WEBVTT - Bloomberg's Robinson on Supreme Court Abortion Ruling (Audio)

0:00:00.040 --> 0:00:04.200
<v Speaker 1>A divided US Supreme Court struck down Texas abortion restrictions

0:00:04.240 --> 0:00:07.200
<v Speaker 1>that had threatened to close three quarters of the state's

0:00:07.280 --> 0:00:11.400
<v Speaker 1>clinics by putting new requirements on facilities and doctors. The

0:00:11.440 --> 0:00:15.120
<v Speaker 1>five three ruling is the Court's first abortion decision in

0:00:15.360 --> 0:00:19.680
<v Speaker 1>nearly a decade. Joining us now to discuss the ramifications

0:00:19.800 --> 0:00:22.439
<v Speaker 1>of this vote and what it means moving forward is

0:00:22.520 --> 0:00:27.400
<v Speaker 1>Kimberly Robinson. She's Supreme Court report reporter for Bloomberg be

0:00:27.600 --> 0:00:32.040
<v Speaker 1>An a based in the Washington metro area. Kimberly, welcome

0:00:32.040 --> 0:00:36.199
<v Speaker 1>to the show for having me, so tell us exactly

0:00:36.280 --> 0:00:42.000
<v Speaker 1>what this decision means. Well, the decision here means that

0:00:42.120 --> 0:00:45.640
<v Speaker 1>the states that are looking to enact abortion regulations will

0:00:45.720 --> 0:00:50.640
<v Speaker 1>face strict, strict standards um from courts that are looking

0:00:50.760 --> 0:00:54.840
<v Speaker 1>at those regulations going forward. So the case here involved

0:00:54.960 --> 0:00:59.160
<v Speaker 1>to Texas regulations that the states that were intended to

0:00:59.200 --> 0:01:03.760
<v Speaker 1>make a boys safer for women um and in particular,

0:01:03.920 --> 0:01:09.240
<v Speaker 1>these regulations require doctors to obtain admitting privileges at nearby

0:01:09.319 --> 0:01:13.800
<v Speaker 1>hospitals and required abortion facilities themselves UM to comply with

0:01:13.800 --> 0:01:17.759
<v Speaker 1>some stretty, pretty strict standards that are applicable to other

0:01:17.800 --> 0:01:24.040
<v Speaker 1>outpatient curgical centers. So what were the legal aspects? What

0:01:24.080 --> 0:01:26.320
<v Speaker 1>was it? What was it the crux of the argument

0:01:26.319 --> 0:01:29.560
<v Speaker 1>that they had to decide. Well, so, as I mentioned this,

0:01:29.720 --> 0:01:33.440
<v Speaker 1>the States said that, you know, these regulations are really

0:01:33.480 --> 0:01:36.440
<v Speaker 1>meant to ensure that abortions are safe for women. But

0:01:36.520 --> 0:01:40.160
<v Speaker 1>the challengers here said that that wasn't really the intention

0:01:40.200 --> 0:01:42.480
<v Speaker 1>of these laws at all, that in fact, these laws

0:01:42.480 --> 0:01:46.960
<v Speaker 1>were intended to limit access to abortion for the more

0:01:47.040 --> 0:01:52.040
<v Speaker 1>than five million Texas women who are a child bearing age.

0:01:52.480 --> 0:01:56.680
<v Speaker 1>They noted that there were forty abortion clinics serving uh

0:01:56.720 --> 0:02:00.440
<v Speaker 1>those five million women before these regulations went into place.

0:02:00.840 --> 0:02:03.960
<v Speaker 1>But if both of these regulations were found to be

0:02:04.040 --> 0:02:06.920
<v Speaker 1>valid and did go into place, then Texas will be

0:02:07.080 --> 0:02:10.320
<v Speaker 1>left with just seven or eight clinics um to service

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:14.280
<v Speaker 1>all of those women. Now you note or we note

0:02:14.320 --> 0:02:18.000
<v Speaker 1>our story that abortion rights advocates called the case the

0:02:18.040 --> 0:02:22.040
<v Speaker 1>biggest since when the Court reaffirmed the constitutional right to

0:02:22.919 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 1>end a pregnancy. Uh, what does it mean? Now? Are

0:02:26.639 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>lots of laws going to be challenged? What does it mean? Well,

0:02:30.480 --> 0:02:33.560
<v Speaker 1>there are similar laws in other states, and the course

0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:37.840
<v Speaker 1>broad language means that those laws are likely unconstitutional. That

0:02:37.919 --> 0:02:41.160
<v Speaker 1>doesn't mean that states may not enact more abortion regulations.

0:02:41.200 --> 0:02:42.919
<v Speaker 1>But it does mean that courts are going to take

0:02:42.960 --> 0:02:45.800
<v Speaker 1>a very close look at these regulations. So it was

0:02:45.840 --> 0:02:49.640
<v Speaker 1>an unclear question before today's decision, you know, whether the

0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:52.919
<v Speaker 1>states would really have to prove the benefits that they

0:02:53.160 --> 0:02:56.720
<v Speaker 1>that they were claiming these regulations would have, or whether

0:02:56.800 --> 0:03:00.720
<v Speaker 1>courts would just kind of take the legislatures at their word. Today,

0:03:00.840 --> 0:03:03.440
<v Speaker 1>in a five three decision by Justice Bryer on the

0:03:03.440 --> 0:03:05.600
<v Speaker 1>Court made clear that courts are going to look at

0:03:05.600 --> 0:03:08.480
<v Speaker 1>the evidence of the benefits and if they're not there,

0:03:08.600 --> 0:03:10.880
<v Speaker 1>then they're they're going to still those regulations that are

0:03:10.880 --> 0:03:13.600
<v Speaker 1>going to fall Comblie Robinson, thank you so very much

0:03:13.600 --> 0:03:16.839
<v Speaker 1>for joining US Supreme Court. Reporter for Bloomberg be An

0:03:16.840 --> 0:03:20.200
<v Speaker 1>a based in Arlington, Virginia,