WEBVTT - Florida's Strict Abortion Ban & Google Deletes Data 0:00:03.200 --> 0:00:08.000 This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio. 0:00:09.480 --> 0:00:14.560 Florida's very conservative Supreme Court upheld the state's fifteen week 0:00:14.600 --> 0:00:18.599 abortion ban, which now allows one of the nation's strictest 0:00:18.600 --> 0:00:22.040 abortion bans to take effect on May first. In the state. 0:00:22.400 --> 0:00:26.720 It makes abortion illegal after six weeks, before most women 0:00:26.800 --> 0:00:30.240 know they're pregnant. But in a sort of split decision, 0:00:30.640 --> 0:00:33.440 the court allowed a referendum that will let the state's 0:00:33.560 --> 0:00:37.120 voters decide in Florida whether they want an amendment to 0:00:37.159 --> 0:00:42.080 the state constitution allowing abortion until viability. With abortion now 0:00:42.080 --> 0:00:45.320 on the ballot in Florida, Democrats are seeing a chance 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.680 to flip the state in the presidential election. The future 0:00:48.760 --> 0:00:53.720 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who often boasts about appointing 0:00:53.800 --> 0:00:57.360 three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, 0:00:57.680 --> 0:01:00.560 didn't want to talk to reporters about the Florida to ruling, 0:01:03.880 --> 0:01:07.800 while President Joe Biden denounced the Florida ruling, calling it 0:01:07.840 --> 0:01:10.679 outrageous and promising to codify Roe v. 0:01:10.800 --> 0:01:13.760 Wade and as mag officials are calling on and not 0:01:13.880 --> 0:01:15.640 for a national ban on the right to choose in 0:01:15.680 --> 0:01:19.800 every state I promise you for the Democratic Congress, Tom 0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:21.800 and I will make Rovy Wade the law of the 0:01:21.880 --> 0:01:22.560 land again. 0:01:22.680 --> 0:01:23.240 I promise. 0:01:24.600 --> 0:01:27.959 Joining me is healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman 0:01:28.520 --> 0:01:33.000 Harry tell us about the Florida Supreme Court's decisions on Monday. 0:01:32.920 --> 0:01:36.039 Then the repeal of Roe v. Wade in the DABS case. 0:01:36.360 --> 0:01:39.920 Florida had had in place a fifteen week ban on 0:01:40.000 --> 0:01:44.959 abortion that Governor Discentis proposed while the Supreme Court decision 0:01:45.160 --> 0:01:49.160 was pending. In twenty twenty three, a much more restrictive 0:01:49.280 --> 0:01:53.440 six week ban was passed by the Florida legislature, but 0:01:53.560 --> 0:01:58.120 the Florida Supreme Court had briefly delayed its going into 0:01:58.120 --> 0:02:00.840 effect while looked at the question of whether there was 0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:04.480 a constitutional right to privacy that included a right to 0:02:04.520 --> 0:02:07.600 abortion in Florida. And so what happened this week is 0:02:07.640 --> 0:02:10.519 that the Florida Supreme Court essentially ruled by a four 0:02:10.560 --> 0:02:14.880 to three vote that a proposed constitutional amendment that would 0:02:15.040 --> 0:02:18.480 guarantee the right to abortion that it could go to 0:02:18.520 --> 0:02:22.280 the ballot. But at the same time, it essentially did 0:02:22.280 --> 0:02:26.720 not find that the existing state constitution included a protection 0:02:27.040 --> 0:02:29.799 of the rights to abortion as part of the privacy right. 0:02:29.919 --> 0:02:33.280 So in other words, the Florida Supreme Court basically allowed 0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:36.280 the new six week band to go into effects, but 0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:40.480 it also decided to allow the voters of Florida to 0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:43.400 decide whether to amend the constitution. So we have these 0:02:43.520 --> 0:02:47.040 kind of parallel decisions that are extremely confusing about how 0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:49.200 Florida is grappling with abortion. 0:02:49.639 --> 0:02:52.800 Yeah, because they didn't have to issue the decisions on 0:02:52.880 --> 0:02:54.760 the same day. Do you think that they were trying 0:02:54.800 --> 0:03:00.440 to placate the supporters of abortion or just that they 0:03:00.440 --> 0:03:01.400 were even handed. 0:03:01.680 --> 0:03:05.040 I mean, I do think they're wrestling with both their 0:03:05.120 --> 0:03:08.880 personal beliefs about, you know, how far the right of 0:03:08.919 --> 0:03:11.160 privacy extends. And we can see that it's a very 0:03:11.160 --> 0:03:14.320 conservative court, you know, that was six to one in 0:03:14.440 --> 0:03:18.000 finding that there was this right to ban abortion, but 0:03:18.040 --> 0:03:21.520 at the same time recognizing that the ultimately, you know, 0:03:21.639 --> 0:03:24.840 the constitutional process of Florida allows for the voters to 0:03:25.520 --> 0:03:28.520 change the constitution. So I think they were trying to 0:03:28.560 --> 0:03:32.600 sort of find a pass through that both expressed their 0:03:32.639 --> 0:03:37.040 personal beliefs about how far abortion rights and privacy rights 0:03:37.160 --> 0:03:40.280 go and also acknowledged, you know that there is a 0:03:40.320 --> 0:03:44.520 process in place for their personal judgments being overridden by 0:03:44.520 --> 0:03:45.040 the voters. 0:03:45.280 --> 0:03:49.160 So the privacy clause in the Florida Constitution states, quote, 0:03:49.360 --> 0:03:52.160 every natural person has the right to be let alone 0:03:52.200 --> 0:03:56.000 and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life. 0:03:56.560 --> 0:04:01.680 How is that not protective of abortion rights? Right? 0:04:01.720 --> 0:04:04.640 Obviously, we've had a number of state supreme courts that 0:04:04.800 --> 0:04:08.440 have found that part of the right to privacy right, 0:04:08.480 --> 0:04:11.600 which is really something that was not recognized until the 0:04:11.680 --> 0:04:14.120 last sort of one hundred and twenty one hundred and 0:04:14.120 --> 0:04:16.280 forty years, but did the right to privacy includes the 0:04:16.360 --> 0:04:18.359 right to be left alone from the government and to 0:04:18.400 --> 0:04:23.440 have personal autonomy over all kinds of choices, including healthcare choices, 0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:26.800 including the right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. 0:04:27.200 --> 0:04:31.440 So we definitely have seen many many supreme courts, state 0:04:31.440 --> 0:04:34.760 supreme courts take this issue on and find that implied rights. 0:04:34.800 --> 0:04:37.400 And of course we also have a number of state 0:04:37.400 --> 0:04:41.640 supreme courts that have either explicitly said so California did that, 0:04:41.720 --> 0:04:44.760 Michigan did that, and a handful of restrictive states that 0:04:44.800 --> 0:04:48.160 said our constitution absolutely does not include it. I mean, 0:04:48.200 --> 0:04:51.520 I think this question of the right to privacy has 0:04:51.600 --> 0:04:54.240 been a kind of a question that hasn't been fully 0:04:54.320 --> 0:04:57.359 resolved globally. Right there still are seemed to be tensions 0:04:57.360 --> 0:05:00.200 on both sides about how far how far go than 0:05:00.240 --> 0:05:02.880 about the competing right of the unborn child on one 0:05:02.920 --> 0:05:05.640 side and the rights of a pregnant woman on the 0:05:05.680 --> 0:05:06.480 other side. 0:05:06.920 --> 0:05:10.919 My favorite part of this that is facetious. A majority 0:05:10.920 --> 0:05:14.159 of the justices said the voters didn't understand that the 0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:18.520 privacy clause extended to abortion when they added to the 0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:21.000 state constitution in nineteen eighty. 0:05:21.560 --> 0:05:24.680 Yeah, it's I mean, it's really interesting, right, like privacy. 0:05:25.000 --> 0:05:27.800 I don't know how they come to that decision. Obviously, 0:05:27.839 --> 0:05:32.200 privacy is a much broader set of rights, about the 0:05:32.279 --> 0:05:35.400 right to be you know, not monitored and have your 0:05:35.400 --> 0:05:38.279 life intruded on, about the right to travel, and about 0:05:38.320 --> 0:05:39.880 the right to live in the way that you want. 0:05:39.960 --> 0:05:43.479 So I think it's confusing to understand how they came 0:05:43.520 --> 0:05:47.440 to this, you know, definitive conclusion that abortion wasn't explicitly 0:05:47.520 --> 0:05:52.000 contemplated or somehow was outside of privacy. As I said, 0:05:52.120 --> 0:05:55.080 we already had multiple state supreme courts who have found 0:05:55.080 --> 0:05:58.440 the opposite, And so how they sort of determined what 0:05:58.560 --> 0:06:00.920 was in the mind of Florida voters is a mystery 0:06:00.960 --> 0:06:01.120 to me. 0:06:01.360 --> 0:06:04.920 And also in twenty twelve, Florida voters rejected an amendment 0:06:05.400 --> 0:06:10.240 that would have exempted abortion from constitutional privacy protection. So 0:06:10.520 --> 0:06:13.840 there were all kinds of indications they overturned decades of 0:06:13.920 --> 0:06:18.320 legal precedent with this decision, didn't they? Because back in 0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.919 nineteen eighty nine the Florida Supreme Court ruled that it 0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:23.040 did apply to abortion. 0:06:23.960 --> 0:06:27.080 Yeah, so they absolutely reversed that. And this was obviously 0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:30.159 a major shift from the Florida Supreme Court's own previous 0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:33.640 rulings on the state constitutional privacy right. It has not 0:06:33.880 --> 0:06:37.480 escaped noticed that. I believe all but one of the 0:06:37.600 --> 0:06:40.880 justices on the Supreme Court currently are appointees of the 0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:45.120 current governor, who's taken a much more conservative position on this. 0:06:45.360 --> 0:06:49.200 But yeah, clearly this is a major shift from the 0:06:49.240 --> 0:06:52.080 way that the Florida Constitution was understood by its own 0:06:52.080 --> 0:06:53.560 Supreme Court for a long time. 0:06:53.920 --> 0:06:57.799 Does the argument they use that the past abortion cases 0:06:57.880 --> 0:07:01.880 had been wrongly decided based on this overbroad interpretation of 0:07:01.920 --> 0:07:05.520 the privacy clause in a state constitution, Is that similar 0:07:05.600 --> 0:07:08.880 to the argument that the Supreme Court made in overturning 0:07:09.000 --> 0:07:10.200 Row well, it's. 0:07:10.120 --> 0:07:12.760 Look, in the case of the US Supreme Court decision 0:07:13.080 --> 0:07:17.240 and the Federal Constitution, we do not have a explicit 0:07:17.320 --> 0:07:21.040 right to privacy right. So in the US Constitution, over 0:07:21.120 --> 0:07:25.160 a series of cases involving things like contraception and the 0:07:25.240 --> 0:07:28.520 right of an interracial couple to marry, and the decision 0:07:28.560 --> 0:07:31.440 over gay marriage, we had the Supreme Court of the 0:07:31.520 --> 0:07:35.040 United States wrestling with finding a right to privacy. The 0:07:35.080 --> 0:07:38.160 famous language was in the penumbra, meaning like sort of 0:07:38.440 --> 0:07:42.080 hidden away or implied in the Fourth Amendment right of 0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:44.920 the Bill of Rights the Federal Constitution to be free 0:07:44.960 --> 0:07:48.960 from search and seizure and onreasonable government intrusion. So here 0:07:48.960 --> 0:07:50.600 in the case of Florida, we have a much more 0:07:50.600 --> 0:07:54.680 explicit reference to privacy right. Most of the state constitutions 0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:58.160 were written at a much later period where privacy was 0:07:58.200 --> 0:08:01.000 already an explicit concept. So in some ways there was 0:08:01.080 --> 0:08:05.200 more room for conservative justices at the federal level to 0:08:05.360 --> 0:08:09.760 question whether previous Supreme Court justices had gone too far 0:08:09.880 --> 0:08:13.160 and been too aggressive in reading in a privacy right 0:08:13.520 --> 0:08:16.400 and implying it without even the word privacy there. But 0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.560 this is a more aggressive decision because privacy is very 0:08:20.640 --> 0:08:24.760 clearly part of this state constitution, and it's hard to 0:08:24.800 --> 0:08:28.160 see how a right to determine the management of a pregnancy, 0:08:28.200 --> 0:08:32.720 including to terminate it, is not an essential part of privacy. 0:08:32.960 --> 0:08:35.800 But obviously these justices appear to have been moved by 0:08:35.840 --> 0:08:40.080 the sort of competing interest of the embryo of the fetus, 0:08:40.080 --> 0:08:42.560 you know, of the privacy rights other than the rights 0:08:42.559 --> 0:08:45.319 of the mother. So I think that's where this decision 0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:48.520 comes down. But it's clearly more aggressive and more conservative 0:08:48.920 --> 0:08:50.880 than the US Supreme Court's decision in my view. 0:08:51.080 --> 0:08:54.040 And Harry, why is the sixth week ban able to 0:08:54.080 --> 0:08:56.880 go into effect now that they've ruled on the fifteen 0:08:56.920 --> 0:08:57.480 week ban? 0:08:58.280 --> 0:09:01.040 I mean, this was a decision of the Florida legislature, right, 0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:04.960 So when Governor Destantis proposed and the Florida Legislature enacted 0:09:05.200 --> 0:09:07.920 the fifteen week ban, it appears that they chose that 0:09:08.160 --> 0:09:10.679 time period because that was the law that was from 0:09:10.679 --> 0:09:13.000 Mississippi that was before the Supreme Court. They tried to 0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:16.280 match that law so that if that law stood, they 0:09:16.320 --> 0:09:18.880 could pass it. And that law went into effect in 0:09:18.960 --> 0:09:21.480 July of twenty twenty two, a few weeks after the 0:09:21.600 --> 0:09:25.280 Supreme Court decision. But it became clear that the trend 0:09:25.440 --> 0:09:30.720 among pro life advocates was for a much more restrictive time. Obviously, 0:09:30.920 --> 0:09:33.800 those weeks between six and fifteen are massive difference. So 0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:37.240 they came back. The Florida legislature came back and passed 0:09:37.240 --> 0:09:39.720 a much more restrictive law. And the only reason it 0:09:39.720 --> 0:09:43.600 hadn't gone into effectings was because of this older Florida 0:09:43.800 --> 0:09:46.760 Supreme Court rulings that there was a right to privacy 0:09:46.800 --> 0:09:50.160 here that prevented it. So it required the Florida Supreme 0:09:50.200 --> 0:09:53.320 Court to come back revisit the issues you know in 0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:56.360 this week, I mean make a different decision really to 0:09:56.520 --> 0:09:59.719 revise their understanding of privacy so that the six week 0:09:59.760 --> 0:10:02.479 ban could take effect and few. 0:10:02.480 --> 0:10:05.800 Women realize that they're pregnant at six weeks. 0:10:06.400 --> 0:10:09.120 Right, The difference between six weeks and fifteen weeks in 0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:12.400 a woman realizing that she's pregnant, let alone making a 0:10:12.440 --> 0:10:16.360 decision about whether to carry the pregnancy or whether to 0:10:16.480 --> 0:10:21.760 terminate it is obviously those are crucial, crucial weeks. As 0:10:21.760 --> 0:10:24.400 you say, you know, the likelihood is that many women 0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:28.040 will not even realize that they're pregnant, let alone comes 0:10:28.040 --> 0:10:31.040 to that kind of a decision in that time period. 0:10:31.120 --> 0:10:33.880 So this is something that is it's practically a ban 0:10:34.000 --> 0:10:36.880 on abortion when you make the time period that short. 0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:41.360 And this decision has an effect outside Florida because it 0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:46.240 was a place where women seeking abortions in other states 0:10:46.280 --> 0:10:50.440 with more restrictive abortion laws came to get an abortion. 0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:51.320 Yeah. 0:10:51.360 --> 0:10:55.000 Absolutely, the whole issue of having Florida as a at 0:10:55.080 --> 0:11:00.920 least still somewhat permissive jurisdiction for women who moved, you know, 0:11:01.040 --> 0:11:04.520 with alacrity, who could move fairly promptly to come and 0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:07.120 travel to the state was a good option for all 0:11:07.160 --> 0:11:10.680 of the adjacents Southeastern states. I do think that this 0:11:10.800 --> 0:11:14.920 decision is yet another driver for that those women that 0:11:15.000 --> 0:11:20.199 will lead towards more use of medication and telemedicine. And 0:11:20.720 --> 0:11:22.920 you know, I think this pressure will take away the 0:11:23.000 --> 0:11:26.160 travel option to Florida at least until this the voters 0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:29.120 of Florida have a chance to decide about whether to 0:11:29.160 --> 0:11:31.800 sort of re it in state a longer option. And 0:11:31.840 --> 0:11:34.000 I think it will move more people, more women to 0:11:34.160 --> 0:11:38.720 utilize telemedicine and utilize medication which can be shipped into 0:11:38.720 --> 0:11:41.080 the state, you know, whether the states approve of it 0:11:41.160 --> 0:11:41.360 or not. 0:11:41.760 --> 0:11:44.000 Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show. I'll continue 0:11:44.000 --> 0:11:48.200 this conversation with healthcare attorney Harry Nelson, and we'll talk 0:11:48.240 --> 0:11:52.080 about that ballot measure on abortion, which Florida voters will 0:11:52.080 --> 0:11:55.080 decide on in November. I'm June Grasso. When you're listening 0:11:55.120 --> 0:12:01.120 to Bloomberg. Florida Supreme Court issued to rulings on abortion 0:12:01.240 --> 0:12:04.520 on Monday. One will allow the states six week abortion 0:12:04.679 --> 0:12:07.480 band to go into effect, while the other will let 0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:11.400 voters decide on a proposed ballot measure in November that 0:12:11.520 --> 0:12:15.640 will protect access to abortion up until viability, which is 0:12:15.720 --> 0:12:19.480 considered to be around twenty four weeks into pregnancy. Abortion 0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:23.840 on the ballot could have major political implications. In every 0:12:23.880 --> 0:12:27.080 state where abortion rights have appeared on the ballot, the 0:12:27.200 --> 0:12:31.320 side of abortion rights has won, including in conservative states 0:12:31.360 --> 0:12:35.199 like Kentucky, Ohio, and Kansas. I've been talking to healthcare 0:12:35.240 --> 0:12:40.000 attorney Harry Nelson of Nelson Hardiman Harry. The ballot measure says, 0:12:40.120 --> 0:12:44.600 in part that no law shall prohibit penalized delay or 0:12:44.679 --> 0:12:49.840 restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the 0:12:49.920 --> 0:12:54.560 patient's health, as determined by the patient's healthcare provider. It's 0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:55.640 pretty broad, isn't it. 0:12:56.320 --> 0:13:00.000 Yeah, the ballot measure basically has the concept of fetale 0:13:00.120 --> 0:13:03.800 ability built in, which I believe is understood to extend 0:13:03.840 --> 0:13:07.920 to over twenty weeks, so essentially allowing women in the 0:13:07.920 --> 0:13:11.439 first two trimesters more or less to have the option 0:13:11.480 --> 0:13:15.480 of abortion. So it is a fairly broad and liberal ruling. 0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:18.839 It would essentially give definitely a period of at least 0:13:18.880 --> 0:13:22.480 eight plus the maybe nine weeks longer than the fifteen 0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:26.480 week option, which is something that the pro choice advocates 0:13:26.480 --> 0:13:30.280 have been wanting just to give women more time to 0:13:30.320 --> 0:13:35.400 make choices. So yeah, it's a fairly liberal, permissive constitutional 0:13:35.440 --> 0:13:39.200 amendments that will be before Florida voters on the ever ballot, 0:13:39.360 --> 0:13:41.680 and it will be interesting to see how that plays 0:13:41.679 --> 0:13:45.720 out alongside the presidential election and all the other really 0:13:46.000 --> 0:13:48.600 very important decisions that Florida voters have to make this year. 0:13:48.840 --> 0:13:53.000 Well, Republican lawmakers are arguing that it will allow abortions 0:13:53.120 --> 0:13:54.199 late in pregnancy. 0:13:54.480 --> 0:13:57.280 It's absolutely true. I mean, look, when going back to 0:13:57.320 --> 0:14:00.120 the medication abortion option for a minute. You know, the 0:14:00.120 --> 0:14:03.480 the approval for mes apristone, which we were talking about 0:14:03.559 --> 0:14:05.760 only a couple of weeks ago when Spreme Court heard 0:14:05.880 --> 0:14:08.560 argument only is allowed to be used up to eleven weeks. 0:14:08.559 --> 0:14:11.320 So this is definitely certainly a much broader issue, and 0:14:11.960 --> 0:14:14.040 you know, it'll be interesting to see how voters react. 0:14:14.080 --> 0:14:16.720 I think that it does seem that in the vast 0:14:16.720 --> 0:14:20.080 majority of places, a majority of voters support more permissive 0:14:20.120 --> 0:14:23.320 abortion rights. But the question of whether the language here 0:14:23.760 --> 0:14:26.520 is broader than will attract the majority will be interesting 0:14:26.560 --> 0:14:27.120 to see. 0:14:27.280 --> 0:14:31.560 Well. The three female dissentis appointees on the Court dissented 0:14:32.120 --> 0:14:35.280 on the ballot measure due to concerns that the impact 0:14:35.360 --> 0:14:38.200 of the amendment was far greater than what voters will 0:14:38.200 --> 0:14:41.280 be led to believe at the ballot box. They really 0:14:41.360 --> 0:14:45.080 don't give much credence to voters. They act like voters 0:14:45.120 --> 0:14:47.400 don't understand what's right in front of them. 0:14:47.720 --> 0:14:50.640 Yeah, it's an interesting point. Look, I think we've seen 0:14:50.920 --> 0:14:54.520 that voters in states like Kansas have really given a 0:14:54.600 --> 0:14:59.800 rebuke to extremely conservative positions taken by their legislators, by 0:15:00.000 --> 0:15:03.600 same court jurists in those states. Personally, I have more 0:15:03.640 --> 0:15:06.600 faith in the in the voters to make themselves heard, 0:15:06.720 --> 0:15:08.800 and we've seen that when these issues go to the 0:15:08.840 --> 0:15:12.400 ballot box, there's far more support and it's harder for 0:15:13.200 --> 0:15:17.760 either side frankly to engage in legislative gamesmanship or the 0:15:17.800 --> 0:15:21.600 sort of take advantage of headcounting on particular courts to 0:15:21.680 --> 0:15:24.880 get their way. And so from my perspective, I think 0:15:24.920 --> 0:15:26.600 it's a good thing that we're going to the voters, 0:15:26.600 --> 0:15:28.000 but obviously not everybody. 0:15:27.640 --> 0:15:29.840 Feels that way, and I have to get sixty percent 0:15:30.040 --> 0:15:33.160 for it to pass. So now, abortion rights groups in 0:15:33.440 --> 0:15:36.280 several states are trying to put measures on the ballot, 0:15:36.560 --> 0:15:40.800 and anti abortion groups have deployed a wide range of 0:15:40.920 --> 0:15:46.600 tactics to keep proposals off the ballot, including challenging the language. 0:15:47.240 --> 0:15:51.440 Yeah, it's very interesting the way that popular referendu you 0:15:51.480 --> 0:15:54.880 know that voter initiatives have become a threat to the 0:15:54.920 --> 0:15:59.000 pro life movement and to advocacy for more restrictive abortion laws. 0:15:59.440 --> 0:16:01.880 And it just know the extent to which the idea 0:16:01.920 --> 0:16:06.440 of restricting women's choices and women's rights to reproductive healthcare 0:16:06.480 --> 0:16:10.720 access is just fundamentally unpopular and not something that the 0:16:10.760 --> 0:16:14.280 majority of Americans want, and yet something that has succeeded 0:16:14.720 --> 0:16:17.720 by virtue of you know, this whole legal effort in 0:16:17.800 --> 0:16:20.960 the courts and legislatures. And so its ironic in a 0:16:21.000 --> 0:16:24.240 way that the most democratic process we have, which is 0:16:24.280 --> 0:16:27.280 to let voters decide at the ballot box, is now 0:16:27.520 --> 0:16:30.600 the threat to the same people, and it definitely should 0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:33.560 give pause to anybody who really thinks that the issue 0:16:33.560 --> 0:16:38.600 here has political support. You know that in Republican politics nationally, 0:16:38.680 --> 0:16:42.680 we've now seen several cycles in which excessive restriction of 0:16:42.720 --> 0:16:47.640 abortion has been politically unpopular and costly in numerous elections, 0:16:47.680 --> 0:16:50.760 and so it's surprising that we continue to see this 0:16:50.920 --> 0:16:55.600 resistance to acknowledging and honoring the will of the voters 0:16:55.920 --> 0:17:00.080 to have some level of abortion protection and access the 0:17:00.160 --> 0:17:03.600 reproductive healthcare choices available. And it seems like it's a 0:17:03.600 --> 0:17:06.640 decision to try to restrict this beyond what voters want 0:17:06.920 --> 0:17:09.760 is having a political cost that was continuing to see 0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:10.560 play out for. 0:17:10.920 --> 0:17:14.200 Helping him speaking about the costs of going too far 0:17:14.920 --> 0:17:18.080 in the case that got national attention where a woman 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:22.320 in Texas was charged with murder, arrested, and spent three 0:17:22.400 --> 0:17:26.560 days in jail in twenty twenty two after health officials 0:17:26.680 --> 0:17:30.480 reported her to authorities for attempting to terminate her pregnancy. 0:17:30.680 --> 0:17:34.320 She's now suing the Star County District Attorney's office for 0:17:34.400 --> 0:17:37.520 more than a million dollars, claiming the fallout from the 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:39.520 case has changed her life forever. 0:17:40.320 --> 0:17:44.080 Lazelle Gonzalez, she's doing the prosecutors now, saying that they 0:17:44.560 --> 0:17:48.879 knowingly misrepresented the fact in order to arrest her and 0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:53.240 charge her, and that they caused significant harm to her. 0:17:54.000 --> 0:17:59.040 That's quite a fascinating case about sort of how local 0:17:59.080 --> 0:18:02.480 prosecutors may have gone much too far in the way 0:18:02.480 --> 0:18:06.040 that they really made the spectacle of this poor woman 0:18:06.359 --> 0:18:09.760 having her spend time in jail, publishing her mugshot in 0:18:09.840 --> 0:18:13.760 the paper, I mean, putting her private medical information into 0:18:13.760 --> 0:18:17.239 the newspapers. And so, you know, just another chapter in 0:18:17.280 --> 0:18:20.320 this is our case where she is now going after 0:18:20.440 --> 0:18:23.960 them and essentially alleging that they violated her rights in 0:18:24.000 --> 0:18:26.640 the way that they went after her for criminal liability 0:18:26.800 --> 0:18:31.840 for her decision to take medication abortion. So it's just 0:18:32.200 --> 0:18:35.160 yet another example of this like crazy back and forth, 0:18:35.320 --> 0:18:39.439 chaotic situation wherein where literally, you know, a private healthcare 0:18:39.600 --> 0:18:43.800 choice that this woman made led to such an extreme reaction, 0:18:44.200 --> 0:18:44.480 and the. 0:18:44.440 --> 0:18:48.760 District attorney was investigated by the state bar of Texas 0:18:48.800 --> 0:18:51.199 over his handling of the case, and they reached a 0:18:51.240 --> 0:18:55.439 settlement so that his office could continue prosecuting cases. The 0:18:55.480 --> 0:18:59.240 settlement conditions included a twelve hundred and fifty dollars fine 0:18:59.600 --> 0:19:02.440 and a year year long probation of his legal license. 0:19:03.000 --> 0:19:05.960 He told the Associated Press, I made a mistake in 0:19:06.000 --> 0:19:10.040 that case. We'll see if that translates into money damages 0:19:10.560 --> 0:19:13.720 for Gonzalez. Thanks so much, Harry. As always, that's Harry 0:19:13.760 --> 0:19:17.240 Nelson of Nelson Hardiman. Let's turn out to some surprising 0:19:17.440 --> 0:19:21.320 admissions today in Fifth Circuit oral arguments over the Texas 0:19:21.400 --> 0:19:26.640 law known as SB four that authorizes state officials to arrest, detain, 0:19:26.920 --> 0:19:31.040 and deport non citizens who enter the country illegally. Joining 0:19:31.040 --> 0:19:34.719 me is Bloomberg, Texas legal reporter Madelein Meckelberg. Was the 0:19:34.720 --> 0:19:37.960 State of Texas on the defensive in these arguments. 0:19:38.320 --> 0:19:41.840 They definitely were. They knew coming into the arguments today 0:19:41.840 --> 0:19:45.440 that they were facing an uphill battle. This same three 0:19:45.520 --> 0:19:48.720 judge panel of the Fifth Circuit just last week had 0:19:48.920 --> 0:19:52.440 ruled to block this law while they consider the full appeal. 0:19:52.880 --> 0:19:55.679 So I think what we saw from Texas today was 0:19:55.840 --> 0:19:58.879 a more nuanced position on what they'd be willing to 0:19:58.960 --> 0:20:02.640 accept from the court. At one point, remarkably, we heard 0:20:02.680 --> 0:20:06.879 the Texas Solicitor General suggests that perhaps Texas had gone 0:20:07.080 --> 0:20:11.320 too far in trying to pass this statute right, and 0:20:11.359 --> 0:20:14.000 that they'd be willing to if the court decided that 0:20:14.040 --> 0:20:16.240 they wanted to block the law from going into effects, 0:20:16.320 --> 0:20:19.240 they asked that they still let some provisions of the 0:20:19.280 --> 0:20:21.919 measure go into effect, specifically one that would let the 0:20:22.000 --> 0:20:25.000 state order the removal of people who they've identified as 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:26.159 being here illegally. 0:20:26.600 --> 0:20:28.920 What part of the law did they think went too far? 0:20:29.480 --> 0:20:31.960 Well. The way that he framed that idea was that 0:20:32.320 --> 0:20:36.120 Texas crafted this statute as a whole with the intention 0:20:36.240 --> 0:20:38.679 of going right up to the line of what Supreme 0:20:38.720 --> 0:20:42.200 Court precedent has allowed up to this point, which, as 0:20:42.280 --> 0:20:45.520 I'm sure you and your listeners know, is basically one 0:20:45.560 --> 0:20:48.080 hundred and fifty years of the federal government being the 0:20:48.080 --> 0:20:52.600 one responsible for immigration enforcement and the border. And so 0:20:52.640 --> 0:20:55.720 Texas was trying to take as much authority as possible 0:20:55.800 --> 0:20:59.200 with this statute while not running afoul of that precedent, 0:20:59.520 --> 0:21:01.439 because they knew that this law would get challenged in 0:21:01.480 --> 0:21:03.520 the courts and that they'd end up here right now. 0:21:04.040 --> 0:21:07.240 But it seemed that Texas was willing to allow the 0:21:07.280 --> 0:21:10.240 court to temporarily put on hold. So that's important to 0:21:10.280 --> 0:21:12.960 note too, Like the conversation that's happening right now is 0:21:13.040 --> 0:21:15.800 all over a preliminary injunction. This is not the last 0:21:15.840 --> 0:21:19.119 word on the matter. But they seemed okay for now 0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:22.159 for most of the statute to be blocked by the 0:21:22.160 --> 0:21:24.920 court if they could keep on the books that provision 0:21:24.960 --> 0:21:26.439 that would let them remove people. 0:21:26.880 --> 0:21:30.159 How did the judges on the Fifth Circuit on the 0:21:30.200 --> 0:21:31.800 panel react to that? 0:21:32.520 --> 0:21:34.600 It was a little bit like deja vous since it 0:21:34.640 --> 0:21:36.840 was the same three judges that had heard this case 0:21:36.880 --> 0:21:40.359 a few weeks ago. We had Judge Andrew Oldham, who 0:21:40.440 --> 0:21:43.200 was the one that was clearly in support of this 0:21:43.359 --> 0:21:45.480 law and thought it should go into effects. He had 0:21:45.520 --> 0:21:48.720 a lot of questions and concerns for the DOJ attorney 0:21:48.800 --> 0:21:51.359 that was there, asking about whether the court had the 0:21:51.400 --> 0:21:54.640 authority to block this law in totality before it's been 0:21:54.680 --> 0:21:57.479 allowed to go into effect. But the other judges were 0:21:57.520 --> 0:22:00.879 a little more quiet. Judge Erma Ramirez hardly spoke at 0:22:00.920 --> 0:22:03.640 all during the hearing, but we know that she previously 0:22:04.160 --> 0:22:06.639 wanted to block the law. And I think the swing 0:22:06.720 --> 0:22:09.639 vote here that everyone's paying attention to is Chief Judge 0:22:09.640 --> 0:22:13.520 Priscilla Richmond, she has been on the fence in the past. 0:22:13.720 --> 0:22:17.520 She did rule in favor of blocking the law previously. 0:22:17.560 --> 0:22:20.720 In this case, she raised some of the same concerns 0:22:20.760 --> 0:22:23.200 today that she did in that opinion, which is basically 0:22:23.240 --> 0:22:26.320 this idea that President up to this point has been 0:22:26.480 --> 0:22:29.360 that immigration is the responsibility of the federal government. 0:22:30.680 --> 0:22:35.520 And just explain what happened last week when this same 0:22:35.640 --> 0:22:38.000 three judge panel made a decision. 0:22:38.800 --> 0:22:42.479 So this case has been bouncing back and forth between 0:22:42.520 --> 0:22:45.520 the courts, and in doing so, the courts of let 0:22:45.520 --> 0:22:47.359 the law go into effect, block the law, let it 0:22:47.400 --> 0:22:50.720 go into effect. Last week, this same three judge panel 0:22:50.760 --> 0:22:53.760 of the Fifth Circuit, they basically said that they were 0:22:53.800 --> 0:22:56.960