WEBVTT - White House Sides with Texas in Obamacare Lawsuit

0:00:03.480 --> 0:00:07.560
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. I'm June Grosso. Every

0:00:07.640 --> 0:00:10.440
<v Speaker 1>day we bring you insight and analysis into the most

0:00:10.480 --> 0:00:13.399
<v Speaker 1>important legal news of the day. You can find more

0:00:13.480 --> 0:00:18.040
<v Speaker 1>episodes of the Bloomberg Law Podcast on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud

0:00:18.320 --> 0:00:22.800
<v Speaker 1>and on Bloomberg dot com slash podcasts. Throughout his presidency,

0:00:22.960 --> 0:00:28.600
<v Speaker 1>Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the Affordable Care Act. Obamacare

0:00:28.760 --> 0:00:32.280
<v Speaker 1>is a disgrace to our nation, and we are solving

0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:35.760
<v Speaker 1>the problem of Obamacare now. The Trump administration is getting

0:00:35.760 --> 0:00:39.720
<v Speaker 1>another chance to dismantle President Obama's signature White House achievement,

0:00:39.800 --> 0:00:43.120
<v Speaker 1>signing with Texas and nineteen other Republican led states to

0:00:43.200 --> 0:00:46.280
<v Speaker 1>have a judge toss out some aspects of the Affordable

0:00:46.320 --> 0:00:49.599
<v Speaker 1>Care Act. Joining me as Timothy Johnson, Professor at Washington

0:00:49.640 --> 0:00:53.559
<v Speaker 1>and Lee School of Law, Timmy, what's the legal argument

0:00:53.720 --> 0:00:57.240
<v Speaker 1>of Texas and the coalition of states against the Affordable

0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:03.080
<v Speaker 1>Care Act mean? Is that the Supreme Court in held

0:01:03.120 --> 0:01:06.039
<v Speaker 1>that Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Power to

0:01:06.319 --> 0:01:11.360
<v Speaker 1>adopt the individual mandate as a command or requirement, but

0:01:11.680 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>that it could do it and did do it as

0:01:13.840 --> 0:01:21.319
<v Speaker 1>a tax. However, in uh Congress repealed the tax penalty

0:01:21.600 --> 0:01:28.520
<v Speaker 1>beginning in and therefore Texas argues the individual mandate is

0:01:28.560 --> 0:01:34.319
<v Speaker 1>now entirely unconstitutional and the the the entire statute was

0:01:34.400 --> 0:01:38.120
<v Speaker 1>built on the individual mandate, and therefore all nine pages

0:01:38.160 --> 0:01:42.559
<v Speaker 1>of the statute collapse. What is your legal opinion of

0:01:42.760 --> 0:01:49.200
<v Speaker 1>their argument. It's absurd, and I think most legal experts

0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:52.200
<v Speaker 1>who have looked at it agree with that in one

0:01:52.200 --> 0:01:56.800
<v Speaker 1>way or another, including some people who conservative legal scholars

0:01:56.840 --> 0:02:02.040
<v Speaker 1>who have supported earlier challenges to the statute. I mean,

0:02:02.680 --> 0:02:07.800
<v Speaker 1>it's flawed in many ways. Um, the individual mandate at

0:02:07.840 --> 0:02:12.840
<v Speaker 1>this point is not a command. Supreme Court held that

0:02:12.919 --> 0:02:16.799
<v Speaker 1>it wasn't. Um, the tax have been zeroed out, but

0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:19.880
<v Speaker 1>there are lots of taxes that are taxes that no

0:02:19.960 --> 0:02:22.840
<v Speaker 1>one is paying right now that are have zero So

0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:26.560
<v Speaker 1>it's still there on the books as attacks. But most importantly,

0:02:27.639 --> 0:02:32.360
<v Speaker 1>when Congress repealed the or zeroed out the penalty in seventeen,

0:02:33.000 --> 0:02:35.600
<v Speaker 1>it had no intention of getting rid of the rest

0:02:35.680 --> 0:02:38.640
<v Speaker 1>of the statute. It had already tried to get rid

0:02:38.680 --> 0:02:41.680
<v Speaker 1>of some parts of the statute and then failed, and

0:02:41.840 --> 0:02:46.760
<v Speaker 1>numerous senators said, we are not doing anything here to

0:02:47.080 --> 0:02:50.560
<v Speaker 1>change anything else in the statute. And uh, and so

0:02:50.600 --> 0:02:54.959
<v Speaker 1>the judge should a single judge in North Texas should

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:59.079
<v Speaker 1>not rewrite the statute when Congress refused to do so. Now,

0:03:00.000 --> 0:03:03.240
<v Speaker 1>I understand that the administration, the Trump administration is not

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:07.480
<v Speaker 1>going as far as as Texas is. What's the Trump

0:03:07.520 --> 0:03:12.760
<v Speaker 1>administration position? Well, the Trump administration position is that if

0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 1>the individual they well, the first they agree the individual

0:03:15.480 --> 0:03:19.240
<v Speaker 1>mandate is now unconstitutional. But they say the consequence of

0:03:19.320 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 1>that is that the court should strike the provisions of

0:03:25.240 --> 0:03:28.720
<v Speaker 1>the Affordable Care Act that require insurers to cover people

0:03:28.720 --> 0:03:32.280
<v Speaker 1>with pre existing conditions and not charge them more, and

0:03:32.480 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 1>to cover specifically those pre existing conditions. And the Trump

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:47.400
<v Speaker 1>administration argues that those requirements cannot survive without the individual mandate. Interestingly, though, however,

0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:50.960
<v Speaker 1>yesterday they said, but don't rule on this, tell after

0:03:51.280 --> 0:03:55.360
<v Speaker 1>open enrollment closes in December, because otherwise you'll cause chaos

0:03:55.400 --> 0:03:58.360
<v Speaker 1>and the insurance industry. And what I think they're really

0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:01.240
<v Speaker 1>saying is don't rule before or the mid terms, because

0:04:01.240 --> 0:04:06.400
<v Speaker 1>you'll cause chaos in the in the election for Republicans. Well,

0:04:06.720 --> 0:04:09.560
<v Speaker 1>it isn't is it an opposition? Does it seem to you?

0:04:09.640 --> 0:04:13.360
<v Speaker 1>Because that is such pre existing conditions and insurers having

0:04:13.400 --> 0:04:16.240
<v Speaker 1>to take people even that they have pre existing conditions

0:04:16.320 --> 0:04:21.120
<v Speaker 1>is such a popular part of Obamacare and polls. Yeah,

0:04:21.160 --> 0:04:23.320
<v Speaker 1>I think it's probably the most popular part of the

0:04:23.520 --> 0:04:29.280
<v Speaker 1>of the Affordable Care Act. Um, it is in No,

0:04:29.360 --> 0:04:34.839
<v Speaker 1>one must admit that the Obama administration in also said

0:04:34.880 --> 0:04:37.800
<v Speaker 1>that if the individual in the end date was found unconstitutional,

0:04:38.440 --> 0:04:42.240
<v Speaker 1>that would undermine the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements

0:04:42.279 --> 0:04:48.839
<v Speaker 1>as well. Um. But um, that was before and we

0:04:49.000 --> 0:04:51.600
<v Speaker 1>now have evidence that, in fact, we can get rid

0:04:51.640 --> 0:04:54.000
<v Speaker 1>of the individual mandate and the rest of the law

0:04:54.040 --> 0:04:58.120
<v Speaker 1>works pretty fine. Um. The rate increases that insures it

0:04:58.240 --> 0:05:00.760
<v Speaker 1>put in for next year, fully under standing that the

0:05:00.760 --> 0:05:05.360
<v Speaker 1>individual mandate has gone, are very moderate compared to previous year.

0:05:05.480 --> 0:05:09.200
<v Speaker 1>Some some insurers are even reducing their premiums. So I

0:05:09.240 --> 0:05:13.640
<v Speaker 1>think that there's no evidence at this point that the

0:05:13.720 --> 0:05:17.000
<v Speaker 1>individual mandate is essential to the operation of any other

0:05:17.080 --> 0:05:20.839
<v Speaker 1>part of the Affordable Care Act. So the administration's move

0:05:20.920 --> 0:05:24.800
<v Speaker 1>here has left it to a coalition of seventeen Democratic

0:05:24.839 --> 0:05:29.080
<v Speaker 1>state attorneys general to defend Obamacare here. What's their argument?

0:05:29.120 --> 0:05:32.000
<v Speaker 1>Does it follow what you've been saying? Yeah, I mean,

0:05:32.040 --> 0:05:34.800
<v Speaker 1>basically what I've said is their argument. Number one, the

0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:39.839
<v Speaker 1>mandate is constitutional, uh, And number two, if the Court

0:05:39.880 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>decides to hold it unconstitutional. It is completely independent of

0:05:45.160 --> 0:05:47.960
<v Speaker 1>the whole It should be severed in legal language, from

0:05:48.000 --> 0:05:50.200
<v Speaker 1>the whole rest of the statute, and the whole rest

0:05:50.200 --> 0:05:55.159
<v Speaker 1>of the statute should be sustained. Now, the Supreme Court

0:05:55.200 --> 0:05:58.880
<v Speaker 1>has ruled on various parts of Obamacare, as we remember.

0:05:59.680 --> 0:06:01.520
<v Speaker 1>If as does go to the Supreme Court, let's just

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:04.640
<v Speaker 1>say it ends up the Supreme Court. How is the

0:06:04.680 --> 0:06:08.680
<v Speaker 1>court likely to hold and would the presence of Brett

0:06:08.760 --> 0:06:12.960
<v Speaker 1>Kavanaugh on the court make a difference. Well, I think

0:06:13.040 --> 0:06:17.159
<v Speaker 1>that it's been to the Supreme Court twice now, and

0:06:17.440 --> 0:06:21.719
<v Speaker 1>both times the four Democratic appointees on the Supreme Court

0:06:21.720 --> 0:06:25.160
<v Speaker 1>have been joined by Chief Justice Roberts to uphold it.

0:06:25.839 --> 0:06:32.600
<v Speaker 1>So in a sense, Um, Judge Kavanaugh's appointment is not

0:06:32.839 --> 0:06:37.000
<v Speaker 1>our decision is not crucial one way or the other. Um.

0:06:37.160 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 1>I but I don't know how how Justice Kavanaugh would

0:06:40.680 --> 0:06:43.480
<v Speaker 1>rule on this. And he, of course is a Justice Kavan,

0:06:43.600 --> 0:06:47.680
<v Speaker 1>I should say, and he of course is steadfastly appointing

0:06:47.720 --> 0:06:51.800
<v Speaker 1>that question in the confirmation hearings. Um, it would certainly,

0:06:52.440 --> 0:06:56.120
<v Speaker 1>uh to my mind, be preferable to have a Supreme

0:06:56.120 --> 0:07:01.120
<v Speaker 1>Court justice who would be more favorably incline towards the

0:07:01.200 --> 0:07:04.559
<v Speaker 1>Affordable Care Act. But but I mean, ultimately, we're looking

0:07:04.600 --> 0:07:08.160
<v Speaker 1>at legal questions here, and I think the law on

0:07:08.279 --> 0:07:14.000
<v Speaker 1>this is pretty clear. Um that again, the uh, it's

0:07:14.200 --> 0:07:17.520
<v Speaker 1>it's constitutional and should be severed. All right, thank you

0:07:17.640 --> 0:07:21.119
<v Speaker 1>so much. That's Timothy Johnston, professor at Washington and Lee's

0:07:21.200 --> 0:07:24.600
<v Speaker 1>School of Law. The judge has not ruled in the

0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:27.960
<v Speaker 1>case on the preliminary injunction, and the hearings just took

0:07:28.000 --> 0:07:34.680
<v Speaker 1>place yesterday. It's day three of the confirmation hearings were

0:07:34.680 --> 0:07:37.800
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. The highlight of the hearing

0:07:37.880 --> 0:07:41.360
<v Speaker 1>so far has been Kavanaugh's refusal to answer Democratic Senator's

0:07:41.480 --> 0:07:45.480
<v Speaker 1>pointed questions on abortion, affirmative action, and presidential power, among

0:07:45.480 --> 0:07:49.280
<v Speaker 1>other things. Here's Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal asked me about

0:07:49.360 --> 0:07:53.640
<v Speaker 1>Kavanaugh's position on abortion, Can you commit, sitting here today,

0:07:53.680 --> 0:07:58.800
<v Speaker 1>that you would never overturn Rogie Waite so center. Each

0:07:58.800 --> 0:08:03.600
<v Speaker 1>of the eight justices currently on the Supreme Court when

0:08:03.640 --> 0:08:06.800
<v Speaker 1>they were in this seat declined to hire that question.

0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:11.320
<v Speaker 1>Joining me is Steve Sanders, professor at Indiana University's Mare

0:08:11.440 --> 0:08:14.520
<v Speaker 1>School of Law. Steve Kavana seems to have refined the

0:08:14.600 --> 0:08:18.040
<v Speaker 1>Supreme Court nominees art of not answering a question, even

0:08:18.080 --> 0:08:21.560
<v Speaker 1>in areas that he's written in extensively, he's calling it

0:08:21.760 --> 0:08:28.480
<v Speaker 1>nominee precedent. So are these hearings just for show? Unfortunately,

0:08:28.480 --> 0:08:31.120
<v Speaker 1>as much as I hate to admit thinking so, June

0:08:31.120 --> 0:08:33.680
<v Speaker 1>and I I think I have to agree. I mean, so,

0:08:33.920 --> 0:08:36.360
<v Speaker 1>what we've seen over and over again is the Republican

0:08:36.440 --> 0:08:40.080
<v Speaker 1>Senators asking either sort of gassing on to just run

0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:44.520
<v Speaker 1>out the clock or asking these really embarrassing softballs and

0:08:44.960 --> 0:08:47.640
<v Speaker 1>asking him about his faith and his daughter's basketball team.

0:08:47.640 --> 0:08:50.319
<v Speaker 1>And what we see among the Democrats, though, I think

0:08:50.440 --> 0:08:53.120
<v Speaker 1>is just as frustrating, and that is they should know

0:08:53.280 --> 0:08:56.439
<v Speaker 1>well that if they ask a pointed question like Senator

0:08:56.480 --> 0:09:00.800
<v Speaker 1>Blumenthal asked um Kevinaugh, they're not going get a response.

0:09:00.920 --> 0:09:04.240
<v Speaker 1>No Supreme Court nominee in recent history has been willing

0:09:04.280 --> 0:09:08.760
<v Speaker 1>to answer a quote unquote hypothetical like that. What I

0:09:08.800 --> 0:09:11.560
<v Speaker 1>wish the Senators would do would go up just a

0:09:11.600 --> 0:09:14.400
<v Speaker 1>little bit to a higher level of abstraction and engage

0:09:14.480 --> 0:09:18.319
<v Speaker 1>him about the meaning and the history of certain constitutional

0:09:18.440 --> 0:09:22.280
<v Speaker 1>provisions and his judicial philosophy. We saw a little bit

0:09:22.320 --> 0:09:25.760
<v Speaker 1>of that this morning actually with Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham

0:09:25.800 --> 0:09:29.120
<v Speaker 1>asking him about the extent of how far can we

0:09:29.160 --> 0:09:32.200
<v Speaker 1>stretch the word liberty which is in the Constitution. That

0:09:32.240 --> 0:09:35.800
<v Speaker 1>word is the basis really of Roe versus Wade and

0:09:35.840 --> 0:09:39.959
<v Speaker 1>many other controversial decisions. The problem is Senator Graham kept

0:09:39.960 --> 0:09:43.920
<v Speaker 1>cutting off Kavanaugh, wouldn't let Kavanaugh give some meaningful answers.

0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:47.200
<v Speaker 1>Graham kept, you know, filibustering about what he thought about

0:09:47.240 --> 0:09:50.680
<v Speaker 1>the issue. So I think, in short, I'm more and

0:09:50.720 --> 0:09:52.880
<v Speaker 1>more prepared with every passing hour to agree with you.

0:09:54.679 --> 0:09:58.320
<v Speaker 1>Kevina tried to back away from his written views in

0:09:58.400 --> 0:10:02.679
<v Speaker 1>a law review article a president shouldn't face criminal investigation.

0:10:03.360 --> 0:10:07.240
<v Speaker 1>Did he succeed in backing away? Well, I think he

0:10:07.320 --> 0:10:10.360
<v Speaker 1>made the fair point that he he said, Uh, you know,

0:10:10.440 --> 0:10:15.480
<v Speaker 1>he clarified that he was arguing about things Congress could do,

0:10:15.880 --> 0:10:20.520
<v Speaker 1>perhaps Congress should do. He wasn't making he wasn't giving

0:10:20.600 --> 0:10:25.319
<v Speaker 1>his own view of the president's role under the Constitution

0:10:25.520 --> 0:10:29.120
<v Speaker 1>or the president's role under existing law. He was making

0:10:29.120 --> 0:10:32.120
<v Speaker 1>a suggestion of something Congress might want to think about

0:10:32.160 --> 0:10:35.480
<v Speaker 1>and why that might be a good idea. So, you know,

0:10:35.640 --> 0:10:38.800
<v Speaker 1>there are nuances and a lot of these issues that

0:10:38.920 --> 0:10:41.480
<v Speaker 1>get lost and so I think it was a fair

0:10:41.559 --> 0:10:44.120
<v Speaker 1>point of his to point out what he was saying

0:10:44.160 --> 0:10:47.840
<v Speaker 1>and what he wasn't saying on that question. And what

0:10:47.840 --> 0:10:52.960
<v Speaker 1>what's your take on his description of the Nixon case. Well,

0:10:53.040 --> 0:10:55.720
<v Speaker 1>so that's interesting. He he really sort of brought up

0:10:55.800 --> 0:10:58.720
<v Speaker 1>United States versus Nixon himself. That's the case in which

0:10:58.720 --> 0:11:04.080
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court ruled the President couldn't withhold the Watergate tapes,

0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:07.840
<v Speaker 1>which were being subpoenaed, not in a legal proceeding that

0:11:07.960 --> 0:11:11.080
<v Speaker 1>Nixon himself was involved in, but an illegal proceeding that

0:11:11.160 --> 0:11:14.720
<v Speaker 1>several of his aids were involved in a criminal prosecution.

0:11:14.840 --> 0:11:18.240
<v Speaker 1>And I think it was interesting to contrast his fourth

0:11:18.320 --> 0:11:21.880
<v Speaker 1>right embrace, uh in praise for that decision. I think

0:11:21.880 --> 0:11:23.800
<v Speaker 1>he said something like that was one of the Supreme

0:11:23.840 --> 0:11:27.720
<v Speaker 1>Court's finest hours. He had no problems with that, yet

0:11:28.280 --> 0:11:32.160
<v Speaker 1>again repeatedly refusing to endorse or really say anything about

0:11:32.320 --> 0:11:37.000
<v Speaker 1>Roe versus ray, Row versus Weight, or some more controversial decisions. Um.

0:11:37.000 --> 0:11:40.640
<v Speaker 1>But you know, for another reason, his embrace of the

0:11:40.720 --> 0:11:44.520
<v Speaker 1>United States versus Nixon, I think was interesting in that, um,

0:11:44.559 --> 0:11:47.800
<v Speaker 1>it might cut against a little bit the idea that

0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:53.120
<v Speaker 1>he has this broad view of sort of limitless executive

0:11:53.160 --> 0:11:56.920
<v Speaker 1>power and executive discretion, and the freedom that the president

0:11:56.960 --> 0:12:01.320
<v Speaker 1>should have from having to obey criminal process that other

0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:05.880
<v Speaker 1>people have to obey. So Steve. This morning, some Democrats

0:12:05.920 --> 0:12:11.840
<v Speaker 1>released confidential memos and emails. Maizie Herono explained, released an

0:12:11.880 --> 0:12:17.880
<v Speaker 1>email which dealt with his his talking about Roe v.

0:12:18.040 --> 0:12:23.160
<v Speaker 1>Wade as not settled precedent years ago. So how should

0:12:23.360 --> 0:12:27.480
<v Speaker 1>how should pro choice people view his answers as comforting

0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:32.480
<v Speaker 1>or as disturbing? I think I think they just don't

0:12:32.600 --> 0:12:36.600
<v Speaker 1>really shed any light on his views as a judge.

0:12:36.679 --> 0:12:39.560
<v Speaker 1>That what he was saying. It was a an email

0:12:39.760 --> 0:12:44.440
<v Speaker 1>that he wrote in the White House which was making

0:12:44.559 --> 0:12:48.040
<v Speaker 1>comments and a draft op ed that somebody else had written,

0:12:48.040 --> 0:12:50.720
<v Speaker 1>and this person had said had referred to Roe versus

0:12:50.720 --> 0:12:54.480
<v Speaker 1>Weight as quote unquote settled law or subtle precedent, and

0:12:54.880 --> 0:12:57.800
<v Speaker 1>Kavanaugh at that point pointed out, well, not everyone agrees

0:12:57.880 --> 0:13:01.000
<v Speaker 1>that it is subtle precedent. I don't think that was

0:13:01.080 --> 0:13:03.960
<v Speaker 1>factually untrue. I mean, you could say Kavanaugh may have

0:13:04.000 --> 0:13:07.080
<v Speaker 1>been motivated to point that out by the fact that

0:13:07.120 --> 0:13:11.000
<v Speaker 1>he also thinks it's not settled precedent. But Kavanaugh pointed

0:13:11.000 --> 0:13:13.599
<v Speaker 1>out in that email that at that point three justices

0:13:13.640 --> 0:13:17.360
<v Speaker 1>of the Supreme Court were prepared to overrule Roe versus Way.

0:13:17.520 --> 0:13:20.320
<v Speaker 1>It was probably a fair accurate statement that many of

0:13:20.360 --> 0:13:24.120
<v Speaker 1>the lawyers and scholars in the federalist society that Brett

0:13:24.160 --> 0:13:28.000
<v Speaker 1>Kavanaugh was hanging out with didn't regard Roe versus Way

0:13:28.080 --> 0:13:32.920
<v Speaker 1>as quote unquote settled law. So I think that's pretty

0:13:33.000 --> 0:13:35.960
<v Speaker 1>thin stuff. I mean again, he was I think making

0:13:35.960 --> 0:13:40.560
<v Speaker 1>an observation about the broader community of legal scholars that

0:13:40.679 --> 0:13:45.160
<v Speaker 1>I think was not in itself in itself inaccurate or

0:13:45.240 --> 0:13:49.080
<v Speaker 1>unfair as a characterization. It's certainly an article of faith

0:13:49.080 --> 0:13:53.199
<v Speaker 1>among progressive lawyers and scholars that Roll versus Way to

0:13:53.280 --> 0:13:56.839
<v Speaker 1>settled lawyers should be considered settled law. That's different than

0:13:56.880 --> 0:14:00.400
<v Speaker 1>making a statement that everyone thinks it is now legal.

0:14:00.400 --> 0:14:03.760
<v Speaker 1>Anewars have said that his confirmation could create the most

0:14:03.800 --> 0:14:08.360
<v Speaker 1>conservative Supreme Court in generations. Do you agree, and if so,

0:14:08.520 --> 0:14:12.520
<v Speaker 1>in what areas might we see a change? Well, I

0:14:12.600 --> 0:14:17.040
<v Speaker 1>think we're likely to. Well, abortion is since we've been

0:14:17.040 --> 0:14:20.120
<v Speaker 1>talking about that is probably one of the areas. There

0:14:20.160 --> 0:14:25.200
<v Speaker 1>are um constant attempts at the state level by conservatives

0:14:25.600 --> 0:14:29.200
<v Speaker 1>to pass laws that they know might be struck down

0:14:29.240 --> 0:14:31.320
<v Speaker 1>at a lower court level. Because their goal is to

0:14:31.400 --> 0:14:34.800
<v Speaker 1>get to higher courts and ultimately the Supreme Court and

0:14:35.240 --> 0:14:38.720
<v Speaker 1>chip away at abortion rights. I'm not the first person

0:14:38.760 --> 0:14:40.720
<v Speaker 1>to say this, but I think it bears repeating. You

0:14:40.800 --> 0:14:45.880
<v Speaker 1>don't need to overturn Roe versus wade Um to uh

0:14:46.240 --> 0:14:49.880
<v Speaker 1>sharply restrict abortion availability from what it is today. In fact,

0:14:49.880 --> 0:14:56.200
<v Speaker 1>the Supreme Court itself in backed away from Roversus from

0:14:56.240 --> 0:14:59.720
<v Speaker 1>the letter of Roversus, weighed and modified it and narrowed it,

0:15:00.240 --> 0:15:03.320
<v Speaker 1>and and there are lots of ways in which UM,

0:15:03.320 --> 0:15:06.640
<v Speaker 1>a conservative court could continue to do that could continue

0:15:07.280 --> 0:15:09.960
<v Speaker 1>UH saying well, this is not an undue burden to

0:15:10.280 --> 0:15:13.640
<v Speaker 1>write to abortion. That's not an undue burden to a

0:15:13.680 --> 0:15:17.440
<v Speaker 1>write to abortion without ever having to undo Roversus weight itself.

0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.480
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much for your insight, Steve. That's Steve Sanders,

0:15:20.480 --> 0:15:24.400
<v Speaker 1>professor at the Indiana University maur School of Law. Thanks

0:15:24.440 --> 0:15:27.720
<v Speaker 1>for listening to the Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can subscribe

0:15:27.720 --> 0:15:31.000
<v Speaker 1>and listen to the show on Apple podcast, SoundCloud, and

0:15:31.040 --> 0:15:35.520
<v Speaker 1>on Bloomberg dot com slash podcast. I'm June Brasso. This

0:15:35.880 --> 0:15:39.240
<v Speaker 1>is Bloomberg. Yeah,