Wade.” But on the other hand, he does want to chip away at abortion rights. Wade, and you still have a right to an abortion, but the line is moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 15 weeks.” The reason Roberts is saying this is that for a long time, he's made it clear that he does not want a headline that says “Supreme Court overturns Roe v. So he's offering a compromise here that the court would say, “Hey, we haven’t overturned Roe v. The current law that's in question, the Mississippi law says you can't get an abortion after 15 weeks.
And what it said was up until viability outside the womb, which it is usually said to be 23 to 24 weeks, the woman had effectively an unfettered right to choose to end the pregnancy. The second thing it did was lay out a kind of defacto framework for when the government was allowed to regulate abortion. NOAH: So Roe versus Wade, which was decided way back in 1973, did two things: First, it said that a woman has a fundamental, constitutional privacy right to control her own body and decide whether or not she wants to remain pregnant. Uh, but if it really is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time? NIALA: So I want to play Justice Roberts here talking about viability and choice, and maybe you can help us understand a little bit more what exactly he's talking about -ĬHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS: Viability - it seems to me doesn't have anything to do with choice. It's only if you reframe the question of abortion as a conflict between the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests of the unborn fetus that you then could say, “Well, you know, we have to be neutral between these conflicting interests.” of the mother and I don't want to be on the side of the fetus.Īt issue is whether a pregnant person has a fundamental right to choose whether to carry the pregnancy or not and that isn't a question that begs for a neutral answer. Wade” because I don't want to be on the side. He was really telling listeners “I am going to vote to overturn Roe v. I have to say that when Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that he thinks that the court should be quote, “scrupulously neutral” with respect to abortion rights, he was really showing his hand. I have to say that that oral argument doesn't feel like that to me. Wade continuing, but can oral arguments be misleading? NIALA: The headline from yesterday's oral arguments is that abortion rights advocates should be worried about Roe vs.
Here to break down the oral arguments for us is Harvard constitutional law professor Noah Feldman. It's the most significant abortion case in years and direct challenge to Roe vs. The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a challenge to Mississippi's law that bans abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy.
Plus, putting high gas prices in perspective.īut first, today’s One Big Thing: Roe v. Here’s what you need to know today: Stacey Abrams is running for Georgia governor in 2022. NIALA BOODHOO: Good morning! Welcome to Axios Today!