job harder, right, It would
Speaker 1: have made it harder for them to say, well, look
Speaker 1: here all these progressives who support a worship rights who
Speaker 1: have also criticized this decision. But I think at the
Speaker 1: end of the day. This was about more than just
Speaker 1: the court's reasoning, although that was certainly important, it goes
Speaker 1: well beyond that. Did you think there was a chance
Speaker 1: that they would chip away at Row and not want
Speaker 1: it overturned completely? Um? No, I mean not long term.
Speaker 1: Like I think before oral argument in December, I was
Speaker 1: of the opinion that so one spread cabinal was confirmed
Speaker 1: to the Court. I thought it was a lock that
Speaker 1: they were going to overturn Row, but I didn't know
Speaker 1: when it was going to happen. And I thought, from
Speaker 1: the standpoint of just conserving the courts institute legitimacy, there
Speaker 1: was some value in, you know, and going through the
Speaker 1: motions and appearing to take this seriously and making it
Speaker 1: seem as if it was not just an automatic that
Speaker 1: when you put certain people on the court you get
Speaker 1: partisan outcomes. Um. So, I'm not surprised by the fact
Speaker 1: that it's happening. I'm surprised by the timing. Um. Chief
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts clearly thought that there was a chance that
Speaker 1: the Court would potentially do this in multiple steps, or
Speaker 1: maybe even stop at getting rid of viability. There's no
Speaker 1: sign whatsoever that the justices have any interest in doing that.
Speaker 1: It seems that we're headed to a kind of absolute
Speaker 1: overruling and one that's pretty rapid. What is the impact
Speaker 1: of this decision, It's hard to overstate. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: going to be impacts on lots of people's lives, people
Speaker 1: who can be pregnant. Um, just as was the case
Speaker 1: with the war on drugs. We would expect those impacts
Speaker 1: to be felt the most acutely by people who are
Speaker 1: in the most heavily policed communities, who are the people
Speaker 1: are most likely to be found out if they're having abortions.
Speaker 1: There will be people impacts on people who never seek abortions,
Speaker 1: because doctors will be reluctant to treat ectopic pregnancies or
Speaker 1: incomplete miscarriages or other things that may be perceived as
Speaker 1: abortion because they're unwilling to lose their licenses or go
Speaker 1: to prison. Um. It's going to affect people in blue
Speaker 1: states who are going to see people traveling from out
Speaker 1: of state to seek abortions. UM. It's going to affect
Speaker 1: doctors in blue states who may be potentially sued or
Speaker 1: charged with a crime in red states. It's going to
Speaker 1: shake up the two mid terms. It's going to shake
Speaker 1: up the presidential elections, and you know as a historian,
Speaker 1: and it also is going to have unpredictable effects, right.
Speaker 1: I think the Supreme Court felt very confident in nine
Speaker 1: that it knew what would happen after Robi Wade was reversed.
Speaker 1: And of course we know fifty years later that they
Speaker 1: were absolutely wrong. Um, and there's no reason to think
Speaker 1: that we can absolutely predict what's going to happen after
Speaker 1: this decision in much the same way. How are they wrong?
Speaker 1: Can you give us some insight into that? Yeah? I
Speaker 1: mean Justice Blackman had a clipping in his files that said, essentially,
Speaker 1: you know, seventy something percent of Americans think abortion should
Speaker 1: be a decision between a woman and her doctor. The
Speaker 1: numbers were very similar then as now, and so he thought, okay, well,
Speaker 1: if if the Court says it worshons a decision between
Speaker 1: a woman and her doctor, and there's a sound constitutional
Speaker 1: foundation for that, people are going to just accept that
Speaker 1: and move on. And we know that didn't happen. This
Speaker 1: Supreme Court somehow seems to think that if it sends
Speaker 1: this back to the States with lots of winks and nudges,
Speaker 1: that maybe other precedents can be overturned and maybe if
Speaker 1: people personhood is going to be recognized, this is going
Speaker 1: to go away. When that opinion will be running against
Speaker 1: popular opinion, that's insane, right, So people are sort of
Speaker 1: like this is all over just really whether their appro
Speaker 1: choice or per life, are not paying attention like this
Speaker 1: is going to just be the opening salvo in a
Speaker 1: much much longer battle. Um and people I would imagine
Speaker 1: who support a worsion rates are going to be in
Speaker 1: this for the long haul. Two and we may be
Speaker 1: looking at, you know, decades down the road a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision reinstituting a worship rates. So if the Court
Speaker 1: thinks it can put an end to this one way
Speaker 1: or another, or it can remove itself from the conversation,
Speaker 1: it has another thing coming. Well, what about some kind
Speaker 1: of congressional action kind of ying a woman's right to
Speaker 1: choose or reproductive rights that would uh do an end
Speaker 1: run around the Supreme Court? How possible? Is that It's
Speaker 1: it's not possible given the votes at the moment. And
Speaker 1: now it's trought with peril because we know that Republicans
Speaker 1: have you know, announced plans that if they retake the
Speaker 1: House and Senate in two and a Republican is in
Speaker 1: the White House and the filibuster is gone, which is
Speaker 1: what it would take to pass federal legislation protecting abortion rights.
Speaker 1: That Republicans would use their opportunity to criminalize abortion rights nationwide,
Speaker 1: in other words, to ensure that blue as well as
Speaker 1: red states cannot allow abortions. And so I think the
Speaker 1: question for Democrats is going to be, you know, how
Speaker 1: confident are they, um, if they're going to get rid
Speaker 1: of the filibuster, that things are not going to get
Speaker 1: really bad thereafter? Um? Because this will, of course, when
Speaker 1: it comes to abortion, raise the stakes dramatically, not just
Speaker 1: of state and local elections in terms of like who
Speaker 1: is your prosecutor they're going to use resources to prosecute
Speaker 1: people for abortion? Um, but also you know, national elections,
Speaker 1: because Congress may be in a position now, you know,
Speaker 1: either to codify abortion rights or qudify fetal protections. Well,
Speaker 1: what about taking action prior to the mid terms when
Speaker 1: there are Democratic majorities barely you know, raiser than in
Speaker 1: the Senate but in the House. Uh, could some kind
Speaker 1: of action be taken prior to that? And do you
Speaker 1: think this will change what we see happen in the
Speaker 1: mid term elections because suddenly sixty of the population has
Speaker 1: been galvanized to get out and vote. Yeah, it mean well,
Speaker 1: I mean I think the question, and this is really
Speaker 1: going to be for people listening to this, is like,
Speaker 1: how much do you care? Right? We know that seventy
Speaker 1: people say they don't want road to be overturned, but
Speaker 1: when the rubber meets the road, like, is that a
Speaker 1: basis people are actually going to vote right? Or is
Speaker 1: it going to turn into like, well, I don't really
Speaker 1: like this person's position on abortion, but I like their
Speaker 1: position on taxes, or I like their position on still
Speaker 1: in the blank other issue. So it really depends on
Speaker 1: how people operational is how they're feeling about this decision,
Speaker 1: and we just don't know the answer to that. Interestingly,
Speaker 1: both people who are pro life and pro choice are
Speaker 1: saying they feel this helps them. And that's how unpredictable
Speaker 1: it is. Right, everybody is like this is great for us,
Speaker 1: because we don't really know who has that right. And
Speaker 1: of course, if you're listening to this, you get to decide, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you get to vote, You get to decide
Speaker 1: if you're going to be politically active on this um.
Speaker 1: And so I don't know the answer to that, but
Speaker 1: that's going to be in the hands of the people
Speaker 1: who are listening to this. In fact, just as a
Speaker 1: Lada rights in this draft, women are not without electoral
Speaker 1: or political power. At the percentage of women who registered
Speaker 1: to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the
Speaker 1: percentage of men who do so. Right, I mean, and
Speaker 1: so be careful what you wish were right. But I
Speaker 1: think that's that's right, and so um whether and I
Speaker 1: think that's really um the question. And I think it's
Speaker 1: important emphasize not just what happens in Congress, but what
Speaker 1: happens in state elections, because one thing that's pretty clear
Speaker 1: for anyone who studied this is the progressives have been
Speaker 1: getting massively outstrategized in eight elections for a long time,
Speaker 1: which is one of the reasons why states have become
Speaker 1: these laboratories of anti abortion legislation. Um. And that's true
Speaker 1: in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida and so on that
Speaker 1: are politically contested, not just in red states. And it's
Speaker 1: true in red states that seem to have majorities that
Speaker 1: are not particularly opposed to abortion. And so it's if
Speaker 1: this is an issue you care about. It's worth paying
Speaker 1: attention to state and local races, even when those aren't
Speaker 1: kind of the glamor races you're hearing the most about
Speaker 1: in the news. After the break, we go back to
Speaker 1: the abortion rights protest in New York City to hear
Speaker 1: one woman's heroine story of her illegal abortion in nineteen
Speaker 1: sixty nine. Remember that protester from the top of this episode,
Speaker 1: the one who had the sign that read I survived
Speaker 1: in illegal abortion in Birmingham, Alabama in nineteen sixty nine.
Speaker 1: The protester's name Angela Fremont. She spoke with my producer
Speaker 1: Lauren Hansen, and just to note, this story contains a
Speaker 1: detailed description of an illegal abortion. I was living in
Speaker 1: Miami when I got pregnant with my grandmother. And when
Speaker 1: I I couldn't couldn't tell my grandmother that I was pregnant. Um,
Speaker 1: I had a I had a job. I was eighteen
Speaker 1: years old and I had a job working at a
Speaker 1: land development company, and the nurse that worked there gave
Speaker 1: me a phone number, and I went to a pay
Speaker 1: phone outside on the street, and the phone number that
Speaker 1: I called was a doctor in Alabama. And that's how
Speaker 1: I wound up in Alabama, and the doctor when I
Speaker 1: got there examined me and said, you're too far along.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to do the abortion. Yeah, he said,
Speaker 1: but I know somebody. So it was like a bait
Speaker 1: and s which kind of thing. And uh, I don't
Speaker 1: think he ever intended to do the abortion. He just
Speaker 1: passed me along to this abortionist who drove me out
Speaker 1: to down a dirt road to a shack where there
Speaker 1: was two sawhorses and a sheet of plywood and three
Speaker 1: dogs that had been locked up inside the shack with
Speaker 1: urine all over the floor, and a rubber hose. Um
Speaker 1: that she explained she was going to push through my
Speaker 1: cervix into my uterus and then use cotton batting two
Speaker 1: support the hose and keep it from slipping out, and
Speaker 1: that I had to keep it there for thirty six
Speaker 1: hours and that air would pass through the hose and
Speaker 1: I would spontaneously abort. Yeah. Um, but after about probably
Speaker 1: thirty hours, I was hemorrhaging, and um I had gone
Speaker 1: back to Tallahassee to be with friends there, and um,
Speaker 1: they got scared. They pulled out the cotton batting and
Speaker 1: I was a mess. I had a fever, and they
Speaker 1: put me in the car and dropped me off outside
Speaker 1: the hospital and the hospital that I was brought to.
Speaker 1: Um Oh, things are getting really exciting here. Um Uh.
Speaker 1: They did a d n C on me and um
Speaker 1: the police eventually gave up questioning me, asking me who
Speaker 1: had done this to me? And I in my mind,
Speaker 1: I thought if I if I told them that somebody
Speaker 1: else had done this that um I was, I'd be
Speaker 1: implicating somebody that I would go to jail. So I
Speaker 1: I So I just kept saying that I did it
Speaker 1: to myself. Having an illegal abortion is something no one
Speaker 1: should have to go through. And um in three after
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade, Um, we all celebrated. We were so happy.
Speaker 1: It was such a it was such a national relief
Speaker 1: for women. It's really important to talk about this because
Speaker 1: it's it's super fucked up right now. This is really
Speaker 1: not good because women in Oklahoma need to have access,
Speaker 1: and in Texas and in North Dakota and in South
Speaker 1: Dakota and in twenty six states across the country. At
Speaker 1: least they need to have access. You are safe here.
Speaker 1: It's not fair and we have to speak out. There
Speaker 1: will be so much more to tackle in our special
Speaker 1: series on the End of Row and the history and
Speaker 1: future of abortion access. The special series launches June two,
Speaker 1: right here in My Next Question feed. Don't miss it.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much to Mary Ziggler and to all
Speaker 1: of the protesters who took the time to speak with us.
Speaker 1: Next Question with Katie Kurik is a production of I
Speaker 1: Heart Media and Katie Kuric Media. The executive producers Army,
Speaker 1: Katie Kuric, and Courtney Litz. The supervising producer is Lauren Hansen.
Speaker 1: Associate producers Derek Clements and Adriana Fasio. The show is
Speaker 1: edited and mixed by Derrick Clements. For more information about
Speaker 1: today's episode, or to sign up for my morning newsletter,
Speaker 1: Wake Up Paul, go to Katie Curry dot com. You
Speaker 1: can also find me at Katie Curiic on Instagram and
Speaker 1: all my social media channels. For more podcasts from I
Speaker 1: Heart Radio, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple Podcast,
Speaker 1: or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.