June 20, 2024 • 45 mins
On Mondays, Jon Stewart hosts The Daily Show, but now on Thursdays, he hosts The Weekly Show — a new podcast featuring in-depth conversations exploring some of the biggest threats to our democracy. In this episode, Jon addresses the backward slide of reproductive rights in America. Joining him are NYU Law professor Melissa Murray, who also co-hosts the Strict Scrutiny podcast, as well as Jessica Valenti, founder of AbortionEveryDay.com and author of the forthcoming book, “Abortion: Our Bodies, Their Lies, and the Truths We Use to Win.” Catch new episodes of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts.
Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:
> YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast
> Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast
> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast
> X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, it's John Suret. No Daily Show Ears edition this week,
so we're gonna jam the Weekly Show back onto your
Ears edition channel. I don't know how this works. We
plugged into some kind of an outlet USB. I don't
know what it is, but you're going to hear our
show this week. It's The Weekly Show with John Stewart.
(00:21):
It's a podcast we're kind of the theme of it
is to discuss the kinds of soft threats to our
democracy that make us vulnerable to these larger threats of
authoritarians and demagogues and on and on. It's sort of
the the things within our democracy that cause people to
believe that the government no longer really represents the best
(00:43):
interests and the needs of the people that they are
supposed to be representing, and if they would, we would
love it. So I hope you do enjoy this latest
episode and we'll see you next time. Hey, everybody, welcome
once again to The Weekly Show with John Stewart. I'm
(01:06):
John Stewart, and I apologize if that was too enthusiastic.
I have yet to understand in terms of a podcast,
how to open it up. What level of enthusiasm is
appropriate for when people are just listening to something, as
opposed to on cable television when you're coming in and
very clearly somebody's making popcorn or something else. So that
(01:29):
may have been too forceful. And I'm sure that our
grand producers Brittany Memedewick and Lauren Walker, who are here
with me, would be able to tell you. Last week
we had our Military Industrial Complex show. We learned shockingly
that there is waste, fraud, in abuse in a lot
(01:50):
of the budgets of our military industrial complex. But even
more interestingly, we learned that our military industrial complex may
be strategically counterproduc We may actually be sowing more chaos
than we are not. This week's episode is fascinating, so
we obviously we have I don't know if you know this,
(02:11):
maybe this is giving the tea on production on a
glimpse behind the curtain. We have meetings where we discuss
what we would like to cover, what we would like
to talk about. So this week I voted for Celtics Mavericks. Celtics, Mavericks.
Come on, it's the championship, Tatum Brown. They finally did it,
(02:37):
but we're going to We're actually going to do abortion.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Are you suggesting I vedoed you no.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Why Lauren, how could you come in and a defensive
posture on that. No, we have it's again we're listen.
It's an issue that this myth of pristone judgment that
came down and was promoted as this win for abortion rights,
but was really kind of a just kicked the can.
(03:04):
There's so much going on around it, But I think
more trenchantly, it represents again there is broad support and
we talked about this for abortion rights for women. There
is a broad democratic, majoritarian support. But because of the
way our system is set up, that is under full
(03:26):
on assault. And it's just one more thing that I
believe has people feeling that our system is not responsive
to the needs of the people that it's supposed to represent.
Would you guys agree.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
With that totally? And I think just you bridge last
week's episode in this week's episode.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Last week, the House voted on the Defense Bill that
included a provision blocking abortion coverage from the Pentagon. More specifically,
they're trying to reverse aventgon policy which allows service members
to be compensated for time off and travel if they
need reproductive care. So it just shows you that the
(04:13):
attacks come from everywhere can fit into any bill.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Yes, and the extent to which they will not allow
it anywhere that there is. There is no opportunity small
enough for them to inject that in there. And that's
that's for sure. Although to be fair, it's the House
and their knuckleheads, and my guess is it probably doesn't
get past the Senate, but who the hell knows anymore
(04:38):
with the way things are.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
F hope let's they'll try any Let's hope.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
By the way, that was Brittany me metamic which just
filthy language, just if I may, for those of you,
for those of you at home who are watching in
this podcast obviously is geared towards six to eight year olds,
I just want to let them know that that I
did not in any way can don't the use of
the word fuck.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
No, of course I've learned.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
No, you've learned from You've learned from the saltiest speaker
of all. So I apologize for all of that. But
our guests this week are are fabulous to discuss it.
So let's let's get to them right now. Uh hello, okay,
So we're going to welcome our honored guest, Melissa Murray
Hear favorite and why you law professor, co host of
(05:25):
the Strict Scrutiny podcast, which I say slowly so they
don't bumble it. And Jessica Blelenti. She's the founder of
Abortion Everyday dot com an author of the forthcoming book Abortion,
Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the Truths We Use to Win.
Welcome UH to the conversation. We are discussing ways that
(05:48):
our system UH is somewhat dysfunctional and leads to a
certain dissatisfaction UH with the kind of tenets and foundations
of the democracy, and I think the abortion issue is
one of those. It's an incredibly complex, complicated issue. There's
people of good faith on all sides, then there's also
those that have weaponized it. But it felt like after
(06:09):
Row the country had found kind of a status quo
that felt majoritarian to some extent, but the forces of
the anti abortion movement have chipped away at that through
legal means. But we also want to get to you know,
we kind of have this idea that the things they
(06:31):
can't make illegal, they make impossible, and so I wanted
to start there. Jessica, if I could I start with you,
what are some of the things that have been done
that aren't necessarily legal challenges, but have made it so
that it's unbelievably difficult.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
I mean, part of the problem is there's so much
and if it's and they're not, they're not relying on
any one attack, which is really smart. So if one fails,
they have a million others in the wings. But I think,
you know, the things that I'm most worry about are
travel bands, which I feel like are not getting enough
(07:10):
media coverage at all. People sort of don't know that
they exist, or they think that it's something we don't
have to worry about because right now it's primarily targeted
towards teenagers and all the little sort of chipping away
things that they're doing around mifipristone and abortion medication specifically
because they know that that's how people in anti choice
(07:31):
states are ending their pregnancies. Right there was some new
numbers that came out that showed eight thousand people a
month we're getting pills from pro choice states, and so
they know that women are getting around their bands. They're
really pissed off about it, and so they're sort of
doing everything that they can to, as you said, make
it impossible to.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Get Melissa let me ask you. So that that brings
up how they're doing it lately, So they're setting these boundaries.
I don't know much about how a travel ban is
placed legislatively or is enforced and mif of pristone. The
big news was, oh, that ban failed at the Supreme Court.
But it's not as simple as that is. It was.
(08:11):
It was actually not a particularly robust victory.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
No, no, I think that's right. Thanks for having me.
It's great to be back on.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Let me add on any time ANYTIMESIA thanking you again.
The dogma has caught the car on this issue. I
want to tack back to something that Jessica said before
Dobbs and the fall of Row. We had become anesthecide
to the fact that you had to wait two days
if you wanted an abortion, that you had to travel
and take time off of work if you wanted to
(08:39):
do this, and have an ultrasound, and all of these
things that were medically unnecessary. But we're designed to chill
individuals from wanting to go through with this and to
have abortions. We come to accept that as normal. And
now in this post Row landscape, we are coming to
accept the fact that a quote unquote normal ban is
one that prohibits abortion at fifteen weeks. You were exactly
(09:00):
right about this new Supreme Court opinion that was just released.
It preserves the status quo, and I just want to
underscore that that's not great. The status quo is shitty,
and so it preserves that shitty status quote.
Speaker 5 (09:14):
I think the way to think about that challenge what.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Is this that when you say the status quote, what
do you mean by that? As I so the court in.
Speaker 6 (09:21):
This case, this was a challenge to mifipristone, which is
one of the drugs in the two Drug Medication Abortion Protocol,
and it was a challenge to the FDA's approval of mephistone,
and then also to the FDA's regulations that were released
during the pandemic that made mifipristone easier to access because
it allowed for its distribution.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
You could do the mayor right, you can tele health
all of that.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
I think the way for your listeners to think about
this challenge to mifipristone in those regulations, so that this
was the anti choice movement's effort to ban abortion in
blue states where it's accepted, where the constituents want access
to reproductive freedom. So it is completely anti democratic because
they are importing their red state values into these other places.
(10:04):
So I want to make that clear. The status quo
that we have now is we have a patchwork where
red states ban it and blue states allow for it.
And you know there's some crossover because women who want
this will go to blue states or will seek out
help from blue state physicians. And that's what they're trying
to end. And that's basically what the Supreme Court preserved.
This was not a decision on the merits. They never
(10:25):
got into whether the FDA it was on this jurisdictional
question of standing. Were these anti choice doctors, the Alliance
for Hipocratic Medicine, were they the right plaintiffs to bringing
this case because they had never prescribed mifhi pristone, nor
had they ever had a patient who had been harmed
by miphi pristone. Because we are they hypocritic, Well they're hypocritical,
(10:49):
but not hypocritic.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Are not hypocritic?
Speaker 6 (10:51):
No one like there are very few women who have
ever been harmed by MiFi pristone because the drug is
incredibly safe, and so it was a real challenge for
them to actually find plaintives who could make out an
actual injury to challenge.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
The regulations of this law.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
And so instead you had these doctors making absolutely specious
claims that their injury was in losing the aesthetic value
of seeing a baby born, of seeing their inuteropatient brought
to life.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Wait, that was the injury. It wasn't a physical Oh,
they were hurt.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
It was they were generalized grievance moral objections to abortion.
And the Court rightly said that that's never been enough
under Article three of the Constitution to sustain jurisdiction and
federal court. But the fact that we had to go
to the Supreme Court to say that is absolutely crazy
because everybody knows that so well.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
It should have been struck down well.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Court, for god's sake, they in the same session made
it so that bump stocks are available. So this thing
that actually does bring grievous harm to people through turning
a regular gun into a machine gun. Yeah, that's cool,
it's imaginary, But.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
This is the thing John.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
So the court issues this decision says, no, this is
a completely specious standing claim. We're going to kick this
out of court. We're not even going to decide this
on the merits. And then you have the mainstream media
heralding this as a victory for reproductive freedom.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Are you not the listener at long last? Have your
no decency? Are you suggesting that the mainstream media has
not picked up the nuance of this Supreme Court decision?
Speaker 6 (12:28):
I will say when I go on MSNBC, I make
sure that the nuance is. I do know that everyone
is doing this, but people are talking about.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
This as a victory.
Speaker 6 (12:36):
It's not a victory, or if it is, it's a
very muted victory. And it's not going to last. They
are going to find new plaintiffs that will challenge us.
And the only winner well, but this is the point.
The winner here is not the pro choice movement. It's
the court. Because the Court gets to appear moderate on
the issue of abortion at a time when millions of
(12:58):
people are galvanized about abortion as an electoral issue. We
have an election coming up in a few months. This
Court does not want to be a part of that
election and that narrative. And so this is a win
for the court. They get to be moderate, they get
to be consentious driven and rule of law oriented. But
in fact they've merely preserved a shitty status quo that
they brought into be and kicked.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It down the road. Jessica, I want to ask you
because we bring up you know, we sort of talk
about these things in the well, in red states it's this,
and in blue states it's this. But it's obviously never
as simple, and there are certainly blue cities in red
states and read voters in blue states and never the
Twain shall meet. But the fact is, you know, the
(13:39):
hurdles that they put up for people is the thing
that is really I think made it so difficult for
women to make these choices. You know, Melissa talked earlier
about these these travel bands and the like. But so
if you're in a city, a blue city that broadly
supports abortion, but you're in a red state, let's go
(14:00):
with Houston and Texas. Yeah, what what is your what
is your option? What is your recourse?
Speaker 4 (14:08):
I mean it's really either travel right, which you have
to have enough money to do. You have to have
support to get out of the state, or you can
get abortion medication shipped to you in the state, but
you have to risk. Okay, if someone finds out about this,
if an ex boyfriend, someone who doesn't like me finds
out that I had abortion medication ship to me, they
(14:29):
can make my life hell. They can bring a lawsuit
because Texas has the ability to bring civil suits against
anyone who aids and avets in an abortion. And so
there's a real chilling up foot.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Oh yeah, yeah, don't don't bury the lead there, what
say say that again?
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So Texas has something that has sort of been formally
called the bounty hunter Mandy.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Where you can get bounty ounder man. Yeah, for pregnant women.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Well, this is how they get around it because they
never want to seem as if they're attack the actual
pregnant person. They say, anyone other than the pregnant person.
So someone who drove them out of state, someone who
helped them get abortion medication. In one case, a woman's
abusive ex husband brought a lawsuit against three of her friends, yeah,
(15:16):
who helped her to allegedly get abortion medication into the
state and enter her pregnancy. And so now you're set
up with this system where if you have an abusive
ex partner who wants to make you miserable, they can
go ahead and they can sue your friends for helping
you to get care. And what that means is that
all of these people who may have had, you know,
(15:37):
the ability to travel, the ability to get abortion medication
ship to them, are terrified. They're terrified that they're going
to ruin their partner's life, ruin their friend's life.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And I'm sure the doctors then must be terrified that
they're going to get prosecuted as well. All right, quick break,
we're about all right, let me back this up to
just for a moment, because these are the things that
sort of shocked the conscience. But I want to talk
(16:09):
about a little bit before this happened. Isn't the pressure
that they brought to bear on abortion providers. Isn't the
pressure they brought to bear of Oh, if you're going
to do that kind of care, your facility has to
be like a hospital, and you've got and then through
sort of intimidation of the doctors, they made it so
(16:29):
that there's very few clinics, so that even within the state,
people had overwhelming travel hurdles, especially if they didn't have
the kind of resources that you know, people might have
to have to get that something done. Even before these
types of more draconian measures have been put into place,
haven't they put into place effective bands prior to this.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Yeah, I have a guest column at my newsletter today
from a woman who lost vision in one of her
eyes because her abortion care was delayed in Maryland before
Roe is overturned. So they had these laws in place
for a really long time. And I think you're talking
about trap laws, which is targeted regulation of abortion providers.
And so, yeah, they did everything that they could, even
(17:15):
in pro choice states. So for example, if you're an
abortion provider in a pro choice state, they say, well,
you need to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
The problem is a local hospital is not going to
give an abortion provider admitting privileges because they never bring
patients there because abortion is so safe that they're not
bringing any patients into the hospital. And so they've set
up this system.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Where it's essentially impossible.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Yeah, exactly, and so they just made it increasingly difficult
to keep clinics open, even if it was ostensibly legal.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Let me ask you a question, Mosa, is there recourse
in states where it's legal to go after other states,
let's say, because they're interfering with interstate commerce. If a
state is preventing you from traveling into a blue state
for a procedure. Couldn't that be construed as interference at
some level?
Speaker 6 (18:07):
No, I think that's right, And I think there are
a number of blue states and blue state ages that
are contemplating the prospect of dormant commerce Clause challenges to
the fact that essentially these red states are imposing their
own public policy preferences on the citizens of blue states
who don't share them. And there is actually a very
interesting case in the Serene Court a couple of terms ago,
(18:29):
not about abortion, but ironically about pork production.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
The state of California had particular rules pork production.
Speaker 6 (18:38):
The state of California, not surprisingly, had particular rules about
how the pigs that were slaughtered and then used for
pork products were kept, and you know, and the pork
industry challenged these regulations on the view that because California
was such a large state with you know, such a
demand for these products, that their public policy preferences for
(18:59):
humanly raised and pastured pork products then basically were exported
out to other states that didn't share them. And so
I remember the oral argument in this case really keenly,
because everyone seemed really concerned about the dormant commerce clause
and about interstate commerce and the prospect of very large
states exerting their will on smaller states. And it didn't
(19:19):
seem to be about pork products at all. And I
think it actually was a shadow debate for what would
happen in the post real world.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
And so what was the decision in that case?
Speaker 5 (19:30):
You know what, let me let me check on that.
I want to make sure that that's right.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Are you wait? You can't google during a podcast that.
Speaker 6 (19:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:38):
I don't want to make sure. I just I want
to make sure that I'm right.
Speaker 6 (19:41):
Okay, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, So
it's like it's sided with California.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
But if it were presented.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
In any other contrast, well, yeah, I mean, if it's
same idea, say it sort of a jurisdictional question, But
I imagine the debate and the disposition of the case
might have been really different if it had been something
like abortion or guns and not necessarily part that's right.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
I want to get into that because that's that's interesting
to me, because I do think there will be unforeseen
consequences and cases that come out of this when you
follow the logic. So I'm going to present some other
logical maneuvers on this. I'm sure most of them are
fillacial and make no sense, but I'd be happy to
(20:24):
have you address them anyway. So now you have in Texas,
if somebody abts someone in the driving to Illinois or
whatever it is, and then they always want to say
things like, well, but we do make an exception for
the health of the woman if she is in danger. Correct?
(20:46):
Is that for the most part? I know there are
some that don't. But isn't there an emergency care for
the health of the woman?
Speaker 5 (20:55):
These exist?
Speaker 6 (20:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (20:57):
Supposed, good luck, good luck qual finding. Here's the thing.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I think you see it all the time, and you
see it in the context of the bounty hunter laws.
These laws aren't necessarily meant to survive legal challenges.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
Their greatest efficacy can be in the.
Speaker 6 (21:12):
Short term, where they chill what would be otherwise lawful conducts.
So you're right, there is an exception. So take Texas's
law for example. Texas provides that you know, if you
are getting an abortion, it has to be for these
sort of exigent circumstances. And those exigent circumstances include when
a patient has a quote life threatening condition, and is
(21:33):
at risk of death or substantial impairment of a major
bodily function. But it doesn't define what the substantial impairment
of a major bodily infunction.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
It says in itself it's not a benign process, Isn't that?
Couldn't that be considered a substantial impairment?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
All of that, And so you know, without actual definitions,
it's left to the physicians to make these judgments knowing
that an enterprising attorney general like say Ken Paxton might
come down really hard on them if he doesn't agree
with their medical judgment. So in these circumstances, I think
doctors feel like their hands are tied. They know what
(22:09):
they would do in their medical judgment, they just don't
know where medical judgment begins and the law ends. And
if they take the chance, if they take the risk,
there can be real consequences. Consequences, yeah, I mean legal
consequences and collateral consequences. Like you know, if you are
a party to some kind of legal proceeding, even if
you ultimately prevail, you have to document that for purposes
(22:33):
of licensure, and you could have your licensing, you might
not be able to get insurance. I mean it's a
real conundrum for them.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Jessica has that impacted people in a human way, in
a real way.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
Yeah, I mean, this is what I was going to say.
There's right, there's what the law says, and then there's
what actually happens in real life, and from yes to
human beings, which would be nice to think about every once.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
In a while.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
Human beings, not vessels. Not vessels hard.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
So the example that you gave, right, let's say someone
wanted to travel the person depending on the county they
are in Texas. Several counties in Texas have passed what
they're calling anti trafficking laws, abortion trafficking laws that again
allow a civil suit to be brought against someone who
(23:21):
uses the roads of that particular county to bring someone
out of state for an abortion. And so it's this
slow chipping away at our ability to travel, and that's
like a really terrifying thing.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
To even given the mother's health being in question.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Well, this is part of the issue, as Melissa said,
there's no real standard on what that means.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
A case of a woman, there was a woman who
her it was an eighteen week miscarriage, I think, but
the fetus was her water had broken and wasn't going
to survive, but she herself was not in that moment.
Speaker 5 (24:00):
Meant they have to wait until the exact she had.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
To go home.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
I think she had to go home and get stepsis. Okay,
so here we go. So now we're going to get
to Now we're going to flip the thing. And this
is all informed by I think sort of my experience
with this, and this has to do with my family,
my way. So we won't even get into IVF, which
is what we had to do to have children. So
it's incredible to me to live in this world now
(24:27):
where the children that we desperately wanted would not be
able to be had because if these people get their way,
there'd be no IVF. My wife after our second child,
this is after she was born hemorrhaged. This was probably
three days post birth. Right we were home. She was
(24:51):
in danger. She needed blood transfusions. We were incredibly fortunate
to have good health care. We were able to get
her in. She was operated on under an emergency basis
on that night. Right. But my point is this pregnancy
can always be a risk to a woman's health. This
(25:14):
idea that it has to be based on a fetal
abnormality or something going wrong. You don't know and aren't
these laws? So who then is libel? Let's say in
the case of our thing, let's say she didn't want
to carry that baby to term, she was forced to
(25:36):
by the state and post birth hemorrhaged and died. Well,
who's responsible for that? If you can arrest people for
a betting, somebody driving into Illinois, who is responsible for
the death of women who are going to have emergency
complications arise? And how come that's not part of the conversation?
(26:00):
And what do you think we can do about that, Jessica,
I'll ask you first then and then be sure.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
I mean, this is part of what the case in
Texas where twenty women sued Texas for the extreme health
issues that they had because of the abortion band. And
essentially what happened is they blame the doctors, right, they said,
the law is not the issue. Any you know, reasonable
doctor would have given care at that point. And this
is something that they've sort of set themselves up to
(26:26):
do for a long time, to blame the doctors, to say,
you just don't understand the law. The law is fine
as it is, you should have given the care and
so once again the liability goes to the doctors given
the you know, the right judge and the right for it.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
If a woman dies in childbirth for a baby that
she did not want to have, it is only the
doctor that is liable, not the state for forcing her
into that pregnancy. Melissa. Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
That's basically what they're saying. I'm Texas. The Texas Supreme
Court Scotex if you will, issued a decision at the
end of May on the Tzorosky case and basically said, yeah,
these seem good to us, and doctors know what they're
to do, and they should do it, and they should
provide this care like there's not a problem here. And
this is a court that's entirely Republican, and this was
(27:17):
an unanimous decision from the court and again completely stripped
of any humanity for either the pregnant patient or the
doctor who genuinely is worried about whether or not they're
going to lose their livelihood if they make a decision,
and their patients who are not just at risk of death,
but I mean there's a lot between a valid and
(27:41):
viable pregnancy and death.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I mean, you can.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
Lose your fertility if you go septic like, lots of
things can happen.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
It's not just even beyond that. It can create hypertension,
it can everything else. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Process, But John, this goes to your point about democracy.
We have right now highly gerrymandered state legislatures who are
making these laws. These legislatures are not comprised of physicians.
They're not even comprised of women of reproductive age. It's
a lot of men, many men, who are not in
the same age bandwidth of as most women who are
(28:16):
in their prime reproductive years. And the idea that you
are being your views are being reflected, your interests are
being accounted for in the legislative process, that's just a fallacy.
I mean, these are geriatric legislators made up of men
who are not doctors, making laws that will legislate for
(28:37):
doctors and their patients. And they're not The legislatures aren't
affected by this, but their patients are. And again, I
just want to emphasize the way in which the anti
choice movement has ginned up all of this. Like James
bop who is the spokesperson the head of the National
Right to Life Committee, argues that the physicians are the problem.
(28:58):
The laws are clear, and if they're not clear enough
for the physicians, the onus is on the physicians to
suggest fixes. That's literally what he says, they should suggest
the fixes. Doctors aren't legislators. Whose job is it.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
It's the legislature's job.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Melissa and Jessica, I want you to address this. There
is no fix for a process where some women die.
How do you fix pregnancy to make it so that
there is no chance that a woman dies if you
force someone to carry a p And I understand there's
at a certain point in the development of the fetus
(29:33):
in the embryo or the embry or the fetus, and
that the rights of both tend to converge. Right, I
get that, But starting on that journey, you cannot guarantee
a woman that you'll be okay.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
You just can't, especially in the US right where maternal
mortality is right, so awful, right, And I have to say,
just getting back to the scenario we were talking about before,
even if someone is able to get that health indicated
life saving abortion in a lot of these states because
the way they've written the law in such a way
(30:09):
that instead of giving standard abortion procedures, they're giving women
see sections or forcing them into vaginal labor even before viability,
even when they know that there's no chance for the
fetus's survival. And this is one of the ways that
doctors are trying to protect themselves from liability. But it's
also written in the laws. If a life saving care
(30:30):
is needed and they need to end the pregnancy, you
need to give a maternal fetal separation, which means sea
section or forced vaginal labor. And it's you know, just
getting back to the actual real life suffering that is happening.
That's for some women, that's the best case scenario that
the life saving care that they get is unnecessaryly you know,
major abdominal surgery.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
But John, this goes back to the point I think
you made earlier. We're fighting for the shards of reproductive freedom,
the opportunity to have physicians make exegent decisions on behalf
of their pregnant patients. We're not fighting upstream for what
would reproductive freedom look like in an ideal world, because
(31:13):
for now that is gone. I mean, the court preserved
the status quo on mefipristone. There all were already three
states who are teed up and ready to bring that
case on the ground that they have been injured by
the fact that right, yeah, they have different they have
a different claim of standing. Their claim is going to
be that as anti abortion states, the availability of mefipristone
(31:33):
and medication, abortion flouts their ability to regulate abortion.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
That's flipped, Melissa. Can't that be flipped? So let's say
there is a family that lost a daughter a wife
because they were forced to endure pregnancy and they died
during that pregnancy, and can't that Can't that then be flipped?
But let me let me also and this can be flipped.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
I mean, but here's the thing, Like, we're literally contemplating
scenarios where our victories are built on I know, the
backs of dead women.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
No, no, no, listen, well listen, it's this is an
awful scenario. I am literally just trying to figure out. Yeah, I.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Think you bat like that's a policy. I mean, that's
how roe came into being. Like stories like Jerry sent Toro,
who was a mother of two who was literally butchered
in a hotel room trying to end a pregnancy she
did not want me.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Let me ask you, is there any other law that
compels a person ostensibly to save someone else's life. So
the idea being, well, the abortion is to save a
baby's like once it reaches a certain gestational age, and
do the thing. But let's say, for instance, my kidney
would if I were to give it to somebody, it
(32:48):
would save their life. Could I ever be compelled to
do that? You're never placed in a situation human beings
other than like the military draft, where the government tells
you to do something where you might lose your life
or have otherwise harm. But we're doing this to win,
(33:09):
are we not. We're compelling them.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
So I don't know, outside of Prince Harry, who says
in his autobiography Spare that he was born to allow
for extra organs for Prince William, if they like leaving
that to the side, Like you know, yours, your example
is an extreme one, but I think the anti choice
movement would put up a different example, and that example
would be vaccinations. Vaccinations, like the idea that mandatory vaccinations
(33:36):
to secure collective public health is an intrusion on your
bodily autonomy that that you may not want.
Speaker 5 (33:42):
But I think again, there can be harm. There can
be harm. I think that's right. There can be harm.
Speaker 6 (33:49):
Yeah, I think the differences between a vaccination, even one
that is, you know, very quickly rolled out and pregnant,
and the real harms of pregnancy. I think you can
make a pretty clear distinction between those. But I think
that's the example that they use, and in fact, Amy
Cony Barrett in the Dobbs oral argument.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
That was the example that she used.
Speaker 6 (34:13):
She's like, you know, speaking of bodily autonomy, what about vaccinations?
Go here we go again, So you know, this question
of bodily autonomy can go both ways. Like they have
made a lot about this in the context of masking
and vaccinations, right, and.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Well, abortions, it's not but vaccinations.
Speaker 5 (34:29):
Well, I mean they do make.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
The claim, yeah, but I mean they make that claim
in those two contexts and seem completely oblivious that you
could make the very same arguments in the context of abortion.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
All right, well, we'll be right back. All right, let's
get back into it, Jessica. Is that you know, for
the women that you're trying to uphold and represent, you know,
(34:59):
what is in your mind kind of the mental health
of a community that feels trapped by this idea and
sort of placed into a you know, a secondary position
in society, right.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
I mean, I do think you know, in anti choice
states it's just constant fear. I think that's safe to
say there's just constant fear, right and in pro choice states.
And I have this conversation a lot with my daughter.
Outside of the immediate physical impact that these bands have
on people, it does something to you as a person
(35:37):
to know that your country doesn't see you as fully human, right,
Like there is an emotional toll to know that you
don't matter. There was a woman in Oklahoma who you know,
another one of these post row horror stories, where she
was miscarrying, she couldn't get care, she had to travel
out of states, spend thousands of dollars, and she said,
I'm not going to get pregnant again because now I
(35:59):
know my life doesn't matter. Now I know I don't count.
So why would I ever put myself in that situation?
Because as soon as you're pregnant in this country, you
do not count, You do not matter. And that's a
really difficult bitter pill to swallow.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Yeah, that's tough, Melissa. Is there are you finding on
the horizon? Are there the types of legal challenges to this?
Where do you see this with a little bit of
light at the end of the tunnel, or do you
think it gets darker before things begin to shape out.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
I want to emphasize the limits of law here.
Speaker 6 (36:37):
Law is not necessarily a place for imaginative solutions to
real problems. If you're in the courts, you're necessarily in
a defensive poster. So I'm not thinking about legal solutions
for this. I mean, I think there can be cases,
but as I said, those are the cases that are
going to be built on a foundation of utter tragedy.
(36:57):
Like literally we'll be litigating from the posture of dead women.
I think the bigger opportunity is in the political or
electoral space. Right, we live in a distorted democracy. The
Court has made it much harder for individuals to register
(37:18):
their preferences through representative government because of its rulings on jerrymandering.
It's made it harder to register your preferences at the
ballot box because of laws that allow for voter suppression.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
And look, the.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
Constitution is already jerrymandered to favor rural white one hundred
per one hundred percent.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
So I mean, so I just want to say that,
like I understand, the challenge is like we truly live
in a distorted democracy. We have to recognize the fact
of that distortion, but understand that that distortion can be
counteracted by overwhelming participation collective action. Right so, you know,
we have an election coming up the court. On the
(38:00):
ballot in that election, you know justice is Thomas and
Alito in addition to having emotional support. Billionaires are Subtugeneians,
and if Donald Trump is elected, they will step down.
They will retire the day after the inauguration, and they
will be replaced by teenagers. And this six to three
(38:20):
conservative supermajority not only maybe expanded to seven to two
or eight to one, it will endure even longer because
the judges will be younger. So we are fighting defensively
right now in every forum, but the electoral space is
where we have the opportunity really help counteract this.
Speaker 5 (38:40):
If you can.
Speaker 6 (38:41):
Prevent Donald Trump from appointing new justices to fill Thomas
an Alito's seat, from filling any other seat, that's a
win right now, and we have to take that win.
We have to look at state courts, where you know,
all of these challenges in our abortion are shifting, not
they're shifting from federal courts to state courts.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Those state courts.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
Have to be in a position to make rulings that
are consistent with the will of the people. We have
to have legislatures that are ready to enact constitutional amendments
to their state to their state constitutions that would protect
reproductive freedom. We can't just focus on the president. We
have to be down ballot. We have to focus on
keeping the Senate. The Trump administration was so successful at
(39:25):
adding movement conservatives to the federal court. Completely transformed the
federal court, and the Biden administration has done a great
job counteracting some of that.
Speaker 5 (39:34):
But there needs to be eight.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
More years of work on this, and you've got to
have the Senate to do that. So this is not
the moment to be divided in our big tent. It's
the moment to come together as a big tent to
overwhelm the distortion that's tried to divide us and limit
our authority.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Melissa, that's a phenomenal. As my daughter would say, I
believe you may have ate eaten and left no crumps.
That was a that's it. I think that's what she
said to me.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
That's what the young people say.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
The young people say you ate and left no problems.
It's that that is an unbelievably trenchant and fabulous point
and one that has to be at the forefront because,
to be frank, the other group is tenacious and strategic,
and they understand how to overwhelm them, you know, and
take out the bottom of that. Jessica, is there anything
(40:24):
else that you wanted to add before I let you
guys go?
Speaker 4 (40:28):
Yeah, just building on something Melissa said. It does give
me a lot of hope when I think about just
how popular abortion rights are and if we get to
that place where we're focusing on the electoral bit. This
is an issue that people like to talk about as
if it's something the country is evenly split on or
a revocably polarized over.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
Right, It's not fifty fifty, We're not, No, there was.
Speaker 4 (40:53):
There's been several polls that have come out this year
that showed eighty percent over eighty percent of Americans don't
want any government involvement at all in pregnancy. They do
not want abortion to be regulated by the law at all.
This is something that is really really important to voters,
and it goes across parties. So that is something like
(41:13):
as horrible as all of this is, and it is
horrible to talk about this every day and to write
about this and to do this work. It gives me
so much hope knowing that Americans really do understand what's
at stake and how important this issue is.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Well, I thank you guys both so much. Melissa Marie
n Yu, law professor, co host of Strict Scrutiny podcast,
and my go to Melissa, you know, you might go
to whatever. Whenever I get into trouble, I would say,
what would Melissa Murray? How would she put this that
I like?
Speaker 6 (41:44):
I you said, I don't call Melissa Murray to be
my lawyer, but I do refer.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
As like, go to law whatever it is. And Jessica Vilandi,
founder of Abortion every Day dot com and author of
the forthcoming book Abortion, Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the
Truths We used to win. Guys, thank you so much
for being here.
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Wow. Look, I don't want to say Melissa Murray blows
me away every time I hear from her, but holy God,
the information being held in a normal sized head that's
just just got a normal sized head, and yet all
that information, and Jessica, you know you can tell you know,
Melissa's attacking it from a legal sense. Jessica's really feeling
(42:26):
I think the human burden of this. Yeah, and boy
she articulated that so well.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
Yeah, the personal stories, I mean they they break my
heart every time, Like I just like I can't wrap
my head around the conversations and how this is still happening.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
But yeah, well she and the way she said it.
You know, look, even with these legal victories, remember it's
on the backs of dead women, and you just think,
oh god, that's right. You know, sometimes we forget in
these theoretical and now there's that Lauren, what was that
case in Idaho? That's oh yeah, now coming.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
Up the Supreme Court term is meant to decide on
Idaho the United States, where Idaho is pushing back against
a federal law that allows emergency abortion in the case
of the life of the mother.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
So that's a fun way literally saying even if the
life of the mother is in jeopardy, nope, sorry, yeah,
holy shit. So well, wow, just a lot to certainly
a lot to chew on there. But and the call
to action from Melissa at the end I thought was
just boy, what a great reminder of what's really at
(43:35):
stake and fabulous. That is the Weekly Show for this week.
As always, you can't do it without lead producer Lauren Walker,
Producer Brittany me Medovic, the Man behind the Glass, Rob
the Tolo, video editor and engineer, Audio editor and engineer
Nicole Boyce, our fabulous researcher Catherine Dowan, and as always,
(43:55):
executive producers Katie Gray and Chris mcshape. Come on, fantastic,
best in the biz, Best in the biz. For God's sakes,
Where can they find us?
Speaker 3 (44:06):
We are Weekly Show Pod on Twitter, Weekly Show Podcast
on Instagram, threads TikTok, and The Weekly Show with John
Stewart on YouTube.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
We're on Instagram, Yeah we are. What would we do
on Instagram?
Speaker 3 (44:21):
Just picture?
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Yeah? I don't I Unfortunately for me, it's it's a
desert out there. If you've got to get pictures of
this fantastic guys, Thanks so much and uh we'll see
y'all next week. Thanks for listening to this episode of
The Weekly Show. If you liked it, follow the show
on your favorite podcast app and tune in every Thursday
(44:50):
for new episode and send us your ideas. Why not
save us the work? The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart
is a Comedy Central podcast is produced by Paramount Audio
and Busboy Productions.
Speaker 5 (45:21):
Paramount Podcasts
Hey, it's John Suret. No Daily Show Ears edition this week,
so we're gonna jam the Weekly Show back onto your
Ears edition channel. I don't know how this works. We
plugged into some kind of an outlet USB. I don't
know what it is, but you're going to hear our
show this week. It's The Weekly Show with John Stewart.
(00:21):
It's a podcast we're kind of the theme of it
is to discuss the kinds of soft threats to our
democracy that make us vulnerable to these larger threats of
authoritarians and demagogues and on and on. It's sort of
the the things within our democracy that cause people to
believe that the government no longer really represents the best
(00:43):
interests and the needs of the people that they are
supposed to be representing, and if they would, we would
love it. So I hope you do enjoy this latest
episode and we'll see you next time. Hey, everybody, welcome
once again to The Weekly Show with John Stewart. I'm
(01:06):
John Stewart, and I apologize if that was too enthusiastic.
I have yet to understand in terms of a podcast,
how to open it up. What level of enthusiasm is
appropriate for when people are just listening to something, as
opposed to on cable television when you're coming in and
very clearly somebody's making popcorn or something else. So that
(01:29):
may have been too forceful. And I'm sure that our
grand producers Brittany Memedewick and Lauren Walker, who are here
with me, would be able to tell you. Last week
we had our Military Industrial Complex show. We learned shockingly
that there is waste, fraud, in abuse in a lot
(01:50):
of the budgets of our military industrial complex. But even
more interestingly, we learned that our military industrial complex may
be strategically counterproduc We may actually be sowing more chaos
than we are not. This week's episode is fascinating, so
we obviously we have I don't know if you know this,
(02:11):
maybe this is giving the tea on production on a
glimpse behind the curtain. We have meetings where we discuss
what we would like to cover, what we would like
to talk about. So this week I voted for Celtics Mavericks. Celtics, Mavericks.
Come on, it's the championship, Tatum Brown. They finally did it,
(02:37):
but we're going to We're actually going to do abortion.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
Are you suggesting I vedoed you no.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Why Lauren, how could you come in and a defensive
posture on that. No, we have it's again we're listen.
It's an issue that this myth of pristone judgment that
came down and was promoted as this win for abortion rights,
but was really kind of a just kicked the can.
(03:04):
There's so much going on around it, But I think
more trenchantly, it represents again there is broad support and
we talked about this for abortion rights for women. There
is a broad democratic, majoritarian support. But because of the
way our system is set up, that is under full
(03:26):
on assault. And it's just one more thing that I
believe has people feeling that our system is not responsive
to the needs of the people that it's supposed to represent.
Would you guys agree.
Speaker 2 (03:42):
With that totally? And I think just you bridge last
week's episode in this week's episode.
Speaker 1 (03:49):
Yes.
Speaker 2 (03:50):
Last week, the House voted on the Defense Bill that
included a provision blocking abortion coverage from the Pentagon. More specifically,
they're trying to reverse aventgon policy which allows service members
to be compensated for time off and travel if they
need reproductive care. So it just shows you that the
(04:13):
attacks come from everywhere can fit into any bill.
Speaker 1 (04:16):
Yes, and the extent to which they will not allow
it anywhere that there is. There is no opportunity small
enough for them to inject that in there. And that's
that's for sure. Although to be fair, it's the House
and their knuckleheads, and my guess is it probably doesn't
get past the Senate, but who the hell knows anymore
(04:38):
with the way things are.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
F hope let's they'll try any Let's hope.
Speaker 1 (04:42):
By the way, that was Brittany me metamic which just
filthy language, just if I may, for those of you,
for those of you at home who are watching in
this podcast obviously is geared towards six to eight year olds,
I just want to let them know that that I
did not in any way can don't the use of
the word fuck.
Speaker 3 (04:59):
No, of course I've learned.
Speaker 1 (05:01):
No, you've learned from You've learned from the saltiest speaker
of all. So I apologize for all of that. But
our guests this week are are fabulous to discuss it.
So let's let's get to them right now. Uh hello, okay,
So we're going to welcome our honored guest, Melissa Murray
Hear favorite and why you law professor, co host of
(05:25):
the Strict Scrutiny podcast, which I say slowly so they
don't bumble it. And Jessica Blelenti. She's the founder of
Abortion Everyday dot com an author of the forthcoming book Abortion,
Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the Truths We Use to Win.
Welcome UH to the conversation. We are discussing ways that
(05:48):
our system UH is somewhat dysfunctional and leads to a
certain dissatisfaction UH with the kind of tenets and foundations
of the democracy, and I think the abortion issue is
one of those. It's an incredibly complex, complicated issue. There's
people of good faith on all sides, then there's also
those that have weaponized it. But it felt like after
(06:09):
Row the country had found kind of a status quo
that felt majoritarian to some extent, but the forces of
the anti abortion movement have chipped away at that through
legal means. But we also want to get to you know,
we kind of have this idea that the things they
(06:31):
can't make illegal, they make impossible, and so I wanted
to start there. Jessica, if I could I start with you,
what are some of the things that have been done
that aren't necessarily legal challenges, but have made it so
that it's unbelievably difficult.
Speaker 4 (06:47):
I mean, part of the problem is there's so much
and if it's and they're not, they're not relying on
any one attack, which is really smart. So if one fails,
they have a million others in the wings. But I think,
you know, the things that I'm most worry about are
travel bands, which I feel like are not getting enough
(07:10):
media coverage at all. People sort of don't know that
they exist, or they think that it's something we don't
have to worry about because right now it's primarily targeted
towards teenagers and all the little sort of chipping away
things that they're doing around mifipristone and abortion medication specifically
because they know that that's how people in anti choice
(07:31):
states are ending their pregnancies. Right there was some new
numbers that came out that showed eight thousand people a
month we're getting pills from pro choice states, and so
they know that women are getting around their bands. They're
really pissed off about it, and so they're sort of
doing everything that they can to, as you said, make
it impossible to.
Speaker 1 (07:51):
Get Melissa let me ask you. So that that brings
up how they're doing it lately, So they're setting these boundaries.
I don't know much about how a travel ban is
placed legislatively or is enforced and mif of pristone. The
big news was, oh, that ban failed at the Supreme Court.
But it's not as simple as that is. It was.
(08:11):
It was actually not a particularly robust victory.
Speaker 5 (08:15):
No, no, I think that's right. Thanks for having me.
It's great to be back on.
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Let me add on any time ANYTIMESIA thanking you again.
The dogma has caught the car on this issue. I
want to tack back to something that Jessica said before
Dobbs and the fall of Row. We had become anesthecide
to the fact that you had to wait two days
if you wanted an abortion, that you had to travel
and take time off of work if you wanted to
(08:39):
do this, and have an ultrasound, and all of these
things that were medically unnecessary. But we're designed to chill
individuals from wanting to go through with this and to
have abortions. We come to accept that as normal. And
now in this post Row landscape, we are coming to
accept the fact that a quote unquote normal ban is
one that prohibits abortion at fifteen weeks. You were exactly
(09:00):
right about this new Supreme Court opinion that was just released.
It preserves the status quo, and I just want to
underscore that that's not great. The status quo is shitty,
and so it preserves that shitty status quote.
Speaker 5 (09:14):
I think the way to think about that challenge what.
Speaker 1 (09:16):
Is this that when you say the status quote, what
do you mean by that? As I so the court in.
Speaker 6 (09:21):
This case, this was a challenge to mifipristone, which is
one of the drugs in the two Drug Medication Abortion Protocol,
and it was a challenge to the FDA's approval of mephistone,
and then also to the FDA's regulations that were released
during the pandemic that made mifipristone easier to access because
it allowed for its distribution.
Speaker 5 (09:39):
You could do the mayor right, you can tele health
all of that.
Speaker 6 (09:42):
I think the way for your listeners to think about
this challenge to mifipristone in those regulations, so that this
was the anti choice movement's effort to ban abortion in
blue states where it's accepted, where the constituents want access
to reproductive freedom. So it is completely anti democratic because
they are importing their red state values into these other places.
(10:04):
So I want to make that clear. The status quo
that we have now is we have a patchwork where
red states ban it and blue states allow for it.
And you know there's some crossover because women who want
this will go to blue states or will seek out
help from blue state physicians. And that's what they're trying
to end. And that's basically what the Supreme Court preserved.
This was not a decision on the merits. They never
(10:25):
got into whether the FDA it was on this jurisdictional
question of standing. Were these anti choice doctors, the Alliance
for Hipocratic Medicine, were they the right plaintiffs to bringing
this case because they had never prescribed mifhi pristone, nor
had they ever had a patient who had been harmed
by miphi pristone. Because we are they hypocritic, Well they're hypocritical,
(10:49):
but not hypocritic.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
Are not hypocritic?
Speaker 6 (10:51):
No one like there are very few women who have
ever been harmed by MiFi pristone because the drug is
incredibly safe, and so it was a real challenge for
them to actually find plaintives who could make out an
actual injury to challenge.
Speaker 5 (11:03):
The regulations of this law.
Speaker 6 (11:05):
And so instead you had these doctors making absolutely specious
claims that their injury was in losing the aesthetic value
of seeing a baby born, of seeing their inuteropatient brought
to life.
Speaker 1 (11:19):
Wait, that was the injury. It wasn't a physical Oh,
they were hurt.
Speaker 6 (11:22):
It was they were generalized grievance moral objections to abortion.
And the Court rightly said that that's never been enough
under Article three of the Constitution to sustain jurisdiction and
federal court. But the fact that we had to go
to the Supreme Court to say that is absolutely crazy
because everybody knows that so well.
Speaker 5 (11:42):
It should have been struck down well.
Speaker 1 (11:45):
Court, for god's sake, they in the same session made
it so that bump stocks are available. So this thing
that actually does bring grievous harm to people through turning
a regular gun into a machine gun. Yeah, that's cool,
it's imaginary, But.
Speaker 5 (12:02):
This is the thing John.
Speaker 6 (12:02):
So the court issues this decision says, no, this is
a completely specious standing claim. We're going to kick this
out of court. We're not even going to decide this
on the merits. And then you have the mainstream media
heralding this as a victory for reproductive freedom.
Speaker 1 (12:17):
Are you not the listener at long last? Have your
no decency? Are you suggesting that the mainstream media has
not picked up the nuance of this Supreme Court decision?
Speaker 6 (12:28):
I will say when I go on MSNBC, I make
sure that the nuance is. I do know that everyone
is doing this, but people are talking about.
Speaker 5 (12:35):
This as a victory.
Speaker 6 (12:36):
It's not a victory, or if it is, it's a
very muted victory. And it's not going to last. They
are going to find new plaintiffs that will challenge us.
And the only winner well, but this is the point.
The winner here is not the pro choice movement. It's
the court. Because the Court gets to appear moderate on
the issue of abortion at a time when millions of
(12:58):
people are galvanized about abortion as an electoral issue. We
have an election coming up in a few months. This
Court does not want to be a part of that
election and that narrative. And so this is a win
for the court. They get to be moderate, they get
to be consentious driven and rule of law oriented. But
in fact they've merely preserved a shitty status quo that
they brought into be and kicked.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
It down the road. Jessica, I want to ask you
because we bring up you know, we sort of talk
about these things in the well, in red states it's this,
and in blue states it's this. But it's obviously never
as simple, and there are certainly blue cities in red
states and read voters in blue states and never the
Twain shall meet. But the fact is, you know, the
(13:39):
hurdles that they put up for people is the thing
that is really I think made it so difficult for
women to make these choices. You know, Melissa talked earlier
about these these travel bands and the like. But so
if you're in a city, a blue city that broadly
supports abortion, but you're in a red state, let's go
(14:00):
with Houston and Texas. Yeah, what what is your what
is your option? What is your recourse?
Speaker 4 (14:08):
I mean it's really either travel right, which you have
to have enough money to do. You have to have
support to get out of the state, or you can
get abortion medication shipped to you in the state, but
you have to risk. Okay, if someone finds out about this,
if an ex boyfriend, someone who doesn't like me finds
out that I had abortion medication ship to me, they
(14:29):
can make my life hell. They can bring a lawsuit
because Texas has the ability to bring civil suits against
anyone who aids and avets in an abortion. And so
there's a real chilling up foot.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
Oh yeah, yeah, don't don't bury the lead there, what
say say that again?
Speaker 4 (14:45):
So Texas has something that has sort of been formally
called the bounty hunter Mandy.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Where you can get bounty ounder man. Yeah, for pregnant women.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Well, this is how they get around it because they
never want to seem as if they're attack the actual
pregnant person. They say, anyone other than the pregnant person.
So someone who drove them out of state, someone who
helped them get abortion medication. In one case, a woman's
abusive ex husband brought a lawsuit against three of her friends, yeah,
(15:16):
who helped her to allegedly get abortion medication into the
state and enter her pregnancy. And so now you're set
up with this system where if you have an abusive
ex partner who wants to make you miserable, they can
go ahead and they can sue your friends for helping
you to get care. And what that means is that
all of these people who may have had, you know,
(15:37):
the ability to travel, the ability to get abortion medication
ship to them, are terrified. They're terrified that they're going
to ruin their partner's life, ruin their friend's life.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
And I'm sure the doctors then must be terrified that
they're going to get prosecuted as well. All right, quick break,
we're about all right, let me back this up to
just for a moment, because these are the things that
sort of shocked the conscience. But I want to talk
(16:09):
about a little bit before this happened. Isn't the pressure
that they brought to bear on abortion providers. Isn't the
pressure they brought to bear of Oh, if you're going
to do that kind of care, your facility has to
be like a hospital, and you've got and then through
sort of intimidation of the doctors, they made it so
(16:29):
that there's very few clinics, so that even within the state,
people had overwhelming travel hurdles, especially if they didn't have
the kind of resources that you know, people might have
to have to get that something done. Even before these
types of more draconian measures have been put into place,
haven't they put into place effective bands prior to this.
Speaker 4 (16:53):
Yeah, I have a guest column at my newsletter today
from a woman who lost vision in one of her
eyes because her abortion care was delayed in Maryland before
Roe is overturned. So they had these laws in place
for a really long time. And I think you're talking
about trap laws, which is targeted regulation of abortion providers.
And so, yeah, they did everything that they could, even
(17:15):
in pro choice states. So for example, if you're an
abortion provider in a pro choice state, they say, well,
you need to have admitting privileges at a local hospital.
Speaker 3 (17:23):
Right.
Speaker 4 (17:24):
The problem is a local hospital is not going to
give an abortion provider admitting privileges because they never bring
patients there because abortion is so safe that they're not
bringing any patients into the hospital. And so they've set
up this system.
Speaker 1 (17:37):
Where it's essentially impossible.
Speaker 4 (17:39):
Yeah, exactly, and so they just made it increasingly difficult
to keep clinics open, even if it was ostensibly legal.
Speaker 1 (17:48):
Let me ask you a question, Mosa, is there recourse
in states where it's legal to go after other states,
let's say, because they're interfering with interstate commerce. If a
state is preventing you from traveling into a blue state
for a procedure. Couldn't that be construed as interference at
some level?
Speaker 6 (18:07):
No, I think that's right, And I think there are
a number of blue states and blue state ages that
are contemplating the prospect of dormant commerce Clause challenges to
the fact that essentially these red states are imposing their
own public policy preferences on the citizens of blue states
who don't share them. And there is actually a very
interesting case in the Serene Court a couple of terms ago,
(18:29):
not about abortion, but ironically about pork production.
Speaker 5 (18:33):
The state of California had particular rules pork production.
Speaker 6 (18:38):
The state of California, not surprisingly, had particular rules about
how the pigs that were slaughtered and then used for
pork products were kept, and you know, and the pork
industry challenged these regulations on the view that because California
was such a large state with you know, such a
demand for these products, that their public policy preferences for
(18:59):
humanly raised and pastured pork products then basically were exported
out to other states that didn't share them. And so
I remember the oral argument in this case really keenly,
because everyone seemed really concerned about the dormant commerce clause
and about interstate commerce and the prospect of very large
states exerting their will on smaller states. And it didn't
(19:19):
seem to be about pork products at all. And I
think it actually was a shadow debate for what would
happen in the post real world.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
And so what was the decision in that case?
Speaker 5 (19:30):
You know what, let me let me check on that.
I want to make sure that that's right.
Speaker 1 (19:34):
Are you wait? You can't google during a podcast that.
Speaker 6 (19:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (19:38):
I don't want to make sure. I just I want
to make sure that I'm right.
Speaker 6 (19:41):
Okay, the court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, So
it's like it's sided with California.
Speaker 5 (19:47):
But if it were presented.
Speaker 6 (19:48):
In any other contrast, well, yeah, I mean, if it's
same idea, say it sort of a jurisdictional question, But
I imagine the debate and the disposition of the case
might have been really different if it had been something
like abortion or guns and not necessarily part that's right.
Speaker 1 (20:04):
I want to get into that because that's that's interesting
to me, because I do think there will be unforeseen
consequences and cases that come out of this when you
follow the logic. So I'm going to present some other
logical maneuvers on this. I'm sure most of them are
fillacial and make no sense, but I'd be happy to
(20:24):
have you address them anyway. So now you have in Texas,
if somebody abts someone in the driving to Illinois or
whatever it is, and then they always want to say
things like, well, but we do make an exception for
the health of the woman if she is in danger. Correct?
(20:46):
Is that for the most part? I know there are
some that don't. But isn't there an emergency care for
the health of the woman?
Speaker 5 (20:55):
These exist?
Speaker 6 (20:57):
Yeah?
Speaker 5 (20:57):
Supposed, good luck, good luck qual finding. Here's the thing.
Speaker 6 (21:01):
I think you see it all the time, and you
see it in the context of the bounty hunter laws.
These laws aren't necessarily meant to survive legal challenges.
Speaker 5 (21:09):
Their greatest efficacy can be in the.
Speaker 6 (21:12):
Short term, where they chill what would be otherwise lawful conducts.
So you're right, there is an exception. So take Texas's
law for example. Texas provides that you know, if you
are getting an abortion, it has to be for these
sort of exigent circumstances. And those exigent circumstances include when
a patient has a quote life threatening condition, and is
(21:33):
at risk of death or substantial impairment of a major
bodily function. But it doesn't define what the substantial impairment
of a major bodily infunction.
Speaker 1 (21:43):
It says in itself it's not a benign process, Isn't that?
Couldn't that be considered a substantial impairment?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
All of that, And so you know, without actual definitions,
it's left to the physicians to make these judgments knowing
that an enterprising attorney general like say Ken Paxton might
come down really hard on them if he doesn't agree
with their medical judgment. So in these circumstances, I think
doctors feel like their hands are tied. They know what
(22:09):
they would do in their medical judgment, they just don't
know where medical judgment begins and the law ends. And
if they take the chance, if they take the risk,
there can be real consequences. Consequences, yeah, I mean legal
consequences and collateral consequences. Like you know, if you are
a party to some kind of legal proceeding, even if
you ultimately prevail, you have to document that for purposes
(22:33):
of licensure, and you could have your licensing, you might
not be able to get insurance. I mean it's a
real conundrum for them.
Speaker 1 (22:41):
Jessica has that impacted people in a human way, in
a real way.
Speaker 4 (22:45):
Yeah, I mean, this is what I was going to say.
There's right, there's what the law says, and then there's
what actually happens in real life, and from yes to
human beings, which would be nice to think about every once.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
In a while.
Speaker 5 (22:56):
Human beings, not vessels. Not vessels hard.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
So the example that you gave, right, let's say someone
wanted to travel the person depending on the county they
are in Texas. Several counties in Texas have passed what
they're calling anti trafficking laws, abortion trafficking laws that again
allow a civil suit to be brought against someone who
(23:21):
uses the roads of that particular county to bring someone
out of state for an abortion. And so it's this
slow chipping away at our ability to travel, and that's
like a really terrifying thing.
Speaker 1 (23:33):
To even given the mother's health being in question.
Speaker 4 (23:39):
Well, this is part of the issue, as Melissa said,
there's no real standard on what that means.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
A case of a woman, there was a woman who
her it was an eighteen week miscarriage, I think, but
the fetus was her water had broken and wasn't going
to survive, but she herself was not in that moment.
Speaker 5 (24:00):
Meant they have to wait until the exact she had.
Speaker 4 (24:03):
To go home.
Speaker 1 (24:05):
I think she had to go home and get stepsis. Okay,
so here we go. So now we're going to get
to Now we're going to flip the thing. And this
is all informed by I think sort of my experience
with this, and this has to do with my family,
my way. So we won't even get into IVF, which
is what we had to do to have children. So
it's incredible to me to live in this world now
(24:27):
where the children that we desperately wanted would not be
able to be had because if these people get their way,
there'd be no IVF. My wife after our second child,
this is after she was born hemorrhaged. This was probably
three days post birth. Right we were home. She was
(24:51):
in danger. She needed blood transfusions. We were incredibly fortunate
to have good health care. We were able to get
her in. She was operated on under an emergency basis
on that night. Right. But my point is this pregnancy
can always be a risk to a woman's health. This
(25:14):
idea that it has to be based on a fetal
abnormality or something going wrong. You don't know and aren't
these laws? So who then is libel? Let's say in
the case of our thing, let's say she didn't want
to carry that baby to term, she was forced to
(25:36):
by the state and post birth hemorrhaged and died. Well,
who's responsible for that? If you can arrest people for
a betting, somebody driving into Illinois, who is responsible for
the death of women who are going to have emergency
complications arise? And how come that's not part of the conversation?
(26:00):
And what do you think we can do about that, Jessica,
I'll ask you first then and then be sure.
Speaker 4 (26:04):
I mean, this is part of what the case in
Texas where twenty women sued Texas for the extreme health
issues that they had because of the abortion band. And
essentially what happened is they blame the doctors, right, they said,
the law is not the issue. Any you know, reasonable
doctor would have given care at that point. And this
is something that they've sort of set themselves up to
(26:26):
do for a long time, to blame the doctors, to say,
you just don't understand the law. The law is fine
as it is, you should have given the care and
so once again the liability goes to the doctors given
the you know, the right judge and the right for it.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
If a woman dies in childbirth for a baby that
she did not want to have, it is only the
doctor that is liable, not the state for forcing her
into that pregnancy. Melissa. Is that correct?
Speaker 6 (26:54):
That's basically what they're saying. I'm Texas. The Texas Supreme
Court Scotex if you will, issued a decision at the
end of May on the Tzorosky case and basically said, yeah,
these seem good to us, and doctors know what they're
to do, and they should do it, and they should
provide this care like there's not a problem here. And
this is a court that's entirely Republican, and this was
(27:17):
an unanimous decision from the court and again completely stripped
of any humanity for either the pregnant patient or the
doctor who genuinely is worried about whether or not they're
going to lose their livelihood if they make a decision,
and their patients who are not just at risk of death,
but I mean there's a lot between a valid and
(27:41):
viable pregnancy and death.
Speaker 5 (27:43):
I mean, you can.
Speaker 6 (27:44):
Lose your fertility if you go septic like, lots of
things can happen.
Speaker 1 (27:48):
It's not just even beyond that. It can create hypertension,
it can everything else. Yeah.
Speaker 6 (27:54):
Process, But John, this goes to your point about democracy.
We have right now highly gerrymandered state legislatures who are
making these laws. These legislatures are not comprised of physicians.
They're not even comprised of women of reproductive age. It's
a lot of men, many men, who are not in
the same age bandwidth of as most women who are
(28:16):
in their prime reproductive years. And the idea that you
are being your views are being reflected, your interests are
being accounted for in the legislative process, that's just a fallacy.
I mean, these are geriatric legislators made up of men
who are not doctors, making laws that will legislate for
(28:37):
doctors and their patients. And they're not The legislatures aren't
affected by this, but their patients are. And again, I
just want to emphasize the way in which the anti
choice movement has ginned up all of this. Like James
bop who is the spokesperson the head of the National
Right to Life Committee, argues that the physicians are the problem.
(28:58):
The laws are clear, and if they're not clear enough
for the physicians, the onus is on the physicians to
suggest fixes. That's literally what he says, they should suggest
the fixes. Doctors aren't legislators. Whose job is it.
Speaker 5 (29:11):
It's the legislature's job.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Melissa and Jessica, I want you to address this. There
is no fix for a process where some women die.
How do you fix pregnancy to make it so that
there is no chance that a woman dies if you
force someone to carry a p And I understand there's
at a certain point in the development of the fetus
(29:33):
in the embryo or the embry or the fetus, and
that the rights of both tend to converge. Right, I
get that, But starting on that journey, you cannot guarantee
a woman that you'll be okay.
Speaker 4 (29:47):
You just can't, especially in the US right where maternal
mortality is right, so awful, right, And I have to say,
just getting back to the scenario we were talking about before,
even if someone is able to get that health indicated
life saving abortion in a lot of these states because
the way they've written the law in such a way
(30:09):
that instead of giving standard abortion procedures, they're giving women
see sections or forcing them into vaginal labor even before viability,
even when they know that there's no chance for the
fetus's survival. And this is one of the ways that
doctors are trying to protect themselves from liability. But it's
also written in the laws. If a life saving care
(30:30):
is needed and they need to end the pregnancy, you
need to give a maternal fetal separation, which means sea
section or forced vaginal labor. And it's you know, just
getting back to the actual real life suffering that is happening.
That's for some women, that's the best case scenario that
the life saving care that they get is unnecessaryly you know,
major abdominal surgery.
Speaker 6 (30:52):
But John, this goes back to the point I think
you made earlier. We're fighting for the shards of reproductive freedom,
the opportunity to have physicians make exegent decisions on behalf
of their pregnant patients. We're not fighting upstream for what
would reproductive freedom look like in an ideal world, because
(31:13):
for now that is gone. I mean, the court preserved
the status quo on mefipristone. There all were already three
states who are teed up and ready to bring that
case on the ground that they have been injured by
the fact that right, yeah, they have different they have
a different claim of standing. Their claim is going to
be that as anti abortion states, the availability of mefipristone
(31:33):
and medication, abortion flouts their ability to regulate abortion.
Speaker 1 (31:37):
That's flipped, Melissa. Can't that be flipped? So let's say
there is a family that lost a daughter a wife
because they were forced to endure pregnancy and they died
during that pregnancy, and can't that Can't that then be flipped?
But let me let me also and this can be flipped.
Speaker 6 (31:53):
I mean, but here's the thing, Like, we're literally contemplating
scenarios where our victories are built on I know, the
backs of dead women.
Speaker 1 (32:02):
No, no, no, listen, well listen, it's this is an
awful scenario. I am literally just trying to figure out. Yeah, I.
Speaker 6 (32:11):
Think you bat like that's a policy. I mean, that's
how roe came into being. Like stories like Jerry sent Toro,
who was a mother of two who was literally butchered
in a hotel room trying to end a pregnancy she
did not want me.
Speaker 1 (32:28):
Let me ask you, is there any other law that
compels a person ostensibly to save someone else's life. So
the idea being, well, the abortion is to save a
baby's like once it reaches a certain gestational age, and
do the thing. But let's say, for instance, my kidney
would if I were to give it to somebody, it
(32:48):
would save their life. Could I ever be compelled to
do that? You're never placed in a situation human beings
other than like the military draft, where the government tells
you to do something where you might lose your life
or have otherwise harm. But we're doing this to win,
(33:09):
are we not. We're compelling them.
Speaker 6 (33:13):
So I don't know, outside of Prince Harry, who says
in his autobiography Spare that he was born to allow
for extra organs for Prince William, if they like leaving
that to the side, Like you know, yours, your example
is an extreme one, but I think the anti choice
movement would put up a different example, and that example
would be vaccinations. Vaccinations, like the idea that mandatory vaccinations
(33:36):
to secure collective public health is an intrusion on your
bodily autonomy that that you may not want.
Speaker 5 (33:42):
But I think again, there can be harm. There can
be harm. I think that's right. There can be harm.
Speaker 6 (33:49):
Yeah, I think the differences between a vaccination, even one
that is, you know, very quickly rolled out and pregnant,
and the real harms of pregnancy. I think you can
make a pretty clear distinction between those. But I think
that's the example that they use, and in fact, Amy
Cony Barrett in the Dobbs oral argument.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
That was the example that she used.
Speaker 6 (34:13):
She's like, you know, speaking of bodily autonomy, what about vaccinations?
Go here we go again, So you know, this question
of bodily autonomy can go both ways. Like they have
made a lot about this in the context of masking
and vaccinations, right, and.
Speaker 1 (34:26):
Well, abortions, it's not but vaccinations.
Speaker 5 (34:29):
Well, I mean they do make.
Speaker 6 (34:30):
The claim, yeah, but I mean they make that claim
in those two contexts and seem completely oblivious that you
could make the very same arguments in the context of abortion.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
All right, well, we'll be right back. All right, let's
get back into it, Jessica. Is that you know, for
the women that you're trying to uphold and represent, you know,
(34:59):
what is in your mind kind of the mental health
of a community that feels trapped by this idea and
sort of placed into a you know, a secondary position
in society, right.
Speaker 4 (35:16):
I mean, I do think you know, in anti choice
states it's just constant fear. I think that's safe to
say there's just constant fear, right and in pro choice states.
And I have this conversation a lot with my daughter.
Outside of the immediate physical impact that these bands have
on people, it does something to you as a person
(35:37):
to know that your country doesn't see you as fully human, right,
Like there is an emotional toll to know that you
don't matter. There was a woman in Oklahoma who you know,
another one of these post row horror stories, where she
was miscarrying, she couldn't get care, she had to travel
out of states, spend thousands of dollars, and she said,
I'm not going to get pregnant again because now I
(35:59):
know my life doesn't matter. Now I know I don't count.
So why would I ever put myself in that situation?
Because as soon as you're pregnant in this country, you
do not count, You do not matter. And that's a
really difficult bitter pill to swallow.
Speaker 1 (36:16):
Yeah, that's tough, Melissa. Is there are you finding on
the horizon? Are there the types of legal challenges to this?
Where do you see this with a little bit of
light at the end of the tunnel, or do you
think it gets darker before things begin to shape out.
Speaker 5 (36:33):
I want to emphasize the limits of law here.
Speaker 6 (36:37):
Law is not necessarily a place for imaginative solutions to
real problems. If you're in the courts, you're necessarily in
a defensive poster. So I'm not thinking about legal solutions
for this. I mean, I think there can be cases,
but as I said, those are the cases that are
going to be built on a foundation of utter tragedy.
(36:57):
Like literally we'll be litigating from the posture of dead women.
I think the bigger opportunity is in the political or
electoral space. Right, we live in a distorted democracy. The
Court has made it much harder for individuals to register
(37:18):
their preferences through representative government because of its rulings on jerrymandering.
It's made it harder to register your preferences at the
ballot box because of laws that allow for voter suppression.
Speaker 5 (37:32):
And look, the.
Speaker 1 (37:32):
Constitution is already jerrymandered to favor rural white one hundred
per one hundred percent.
Speaker 6 (37:38):
So I mean, so I just want to say that,
like I understand, the challenge is like we truly live
in a distorted democracy. We have to recognize the fact
of that distortion, but understand that that distortion can be
counteracted by overwhelming participation collective action. Right so, you know,
we have an election coming up the court. On the
(38:00):
ballot in that election, you know justice is Thomas and
Alito in addition to having emotional support. Billionaires are Subtugeneians,
and if Donald Trump is elected, they will step down.
They will retire the day after the inauguration, and they
will be replaced by teenagers. And this six to three
(38:20):
conservative supermajority not only maybe expanded to seven to two
or eight to one, it will endure even longer because
the judges will be younger. So we are fighting defensively
right now in every forum, but the electoral space is
where we have the opportunity really help counteract this.
Speaker 5 (38:40):
If you can.
Speaker 6 (38:41):
Prevent Donald Trump from appointing new justices to fill Thomas
an Alito's seat, from filling any other seat, that's a
win right now, and we have to take that win.
We have to look at state courts, where you know,
all of these challenges in our abortion are shifting, not
they're shifting from federal courts to state courts.
Speaker 5 (39:00):
Those state courts.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
Have to be in a position to make rulings that
are consistent with the will of the people. We have
to have legislatures that are ready to enact constitutional amendments
to their state to their state constitutions that would protect
reproductive freedom. We can't just focus on the president. We
have to be down ballot. We have to focus on
keeping the Senate. The Trump administration was so successful at
(39:25):
adding movement conservatives to the federal court. Completely transformed the
federal court, and the Biden administration has done a great
job counteracting some of that.
Speaker 5 (39:34):
But there needs to be eight.
Speaker 6 (39:36):
More years of work on this, and you've got to
have the Senate to do that. So this is not
the moment to be divided in our big tent. It's
the moment to come together as a big tent to
overwhelm the distortion that's tried to divide us and limit
our authority.
Speaker 1 (39:52):
Melissa, that's a phenomenal. As my daughter would say, I
believe you may have ate eaten and left no crumps.
That was a that's it. I think that's what she
said to me.
Speaker 5 (40:02):
That's what the young people say.
Speaker 1 (40:03):
The young people say you ate and left no problems.
It's that that is an unbelievably trenchant and fabulous point
and one that has to be at the forefront because,
to be frank, the other group is tenacious and strategic,
and they understand how to overwhelm them, you know, and
take out the bottom of that. Jessica, is there anything
(40:24):
else that you wanted to add before I let you
guys go?
Speaker 4 (40:28):
Yeah, just building on something Melissa said. It does give
me a lot of hope when I think about just
how popular abortion rights are and if we get to
that place where we're focusing on the electoral bit. This
is an issue that people like to talk about as
if it's something the country is evenly split on or
a revocably polarized over.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
Right, It's not fifty fifty, We're not, No, there was.
Speaker 4 (40:53):
There's been several polls that have come out this year
that showed eighty percent over eighty percent of Americans don't
want any government involvement at all in pregnancy. They do
not want abortion to be regulated by the law at all.
This is something that is really really important to voters,
and it goes across parties. So that is something like
(41:13):
as horrible as all of this is, and it is
horrible to talk about this every day and to write
about this and to do this work. It gives me
so much hope knowing that Americans really do understand what's
at stake and how important this issue is.
Speaker 1 (41:27):
Well, I thank you guys both so much. Melissa Marie
n Yu, law professor, co host of Strict Scrutiny podcast,
and my go to Melissa, you know, you might go
to whatever. Whenever I get into trouble, I would say,
what would Melissa Murray? How would she put this that
I like?
Speaker 6 (41:44):
I you said, I don't call Melissa Murray to be
my lawyer, but I do refer.
Speaker 1 (41:47):
As like, go to law whatever it is. And Jessica Vilandi,
founder of Abortion every Day dot com and author of
the forthcoming book Abortion, Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the
Truths We used to win. Guys, thank you so much
for being here.
Speaker 5 (41:59):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (42:03):
Wow. Look, I don't want to say Melissa Murray blows
me away every time I hear from her, but holy God,
the information being held in a normal sized head that's
just just got a normal sized head, and yet all
that information, and Jessica, you know you can tell you know,
Melissa's attacking it from a legal sense. Jessica's really feeling
(42:26):
I think the human burden of this. Yeah, and boy
she articulated that so well.
Speaker 3 (42:31):
Yeah, the personal stories, I mean they they break my
heart every time, Like I just like I can't wrap
my head around the conversations and how this is still happening.
Speaker 1 (42:44):
But yeah, well she and the way she said it.
You know, look, even with these legal victories, remember it's
on the backs of dead women, and you just think,
oh god, that's right. You know, sometimes we forget in
these theoretical and now there's that Lauren, what was that
case in Idaho? That's oh yeah, now coming.
Speaker 2 (42:58):
Up the Supreme Court term is meant to decide on
Idaho the United States, where Idaho is pushing back against
a federal law that allows emergency abortion in the case
of the life of the mother.
Speaker 1 (43:14):
So that's a fun way literally saying even if the
life of the mother is in jeopardy, nope, sorry, yeah,
holy shit. So well, wow, just a lot to certainly
a lot to chew on there. But and the call
to action from Melissa at the end I thought was
just boy, what a great reminder of what's really at
(43:35):
stake and fabulous. That is the Weekly Show for this week.
As always, you can't do it without lead producer Lauren Walker,
Producer Brittany me Medovic, the Man behind the Glass, Rob
the Tolo, video editor and engineer, Audio editor and engineer
Nicole Boyce, our fabulous researcher Catherine Dowan, and as always,
(43:55):
executive producers Katie Gray and Chris mcshape. Come on, fantastic,
best in the biz, Best in the biz. For God's sakes,
Where can they find us?
Speaker 3 (44:06):
We are Weekly Show Pod on Twitter, Weekly Show Podcast
on Instagram, threads TikTok, and The Weekly Show with John
Stewart on YouTube.
Speaker 1 (44:16):
We're on Instagram, Yeah we are. What would we do
on Instagram?
Speaker 3 (44:21):
Just picture?
Speaker 1 (44:28):
Yeah? I don't I Unfortunately for me, it's it's a
desert out there. If you've got to get pictures of
this fantastic guys, Thanks so much and uh we'll see
y'all next week. Thanks for listening to this episode of
The Weekly Show. If you liked it, follow the show
on your favorite podcast app and tune in every Thursday
(44:50):
for new episode and send us your ideas. Why not
save us the work? The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart
is a Comedy Central podcast is produced by Paramount Audio
and Busboy Productions.
Speaker 5 (45:21):
Paramount Podcasts
Popular Podcasts
Boysober
Have you ever wondered what life might be like if you stopped worrying about being wanted, and focused on understanding what you actually want? That was the question Hope Woodard asked herself after a string of situationships inspired her to take a break from sex and dating. She went "boysober," a personal concept that sparked a global movement among women looking to prioritize themselves over men. Now, Hope is looking to expand the ways we explore our relationship to relationships. Taking a bold, unfiltered look into modern love, romance, and self-discovery, Boysober will dive into messy stories about dating, sex, love, friendship, and breaking generational patterns—all with humor, vulnerability, and a fresh perspective.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com