And we are living through this ongoing and intense backlash
to that early Supreme Court decision.
You may remember early in the political calendar,
if you go back about two years to overturn Roe
V Wade,
that was a 50 year precedent that of course
had always provided women in the United States the right
to choose for the entire
duration of those 50 years.
It was the first time the Supreme Court ever retracted
a human right in American history.
In this historic decision, the Supreme Court has now overturned
Roe V Wade.
This is a devastating day.
The radical Supreme Court is eviscerating Americans rights.
I'm worried for the young women who are on opposition
who don't understand how at risk their lives may be.
My number one is pro-life,
and I'm gonna vote pro-life.
I'm absolutely concerned about voting for reproductive rights,
The first ballot test for abortion rights,
and the answer was clear and it was decisive.
I think this is a resounding message that when you
put abortion on a ballot,
it wins. The Supreme Court heard its first major abortion
case
since overturning Roe V Wade in
2022. What the justices could ultimately decide what impact a
woman who want to get access to the abortion pill
myth of Prestone.
Even in states where abortion is legal.
You're looking at all of that because that is the
road in context for where we are right now.
There was this earth shattering decision from the court that
overturned Roe and since then
we have heard from people who supported that decision,
including justices themselves, that that was the end of it.
That would resolve it. Nothing to worry about.
They were wrong and in a few minutes I'll get
into why this is such big news tonight.
But we have to understand how so many people on
the right then took the road decision and went further.
Let me just remind you a couple of the headlines
you may remember and some you may not because there's
been a lot of this at the state level.
Idaho became under that new ability,
under overturning row, under the Dobbs decision
to be one of the most extreme anti abortion states
implementing laws restricting any travel.
Meaning now it's not just restricting your body and your
decision with your doctor about whether a woman could travel
for her own health care.
Texas falling right in the that same plan
Clinics in 15 states
then that were offering abortions had to stop
that year alone because of the issues around what many
feared would then be the next step of prosecution.
Republican lawmakers also flatly rejecting one of the compromises that
they used to promise That in the event I'm going
to say this quite literally tonight,
because this is the story hitting the High Court that
in the event that someone was criminally raped
or criminally abused through incest that they would have that
right that was also rejected by,
as you see Republican lawmakers that's an AP story.
Just a non partisan summary
of that policy action
now, recently the implications of overturning Roe have been wider
than just so-called abortion issues.
Alabama's judges took the ball and ran way down the
field.
They ruled under a step that they say God,
quite literally. God required that there should no longer be
IVF
allowed because any frozen embryos should legally be treated as
children.
Alabama's own Republican Governor then signed a bill protecting IVF
treatments in that state.
But that's again how far it went.
Republicans had buyer's remorse because
cracking down on people attempting to have kids through modern
science,
just like cracking down on actual abortion itself,
proved to be something that was extremely unpopular even in
red states.
Now, then, there's a talk about contraception.
Today's Supreme Court hearing was regarding the abortion pill.
So everything I'm showing you is the lead up
to the top news today
as the justices have to decide whether this is the
policy bed they want to actually sleep in.
And whether access to abortion pills,
which is one of the ways that most women exercise
early term abortions,
is something that should now also be cut off
or nationally restricted. Again, not just at the state level
now, maybe a long time till we get the decision.
But I can report for you tonight that with the
context of everything going out in the country,
including this women's backlash, suddenly now the justices are skeptical
about taking another step to further limit access to this
health care decision by women.
Indeed, it was unusual to see unity on this kind
of social issue.
But conservatives like Gorsuch, Baird and Kavanaugh
were, at least in the questioning,
joining other, more Liberal Democratic appointees on the court,
as they expressed what can only be called doubts
about taking another step to try to have the government.
That's what this is. That's why it's not very traditionally
conservative have the government prevent women from making these choices
themselves.
I'd understood the conscience harm,
as Justice Barrett does, but you suggest that there's a
broader one.
Under federal law, no doctors can be
forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an
abortion,
correct? I think what Justice Jackson's alluding to we've had
one might call it a rash
of universal injunctions. Is it the first time?
Is it the only time
any court has restricted access to an FDA approved drug
by second guessing FDA's expert judgment?
Justice Jackson also discussed one of the issues at the
center of all this.
Whether the claims here, which are by a group of
people who are anti abortion,
who also have
medical degrees, so they're basically anti abortion doctors.
Whether that group filing this challenge
should be able to somehow push along and debate that
otherwise wasn't happening,
that they should kind of get this up to the
court and then dictate some new restriction that even the
government,
nonpartisan scientists don't think is necessary and prevent every woman
in the nation from being able to access this medical
choice.
But what they're asking for here is that in order
to
prevent them from possibly ever having to do these kinds
of procedures,
everyone else should be prevented from getting access to this
this medication.
So why isn't that
plainly over broad scope of the remedy,
the end of this case?
Good question, right?
Ultimately, this case, like the case that overturned Roe,
circles back to the same underlying questions,
even though this time the court and the Republican appointees
may be afraid for various reasons to go further.
But it's about freedom. Freedom for women to make these
choices or not,
and whether the government will restrict that freedom.
And let's be clear, I've mentioned this before.
There are strong religious objections to abortion.
There are people who feel very strongly about this,
who feel that this is a life and death issue.
But when it comes to how we have generally tried
to address those type of religious debates in our country,
we have freedom of religion
and freedom of choice in action.
So people who want to tell their peers,
their fellow citizens about their religious views or urge them
to do or not do something,
are free to do that,
to speak that we have great robust protections for freedom
of worship and religious speech.
As we should. Question was again an over ruling row
originally and today whether that kind of view
which can only really be called a
theocracy, where that kind of view should then govern other
people's lives,
that the government should say if you don't go to
church or observe Shabbat or you name it,
follow someone else's religious views on pregnancy,
then you should be legally restricted.
And as we all know legally restricted means as we've
seen in some of these states doesn't stop with the
restriction.
There becomes other restrictions like freedom of movement and travel.
Women being told like some Handmaid's Tale,
that they can't travel, they can't move around in their
state or go to another state
or that not only are they restricted in what they
do with their health care,
but they might be punished for it.
I showed you last night then candidate Trump saying women
and doctors
who do this, who exercise this medical choice should ultimately
be punished or imprisoned.
This is not overreach. This is what the debate is
right now.
Now in the row majority.
I mentioned earlier I was going to show you this
and now I am.
We were told that women would keep their power and
the issue would be returned to the states.
This is judicial speech for hey,
no biggie. Justice Alito writing
Women are not without electoral political power,
and that they could then go to the States and
get this all worked out.
Of course, if there's a national ban,
or if judges take it further,
as they did in Alabama,
to restrict IVF, then the fact that women are allowed
to vote
doesn't override what the judges do.
Now, there are other cases where abortion rights in the
Supreme Court are still
front and center because you have the contraception,
you have IVF, marriage equality is now on the chopping
block.
And the question when you limit the electoral political power
of women and minorities
or you have these kind of crackdowns of democracy is
why should women, according to the justices argument there,
have to mobilize for years on end just to undo
what a couple of unelected judges did?
In other words, Justice Alito is saying we've upended the
status quo,
50 years of precedent. But if you really feel strongly,
go out and vote. And let me tell you,
although there are problems with that kind of judicial logic,
women are going out and vote.
They're demonstrating this power again and again.
Everywhere that there's been a vote since Roe was overturned,
people red, blue, purple states have come out and expanded
or protected abortion access.
When you look writ larger what women think,
the vast majority over 8 out of 10 think at
least some abortion should be legal.
And they have the opportunity,
of course, to abdicate for these rights this November.
Because take a look, this might be bad news for
Trump and the Republicans,
but this is what I told you has been happening
since they overturned Roe.
Here we are going into November 24,
and this is all the places where abortion is on
the ballot,
which may mobilize even more people to treat this as
the big issue.
So I played a little bit of what we heard
in the Supreme Court today,
that they may not actually go as far as the
right wingers wanted and take the next step and limit
abortion further.