0:00

Hey, it's John Suret. No Daily Show

0:02

Ears edition this week, so

0:05

we're gonna jam the Weekly

0:07

Show back onto your

0:10

Ears edition channel. I don't

0:12

know how this works. We plugged into

0:14

some kind of an outlet USB. I don't know

0:17

what it is, but you're going to hear our show this week. It's

0:19

The Weekly Show with John Stewart.

0:21

It's a podcast we're kind of the

0:23

theme of it is to discuss the kinds

0:25

of soft threats

0:28

to our democracy that make us vulnerable

0:30

to these larger threats of authoritarians and demagogues

0:33

and on and on. It's sort

0:35

of the the things within our democracy

0:38

that cause people to believe that the government

0:40

no longer really represents the

0:42

best interests and the needs of the people that

0:44

they are supposed to be representing, and

0:47

if they would, we would love it. So

0:50

I hope you do enjoy this latest episode and

0:53

we'll see you next time. Hey,

1:01

everybody, welcome once again to The

1:04

Weekly Show with John Stewart.

1:06

I'm John Stewart, and I apologize

1:08

if that was too enthusiastic. I have

1:10

yet to understand in terms

1:12

of a podcast, how to open it

1:15

up. What level of enthusiasm is

1:18

appropriate for when people

1:20

are just listening to something, as opposed

1:22

to on cable television

1:24

when you're coming in and very clearly somebody's

1:27

making popcorn or something else. So that may

1:29

have been too forceful. And I'm sure

1:31

that our grand producers Brittany

1:34

Memedewick and Lauren Walker, who are here with me,

1:37

would be able to tell you. Last week we

1:39

had our Military Industrial Complex

1:42

show. We learned shockingly

1:46

that there is waste, fraud, in abuse

1:49

in a lot of the budgets of our military industrial

1:51

complex. But even more interestingly, we

1:54

learned that our military industrial complex may

1:57

be strategically counterproduc

2:01

We may actually be sowing more

2:03

chaos than we

2:06

are not. This week's episode

2:08

is fascinating, so we obviously we have I

2:10

don't know if you know this, maybe this is giving the tea

2:14

on production on

2:16

a glimpse behind the curtain. We

2:19

have meetings where we discuss

2:22

what we would like to cover, what we would like to

2:24

talk about. So this week I voted

2:26

for Celtics

2:28

Mavericks. Celtics, Mavericks. Come on,

2:31

it's the championship, Tatum

2:33

Brown. They finally did it, but

2:37

we're going to We're actually going to do abortion.

2:39

Are you suggesting I vedoed you no.

2:42

Why Lauren, how could you

2:44

come in and a defensive posture

2:47

on that. No, we have it's

2:49

again we're listen.

2:51

It's an issue that this myth of pristone

2:55

judgment that came down and was promoted

2:58

as this win for abortion rights,

3:00

but was really kind of a just

3:02

kicked the can. There's

3:04

so much going on around it,

3:07

But I think more trenchantly,

3:10

it represents again there is broad support

3:13

and we talked about this for abortion

3:16

rights for women. There is a broad

3:19

democratic, majoritarian support.

3:22

But because of the way our system is set up,

3:25

that is under full on assault.

3:28

And it's just one more thing that

3:31

I believe has people

3:33

feeling that our

3:35

system is not

3:38

responsive to the needs of the people that

3:40

it's supposed to represent. Would you guys

3:42

agree.

3:42

With that totally? And I

3:44

think just you bridge last

3:47

week's episode in this week's episode.

3:49

Yes.

3:50

Last week, the House voted

3:52

on the Defense Bill that included a provision

3:55

blocking abortion coverage

3:57

from the Pentagon. More

4:00

specifically, they're trying

4:02

to reverse aventgon policy which allows

4:04

service members to be compensated for time

4:07

off and travel if they need reproductive

4:10

care. So it

4:12

just shows you that the attacks come

4:14

from everywhere can fit into any bill.

4:16

Yes, and the extent to which they

4:19

will not allow it anywhere

4:22

that there is. There is no opportunity small

4:25

enough for them to inject that in

4:27

there. And that's

4:29

that's for sure. Although to be fair, it's the House

4:32

and their knuckleheads, and my guess is

4:34

it probably doesn't get past the Senate, but who

4:36

the hell knows anymore with the way things are.

4:38

F hope let's they'll

4:40

try any Let's hope.

4:42

By the way, that was Brittany

4:44

me metamic which just filthy language,

4:46

just if I may, for those of you, for

4:49

those of you at home who are watching in this podcast

4:51

obviously is geared towards six

4:53

to eight year olds, I just want to let them know that that

4:56

I did not in any way can don't the use

4:58

of the word fuck.

4:59

No, of course I've learned.

5:01

No, you've learned from You've learned from the

5:04

saltiest speaker of all. So I apologize

5:07

for all of that. But our guests this

5:09

week are are fabulous to discuss it. So let's

5:12

let's get to them right now. Uh

5:17

hello, okay, So we're going to welcome our

5:19

honored guest, Melissa Murray Hear

5:22

favorite and why you law professor, co host

5:24

of the Strict Scrutiny podcast,

5:27

which I say slowly so they don't bumble

5:29

it. And Jessica Blelenti. She's the founder

5:31

of Abortion Everyday dot com

5:34

an author of the forthcoming book Abortion,

5:36

Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the Truths

5:39

We Use to Win. Welcome

5:43

UH to the conversation. We

5:45

are discussing ways

5:48

that our system UH is

5:50

somewhat dysfunctional and leads

5:52

to a certain dissatisfaction

5:55

UH with the kind of tenets and foundations

5:58

of the democracy, and I think the abortion issue

6:00

is one of those. It's an incredibly complex,

6:02

complicated issue. There's people of good faith on

6:05

all sides, then there's also those that have weaponized

6:07

it. But it felt like after

6:09

Row the country

6:11

had found kind

6:14

of a status quo that felt

6:17

majoritarian to some extent,

6:20

but the forces of the anti

6:22

abortion movement have chipped away at that through

6:25

legal means. But we also

6:27

want to get to you know, we kind of

6:29

have this idea that the things they can't

6:31

make illegal, they make impossible,

6:35

and so I wanted to start there. Jessica,

6:37

if I could I start with you, what are some of the

6:39

things that have been done that aren't

6:42

necessarily legal challenges, but have made

6:44

it so that it's unbelievably

6:46

difficult.

6:47

I mean, part of the problem is there's

6:50

so much and if it's and

6:52

they're not, they're not relying on

6:54

any one attack, which

6:57

is really smart. So if one fails, they have

6:59

a million others in the wings. But

7:01

I think, you know, the things

7:04

that I'm most worry about are

7:06

travel bands, which I feel like are

7:08

not getting enough media coverage

7:10

at all. People sort of don't know that they

7:13

exist, or they think that it's something we don't have

7:15

to worry about because right now it's primarily

7:17

targeted towards teenagers and

7:20

all the little sort of chipping away things

7:22

that they're doing around mifipristone

7:25

and abortion medication specifically because

7:28

they know that that's how people

7:30

in anti choice states are ending their

7:32

pregnancies. Right there was some new numbers

7:34

that came out that showed eight

7:36

thousand people a month we're getting

7:39

pills from pro choice states, and

7:42

so they know that women are getting around their

7:44

bands. They're really pissed off about it, and so

7:46

they're sort of doing everything that they can to,

7:48

as you said, make it impossible to.

7:51

Get Melissa let me ask

7:53

you. So that that brings up how

7:55

they're doing it lately, So they're setting these boundaries.

7:58

I don't know much about how a travel ban

8:01

is placed legislatively or is enforced

8:04

and mif of pristone. The big news was, oh,

8:07

that ban failed at the

8:09

Supreme Court. But it's not as simple as that is.

8:11

It was. It was actually not a

8:13

particularly robust victory.

8:15

No, no, I think that's right. Thanks for having me. It's

8:17

great to be back on.

8:18

Let me add on any time ANYTIMESIA

8:21

thanking you again. The dogma

8:23

has caught the car on this issue. I

8:26

want to tack back to something that Jessica said before

8:30

Dobbs and the fall of Row. We

8:32

had become anesthecide to the fact that you had

8:34

to wait two days if you wanted an abortion, that

8:37

you had to travel and take time off of work

8:39

if you wanted to do this, and have an ultrasound, and

8:41

all of these things that were medically unnecessary.

8:43

But we're designed to chill individuals

8:46

from wanting to go through with this and to

8:48

have abortions. We come to accept that

8:50

as normal. And now in this post

8:52

Row landscape, we are coming to

8:54

accept the fact that a quote unquote normal

8:56

ban is one that prohibits abortion at

8:59

fifteen weeks. You were exactly right

9:01

about this new Supreme Court opinion

9:03

that was just released. It

9:05

preserves the status quo, and

9:07

I just want to underscore that that's not

9:10

great. The status quo is shitty, and

9:12

so it preserves that shitty status

9:14

quote.

9:14

I think the way to think about that challenge what.

9:16

Is this that when you say the status quote, what do

9:19

you mean by that? As I so the court

9:21

in.

9:21

This case, this was a challenge to mifipristone,

9:23

which is one of the drugs in the two Drug

9:25

Medication Abortion Protocol,

9:28

and it was a challenge to the FDA's approval of

9:30

mephistone, and then also to the FDA's

9:32

regulations that were released during the pandemic

9:35

that made mifipristone easier to access

9:37

because it allowed for its distribution.

9:39

You could do the mayor right, you can tele health

9:41

all of that.

9:42

I think the way for your listeners to think about

9:44

this challenge to mifipristone

9:46

in those regulations, so that this was the anti

9:49

choice movement's effort to ban

9:51

abortion in blue states where it's

9:54

accepted, where the constituents want

9:56

access to reproductive freedom. So it is

9:58

completely anti democratic because they are

10:00

importing their red state values

10:03

into these other places. So I want

10:05

to make that clear. The status quo that we have

10:07

now is we have a patchwork where red

10:09

states ban it and blue states

10:11

allow for it. And you know there's some crossover

10:14

because women who want this will go to blue

10:16

states or will seek out help from blue state physicians.

10:19

And that's what they're trying to end. And that's basically

10:21

what the Supreme Court preserved. This

10:23

was not a decision on the merits. They never

10:25

got into whether the FDA

10:29

it was on this jurisdictional question of standing.

10:31

Were these anti choice doctors,

10:34

the Alliance for Hipocratic

10:36

Medicine, were they the right plaintiffs

10:39

to bringing this case because they had never prescribed

10:41

mifhi pristone, nor had they ever had

10:43

a patient who had been harmed by miphi pristone.

10:46

Because we are they hypocritic, Well

10:48

they're hypocritical, but not hypocritic.

10:50

Are not hypocritic?

10:51

No one like there are very few women who have ever

10:53

been harmed by MiFi pristone because the drug is incredibly

10:56

safe, and so it was a real challenge for

10:58

them to actually find plaintives who could

11:00

make out an actual injury

11:02

to challenge.

11:03

The regulations of this law.

11:05

And so instead you had these doctors making

11:08

absolutely specious claims that their

11:10

injury was in losing the

11:12

aesthetic value of seeing a baby born,

11:14

of seeing their inuteropatient brought

11:17

to life.

11:19

Wait, that was the injury. It wasn't a

11:21

physical Oh, they were hurt.

11:22

It was they were generalized

11:25

grievance moral objections to abortion.

11:27

And the Court rightly said that

11:30

that's never been enough under

11:32

Article three of the Constitution to sustain

11:34

jurisdiction and federal court. But the fact

11:36

that we had to go to the Supreme Court to say

11:39

that is absolutely crazy because

11:41

everybody knows that so well.

11:42

It should have been struck down well.

11:45

Court, for god's sake, they in the same session

11:48

made it so that bump stocks are

11:50

available. So this thing that actually

11:52

does bring grievous harm to people

11:55

through turning a regular gun into

11:57

a machine gun. Yeah, that's cool, it's

12:00

imaginary, But.

12:02

This is the thing John.

12:02

So the court issues this decision says,

12:05

no, this is a completely specious standing

12:08

claim. We're going to kick this out of court. We're not even

12:10

going to decide this on the merits. And then

12:12

you have the mainstream media heralding

12:14

this as a victory for reproductive

12:16

freedom.

12:17

Are you not the listener

12:19

at long last? Have your no decency? Are

12:22

you suggesting that the mainstream media has

12:24

not picked up the nuance of

12:26

this Supreme Court decision?

12:28

I will say when I go on MSNBC, I make

12:30

sure that the nuance is. I do know that

12:32

everyone is doing this, but

12:34

people are talking about.

12:35

This as a victory.

12:36

It's not a victory, or if it is, it's

12:38

a very muted victory. And it's

12:40

not going to last. They are going to find new plaintiffs

12:42

that will challenge us. And the only winner well,

12:46

but this is the point. The winner here

12:48

is not the pro choice movement. It's the

12:51

court. Because the Court gets to appear

12:53

moderate on the issue of abortion

12:56

at a time when millions of people

12:59

are galvanized about abortion

13:01

as an electoral issue. We have an election coming

13:03

up in a few months. This Court does not want

13:05

to be a part of that election and that narrative.

13:07

And so this is a win for the court.

13:10

They get to be moderate, they get to be consentious driven

13:12

and rule of law oriented. But in

13:14

fact they've merely preserved a shitty

13:16

status quo that they brought into be and kicked.

13:18

It down the road. Jessica, I want to ask you because we

13:20

bring up you know, we sort of talk about these things in the well,

13:23

in red states it's this, and in blue states it's this. But

13:25

it's obviously never as simple, and there are certainly

13:28

blue cities in red states and

13:30

read voters in blue states

13:32

and never the Twain shall meet. But the

13:36

fact is, you

13:38

know, the hurdles that they put up

13:41

for people is the thing

13:43

that is really I think

13:45

made it so difficult for women to

13:48

make these choices. You know, Melissa talked earlier

13:50

about these these travel bands and the

13:53

like. But so if you're in a city,

13:56

a blue city that broadly

13:58

supports abortion, but you're in a red state, let's

14:00

go with Houston and Texas.

14:02

Yeah, what what is your what

14:05

is your option? What is your recourse?

14:08

I mean it's really either travel

14:11

right, which you have to have enough money

14:13

to do. You have to have support to get out

14:15

of the state, or you can get abortion

14:17

medication shipped to you in the state, but

14:20

you have to risk. Okay, if someone

14:22

finds out about this, if an ex boyfriend,

14:25

someone who doesn't like me finds out that I had

14:27

abortion medication ship to me, they can make

14:29

my life hell. They can bring a lawsuit because Texas

14:32

has the ability to bring civil

14:34

suits against anyone who aids and avets in

14:36

an abortion. And so there's a real chilling

14:39

up foot.

14:41

Oh yeah, yeah, don't don't bury the lead

14:43

there, what say say that again?

14:45

So Texas has something that has

14:47

sort of been formally called the bounty hunter Mandy.

14:50

Where you can get bounty ounder man.

14:52

Yeah, for pregnant women.

14:55

Well, this is how they get around it because

14:57

they never want to seem as if they're

14:59

attack the actual pregnant person. They

15:02

say, anyone other than the pregnant person.

15:04

So someone who drove

15:06

them out of state, someone who helped them get

15:08

abortion medication. In one case, a

15:10

woman's abusive ex husband

15:13

brought a lawsuit against three of

15:15

her friends, yeah, who helped

15:18

her to allegedly get abortion medication

15:20

into the state and enter her pregnancy. And so

15:22

now you're set up with this system

15:24

where if you have an abusive ex partner

15:27

who wants to make you miserable, they can

15:29

go ahead and they can sue your friends

15:31

for helping you to get care. And what

15:33

that means is that all of these people who may

15:35

have had, you know, the ability to

15:37

travel, the ability to get abortion medication

15:40

ship to them, are terrified. They're

15:42

terrified that they're going to ruin their partner's

15:44

life, ruin their friend's

15:46

life.

15:47

And I'm sure the doctors then must be terrified

15:49

that they're going to get prosecuted as well.

15:51

All right, quick break, we're

16:01

about all right, let me back this up

16:03

to just for a moment, because these

16:05

are the things that sort of shocked the conscience.

16:08

But I want to talk about a little bit

16:10

before this happened. Isn't

16:12

the pressure that they brought to bear on

16:15

abortion providers. Isn't the pressure

16:17

they brought to bear of Oh, if you're going to do that kind

16:19

of care, your facility

16:22

has to be like a hospital, and you've

16:24

got and then through sort

16:26

of intimidation of the doctors, they

16:28

made it so that there's very few clinics, so

16:31

that even within the state, people

16:33

had overwhelming travel hurdles,

16:37

especially if they didn't have the kind of resources

16:39

that you know, people might have to have to get

16:41

that something done. Even before

16:44

these types of more draconian measures

16:46

have been put into place, haven't

16:48

they put into place effective bands

16:51

prior to this.

16:53

Yeah, I have a guest column at my newsletter

16:55

today from a woman who lost vision

16:58

in one of her eyes because

17:00

her abortion care was delayed in

17:02

Maryland before Roe is overturned.

17:05

So they had these laws in

17:07

place for a really long time. And I think you're talking about

17:09

trap laws, which is targeted regulation

17:11

of abortion providers. And so, yeah, they

17:13

did everything that they could, even in pro choice

17:16

states. So for example, if you're an abortion

17:18

provider in a pro choice state, they say, well,

17:20

you need to have admitting privileges at

17:22

a local hospital.

17:23

Right.

17:24

The problem is a local hospital is not going to

17:26

give an abortion provider admitting privileges because

17:28

they never bring patients there because abortion

17:31

is so safe that they're not bringing any

17:33

patients into the hospital. And so they've

17:35

set up this system.

17:37

Where it's essentially impossible.

17:39

Yeah, exactly, and so they just made

17:41

it increasingly difficult to keep clinics

17:44

open, even if it was ostensibly legal.

17:48

Let me ask you a question, Mosa, is there recourse in

17:50

states where it's legal to go

17:52

after other states, let's

17:54

say, because they're interfering with

17:57

interstate commerce. If

17:59

a state is preventing you from traveling

18:02

into a blue state for a procedure. Couldn't

18:04

that be construed as interference at

18:06

some level?

18:07

No, I think that's right, And I think there are a number

18:09

of blue states and blue state

18:11

ages that are contemplating the prospect

18:14

of dormant commerce Clause challenges

18:16

to the fact that essentially these red states

18:18

are imposing their

18:20

own public policy preferences on the

18:22

citizens of blue states who don't share

18:24

them. And there is actually a very interesting case

18:27

in the Serene Court a couple of terms

18:29

ago, not about abortion, but ironically

18:31

about pork production.

18:33

The state of California had particular

18:36

rules pork production.

18:38

The state of California, not surprisingly, had

18:40

particular rules about how the pigs

18:43

that were slaughtered and then used for pork

18:45

products were kept, and you know,

18:47

and the pork industry

18:49

challenged these regulations on the view that because

18:51

California was such a large state with you know,

18:53

such a demand for these products, that

18:56

their public policy preferences

18:58

for humanly raised and pastured

19:01

pork products then basically

19:03

were exported out to other states that didn't

19:06

share them. And so I remember the oral

19:08

argument in this case really keenly,

19:10

because everyone seemed really concerned about

19:12

the dormant commerce clause and about interstate commerce

19:14

and the prospect of very large states exerting

19:17

their will on smaller states.

19:19

And it didn't seem to be about pork products at all.

19:21

And I think it actually was a shadow

19:23

debate for what would happen in the post

19:25

real world.

19:26

And so what was the

19:29

decision in that case?

19:30

You know what, let me let me check on that. I want to make sure

19:33

that that's right.

19:34

Are you wait? You can't google during a

19:36

podcast

19:36

that.

19:37

Yeah.

19:38

I don't want to make sure. I just I want to

19:40

make sure that I'm right.

19:41

Okay, the court affirmed the dismissal of

19:43

the complaint, So it's like it's sided

19:46

with California.

19:47

But if it were presented.

19:48

In any other contrast, well,

19:51

yeah, I mean, if it's same idea,

19:53

say it sort of a jurisdictional question, But I

19:55

imagine the debate and

19:57

the disposition of the case might have been really different

19:59

if it had been something like abortion or

20:01

guns and not necessarily part that's right.

20:04

I want to get into that because that's that's

20:06

interesting to me, because I do think there

20:08

will be unforeseen consequences

20:11

and cases that come out of this when

20:14

you follow the logic. So I'm

20:16

going to present some other logical

20:19

maneuvers on this. I'm sure most of them are fillacial

20:22

and make no sense, but I'd be happy

20:24

to have you address them anyway.

20:27

So now you have in Texas, if somebody abts

20:30

someone in the driving to

20:32

Illinois or whatever it is, and

20:35

then they always want to say things like, well, but

20:38

we do make an exception for the health

20:41

of the woman if

20:44

she is in danger. Correct?

20:46

Is that for the most part? I know there are

20:48

some that don't. But isn't

20:50

there an emergency care for the

20:52

health of the woman?

20:55

These exist?

20:57

Yeah?

20:57

Supposed, good luck, good luck

20:59

qual finding. Here's the thing.

21:01

I think you see it all the time, and you see it in the context

21:03

of the bounty hunter laws. These laws aren't

21:06

necessarily meant to survive

21:08

legal challenges.

21:09

Their greatest efficacy can be

21:12

in the.

21:12

Short term, where they chill

21:15

what would be otherwise lawful conducts.

21:17

So you're right, there is an

21:19

exception. So take Texas's law for example.

21:22

Texas provides that you know, if

21:24

you are getting an abortion, it has

21:26

to be for these sort of exigent circumstances.

21:28

And those exigent circumstances include when

21:31

a patient has a quote life threatening

21:33

condition, and is at risk of death or

21:35

substantial impairment of a major bodily

21:38

function. But it doesn't define what

21:40

the substantial impairment of a major bodily

21:43

infunction.

21:43

It says in itself it's not a benign

21:45

process, Isn't that? Couldn't that be considered a substantial

21:48

impairment?

21:49

All of that, And so you know, without actual

21:51

definitions, it's left to the physicians

21:53

to make these judgments knowing that

21:56

an enterprising attorney general

21:58

like say Ken Paxton might come

22:00

down really hard on them if he doesn't agree

22:03

with their medical judgment. So

22:05

in these circumstances, I think doctors feel

22:08

like their hands are tied. They know what they would

22:10

do in their medical judgment, they just don't know where

22:12

medical judgment begins and the law

22:14

ends. And if they take the chance, if they take

22:17

the risk, there can be real consequences.

22:20

Consequences, yeah,

22:22

I mean legal consequences and collateral consequences.

22:25

Like you know, if you are a party to some

22:27

kind of legal proceeding, even if

22:29

you ultimately prevail, you have to document

22:32

that for purposes of licensure, and

22:35

you could have your licensing, you

22:37

might not be able to get insurance. I mean it's

22:39

a real conundrum for them.

22:41

Jessica has that impacted people in a

22:44

human way, in a real way.

22:45

Yeah, I mean, this is what I was going to say. There's right, there's

22:47

what the law says, and then there's what actually

22:49

happens in real life, and from

22:52

yes to human beings, which would be nice

22:54

to think about every once.

22:55

In a while.

22:56

Human beings, not vessels. Not

22:58

vessels hard.

22:59

So the example

23:01

that you gave, right, let's say

23:04

someone wanted to travel

23:06

the person depending on the county

23:08

they are in Texas. Several counties

23:10

in Texas have passed what they're calling

23:14

anti trafficking laws, abortion trafficking

23:16

laws that again allow

23:18

a civil suit to be brought against someone who

23:21

uses the roads of that particular

23:23

county to bring someone out

23:25

of state for an abortion. And so it's

23:28

this slow chipping away at our ability to

23:30

travel, and that's like a really terrifying

23:33

thing.

23:33

To even given the

23:36

mother's health being in question.

23:39

Well, this is part of the issue, as

23:41

Melissa said, there's no real standard

23:44

on what that means.

23:45

A case of a woman, there was a woman who her

23:49

it was an eighteen week miscarriage, I think,

23:52

but the fetus was her

23:54

water had broken and wasn't going to survive,

23:57

but she herself was not in

23:59

that moment.

24:00

Meant they have to wait until

24:02

the exact she had.

24:03

To go home.

24:05

I think she had to go home and get stepsis. Okay,

24:08

so here we go. So now we're going to get to Now

24:11

we're going to flip the thing. And

24:13

this is all informed by I think sort

24:15

of my experience with this, and

24:17

this has to do with my family, my

24:20

way. So we won't

24:22

even get into IVF, which is what we had to do

24:24

to have children. So it's incredible

24:26

to me to live in this world now where the

24:28

children that we desperately wanted would

24:30

not be able to be had because if

24:32

these people get their way, there'd

24:35

be no IVF. My wife after

24:37

our second child, this is after she

24:39

was born hemorrhaged. This

24:42

was probably three days post

24:45

birth. Right we

24:48

were home. She

24:50

was in danger. She

24:53

needed blood transfusions. We were incredibly

24:55

fortunate to have good

24:58

health care. We were able to get her

25:00

in. She was operated on under an emergency

25:02

basis on that night. Right.

25:05

But my point is this pregnancy

25:10

can always be a risk to

25:12

a woman's health. This idea

25:14

that it has to be based on a

25:17

fetal abnormality or something

25:20

going wrong. You

25:22

don't know and aren't

25:25

these laws? So who

25:27

then is libel? Let's

25:30

say in the case of our thing, let's

25:32

say she didn't want to carry that

25:34

baby to term, she was forced

25:36

to by the state and

25:38

post birth hemorrhaged and died. Well,

25:41

who's responsible for that? If

25:43

you can arrest people for a betting,

25:46

somebody driving into Illinois,

25:49

who is responsible for the death of

25:51

women who

25:53

are going to have emergency complications

25:56

arise? And how come that's

25:58

not part of the conversation? And what do you

26:00

think we can do about that, Jessica, I'll ask you first

26:03

then and then be sure.

26:04

I mean, this is part of what the case

26:07

in Texas where twenty women sued

26:09

Texas for the

26:11

extreme health issues that they

26:13

had because of the abortion band. And essentially

26:16

what happened is they blame the doctors, right,

26:18

they said, the law is not the issue. Any

26:21

you know, reasonable doctor would have given care at

26:23

that point. And this is something that they've sort of set

26:26

themselves up to do for a long time, to

26:28

blame the doctors, to say, you just don't

26:30

understand the law. The law is fine as

26:32

it is, you should have given the care and

26:35

so once again the liability

26:37

goes to the doctors given the you

26:39

know, the right judge and the right for it.

26:41

If a woman dies in childbirth for a baby

26:44

that she did not want to have, it

26:46

is only the doctor that is liable,

26:49

not the state for forcing her into

26:51

that pregnancy. Melissa. Is that correct?

26:54

That's basically what they're saying. I'm

26:57

Texas. The Texas Supreme Court

26:59

Scotex if you will, issued a decision

27:01

at the end of May on the Tzorosky

27:03

case and basically said, yeah, these

27:06

seem good to us, and doctors know

27:08

what they're to do, and they should do it, and they should

27:10

provide this care like there's not a problem

27:12

here. And this is a court

27:15

that's entirely Republican, and this was

27:17

an unanimous decision from

27:19

the court and again completely

27:22

stripped of any humanity for either

27:25

the pregnant patient or the doctor

27:27

who genuinely is worried

27:29

about whether or not they're going to lose their livelihood

27:32

if they make a decision, and their

27:34

patients who are not just at risk

27:36

of death, but I mean there's a lot between

27:39

a valid and viable

27:41

pregnancy and death.

27:43

I mean, you can.

27:44

Lose your fertility if

27:46

you go septic like, lots of things can happen.

27:48

It's not just even beyond that. It can

27:50

create hypertension, it can everything else.

27:52

Yeah.

27:54

Process, But John, this goes to your point about

27:56

democracy. We have right now highly

27:59

gerrymandered state legislatures

28:01

who are making these laws. These legislatures

28:04

are not comprised of physicians. They're

28:06

not even comprised of women of

28:08

reproductive age. It's a lot of men,

28:11

many men, who are

28:13

not in the same age bandwidth of as

28:15

most women who are in their prime reproductive

28:18

years. And the idea that you are

28:20

being your views are being reflected,

28:22

your interests are being accounted for

28:24

in the legislative process, that's

28:27

just a fallacy. I mean, these are

28:29

geriatric legislators made

28:31

up of men who are not doctors, making

28:34

laws that will legislate

28:37

for doctors and their patients. And

28:39

they're not The legislatures aren't affected by this, but

28:41

their patients are. And again, I

28:43

just want to emphasize the way

28:46

in which the anti choice movement has

28:49

ginned up all of this. Like James bop

28:51

who is the spokesperson

28:53

the head of the National Right to Life Committee,

28:56

argues that the physicians are the problem.

28:58

The laws are clear, and if they're not clear

29:00

enough for the physicians, the onus

29:03

is on the physicians to suggest

29:05

fixes. That's literally what he says, they

29:07

should suggest the fixes. Doctors

29:09

aren't legislators. Whose job is it.

29:11

It's the legislature's job.

29:13

Melissa and Jessica, I want you to address this. There

29:15

is no fix for a process

29:18

where some women die.

29:21

How do you fix pregnancy to make

29:23

it so that there is no chance

29:26

that a woman dies if you force someone

29:28

to carry a p And I understand there's

29:31

at a certain point in the development of the fetus

29:33

in the embryo or the embry or the fetus, and that

29:37

the rights of both tend to converge.

29:39

Right, I get that, But starting

29:42

on that journey, you cannot guarantee

29:45

a woman that you'll be okay.

29:47

You just can't, especially

29:50

in the US right where maternal mortality

29:52

is right, so awful, right,

29:55

And I have to say, just getting back to

29:58

the scenario we were talking about before,

30:00

even if someone is able to get

30:02

that health indicated life saving abortion

30:05

in a lot of these states because the way they've

30:07

written the law in such a way that instead

30:10

of giving standard abortion procedures, they're

30:12

giving women see sections or

30:14

forcing them into vaginal labor even

30:17

before viability, even when they

30:19

know that there's no chance for the fetus's

30:21

survival. And this is one of the ways that doctors

30:24

are trying to protect themselves from liability.

30:26

But it's also written in the laws.

30:28

If a life saving care is needed and they

30:30

need to end the pregnancy, you need to give a maternal fetal

30:33

separation, which means sea section

30:35

or forced vaginal labor. And

30:37

it's you know, just getting back to

30:39

the actual real life suffering that

30:41

is happening. That's for

30:44

some women, that's the best case scenario that

30:46

the life saving care that they get is unnecessaryly

30:49

you know, major abdominal surgery.

30:52

But John, this goes back to

30:54

the point I think you made earlier. We're

30:57

fighting for the shards of reproductive

30:59

freedom, the opportunity to

31:02

have physicians make exegent

31:04

decisions on behalf of their pregnant

31:06

patients. We're not fighting upstream for

31:09

what would reproductive freedom look like in an

31:11

ideal world, because for now that

31:14

is gone. I mean, the court preserved

31:16

the status quo on mefipristone. There

31:18

all were already three states who

31:20

are teed up and ready to bring that

31:23

case on the ground that they have been injured

31:25

by the fact that right, yeah, they have different they have

31:27

a different claim of standing. Their claim is going to be that

31:29

as anti abortion states, the availability

31:32

of mefipristone and medication, abortion flouts

31:35

their ability to regulate abortion.

31:37

That's flipped, Melissa. Can't that be flipped?

31:39

So let's say there is a family that lost

31:42

a daughter a wife because

31:45

they were forced to endure pregnancy and

31:47

they died during that pregnancy, and can't

31:49

that Can't that then be flipped?

31:51

But let me let me also and this can

31:53

be flipped.

31:53

I mean, but here's the thing, Like, we're literally

31:56

contemplating scenarios where our

31:58

victories are built on I know,

32:00

the backs of dead women.

32:02

No, no, no, listen, well listen, it's this

32:04

is an awful scenario. I am literally

32:07

just trying to figure out.

32:09

Yeah, I.

32:11

Think you bat like that's a policy. I mean, that's

32:13

how roe came into

32:15

being. Like stories like Jerry sent Toro,

32:18

who was a mother of two

32:21

who was literally butchered in

32:23

a hotel room trying to end

32:26

a pregnancy she did not want

32:28

me.

32:28

Let me ask you, is there any other law that

32:30

compels a person ostensibly to

32:32

save someone else's life. So the idea

32:35

being, well, the abortion is to

32:37

save a baby's like once

32:39

it reaches a certain gestational age,

32:41

and do the thing. But let's say, for instance,

32:44

my kidney would

32:46

if I were to give it to somebody, it would

32:48

save their life. Could I ever be

32:51

compelled to do that? You're never placed

32:53

in a situation human beings other

32:56

than like the military draft, where

32:59

the government tells you to

33:01

do something where you might lose your

33:03

life or have otherwise

33:06

harm. But we're doing this to

33:08

win, are we not. We're

33:11

compelling them.

33:13

So I don't know, outside of

33:15

Prince Harry, who says in his autobiography

33:17

Spare that he was born to allow for extra

33:20

organs for Prince William, if they

33:22

like leaving that to the side, Like you know,

33:24

yours, your example is an extreme one, but

33:27

I think the anti choice movement would put up

33:29

a different example, and that example would be vaccinations.

33:32

Vaccinations, like the idea that

33:35

mandatory vaccinations to secure collective

33:37

public health is an intrusion on your

33:39

bodily autonomy that that you may

33:41

not want.

33:42

But I think again, there can

33:44

be harm. There can be harm.

33:47

I think that's right. There can be harm.

33:49

Yeah, I think the differences

33:52

between a vaccination, even

33:54

one that is, you know, very

33:57

quickly rolled out and

33:59

pregnant, and the real harms of pregnancy.

34:01

I think you can make a pretty clear distinction

34:04

between those. But I think that's the example

34:06

that they use, and in fact, Amy Cony Barrett

34:09

in the Dobbs oral argument.

34:11

That was the example that she used.

34:13

She's like, you know, speaking of bodily autonomy, what about

34:15

vaccinations? Go here we go

34:17

again, So you know, this

34:19

question of bodily autonomy can go both

34:21

ways. Like they have made a lot about this in the

34:23

context of masking and vaccinations, right,

34:26

and.

34:26

Well, abortions, it's not but vaccinations.

34:29

Well, I mean they do make.

34:30

The claim, yeah, but I mean they make that claim

34:32

in those two contexts and seem completely

34:35

oblivious that you could make the very same arguments

34:37

in the context of abortion.

34:39

All right, well, we'll be right back. All

34:50

right, let's get back into it, Jessica.

34:52

Is that you know, for the women that

34:54

you're trying to uphold and represent,

34:58

you know, what is in your

35:00

mind kind of the

35:02

mental health of a community

35:04

that feels trapped by

35:08

this idea and sort of placed into

35:10

a you know, a

35:12

secondary position in society, right.

35:16

I mean, I do think you

35:18

know, in anti choice states it's

35:21

just constant fear. I think that's

35:23

safe to say there's just constant fear, right

35:26

and in pro choice states. And I have this

35:28

conversation a lot with my daughter. Outside

35:31

of the immediate physical impact that these

35:33

bands have on people, it does

35:35

something to you as a person to

35:37

know that your country doesn't see you as fully human,

35:40

right, Like there is an emotional toll

35:42

to know that you don't matter.

35:45

There was a woman in Oklahoma

35:47

who you know, another one of these post row horror

35:50

stories, where she was miscarrying, she

35:52

couldn't get care, she had to travel out

35:54

of states, spend thousands of dollars, and she

35:56

said, I'm not going to get pregnant again because

35:58

now I know my life doesn't matter. Now

36:01

I know I don't count. So why would

36:03

I ever put myself in that situation?

36:05

Because as soon as you're pregnant in this country,

36:08

you do not count, You do not matter. And

36:10

that's a really difficult

36:12

bitter pill to swallow.

36:16

Yeah, that's tough, Melissa. Is there are

36:18

you finding on the horizon? Are

36:20

there the types of legal challenges

36:23

to this? Where do you

36:25

see this with a little bit of light at

36:27

the end of the tunnel, or do you think it gets darker

36:30

before things begin to

36:33

shape out.

36:33

I want to emphasize the

36:35

limits of law here.

36:37

Law is not necessarily a place

36:40

for imaginative solutions

36:42

to real problems. If you're

36:44

in the courts, you're necessarily in

36:46

a defensive poster. So I'm not

36:48

thinking about legal solutions for this.

36:50

I mean, I think there can be cases, but as I

36:52

said, those are the cases that are going to be built

36:55

on a foundation of utter tragedy.

36:57

Like literally we'll be litigating from the

37:00

posture of dead women. I

37:02

think the bigger opportunity

37:05

is in the political or

37:07

electoral space. Right, we

37:11

live in a distorted democracy.

37:14

The Court has made it much harder

37:16

for individuals to register their preferences

37:19

through representative government because of

37:21

its rulings on jerrymandering.

37:24

It's made it harder to register your

37:26

preferences at the ballot box because of laws

37:29

that allow for voter suppression.

37:32

And look, the.

37:32

Constitution is already jerrymandered

37:34

to favor rural white one hundred per

37:37

one hundred percent.

37:38

So I mean, so I just want to say that, like I understand,

37:41

the challenge is like we truly live in a distorted

37:43

democracy. We have to recognize

37:46

the fact of that distortion, but understand

37:48

that that distortion can

37:51

be counteracted by overwhelming

37:54

participation collective action.

37:56

Right so, you know, we have an election coming

37:59

up the court. On the ballot in

38:01

that election, you know justice is Thomas

38:03

and Alito in addition to having

38:06

emotional support. Billionaires are

38:08

Subtugeneians, and if Donald

38:10

Trump is elected, they will step

38:12

down. They will retire the day after the inauguration,

38:15

and they will be replaced by teenagers.

38:18

And this six to three conservative

38:21

supermajority not only maybe

38:23

expanded to seven to two or eight

38:25

to one, it will endure even

38:28

longer because the judges will be younger.

38:30

So we are fighting defensively

38:33

right now in every forum,

38:36

but the electoral space is where

38:38

we have the opportunity really help counteract

38:40

this.

38:40

If you can.

38:41

Prevent Donald Trump from appointing

38:43

new justices to fill Thomas

38:45

an Alito's seat, from filling any other seat,

38:47

that's a win right now, and we have

38:50

to take that win. We have to look at state

38:52

courts, where you know, all of

38:54

these challenges in our abortion are shifting,

38:56

not they're shifting from federal courts

38:59

to state courts.

39:00

Those state courts.

39:01

Have to be in a position

39:03

to make rulings that are consistent with the

39:06

will of the people. We have

39:08

to have legislatures that are ready

39:10

to enact constitutional amendments

39:13

to their state to their state constitutions

39:15

that would protect reproductive freedom. We can't

39:17

just focus on the president. We have

39:20

to be down ballot. We have to focus on keeping the Senate.

39:23

The Trump administration was so successful

39:25

at adding movement conservatives

39:27

to the federal court. Completely transformed

39:30

the federal court, and the Biden administration has done a great

39:32

job counteracting some of that.

39:34

But there needs to be eight.

39:36

More years of work on this, and you've

39:39

got to have the Senate to do that. So this

39:41

is not the moment to be divided

39:44

in our big tent. It's the moment to come together

39:46

as a big tent to overwhelm the distortion

39:49

that's tried to divide us and limit

39:51

our authority.

39:52

Melissa, that's a phenomenal. As

39:54

my daughter would say, I believe you may have ate

39:57

eaten and left no crumps. That was

39:59

a that's it. I think that's what she

40:01

said to me.

40:02

That's what the young people say.

40:03

The young people say you ate and left no problems.

40:05

It's that that is an unbelievably

40:07

trenchant and fabulous point and one

40:10

that has to be at the forefront

40:12

because, to be frank,

40:14

the other group is tenacious and

40:16

strategic, and they understand how

40:19

to overwhelm them, you

40:22

know, and take out the bottom of that. Jessica, is

40:24

there anything else that you wanted to add before

40:27

I let you guys go?

40:28

Yeah, just building on something Melissa said.

40:31

It does give me a lot of hope

40:33

when I think about just how popular

40:35

abortion rights are and if we get

40:37

to that place where we're focusing on the electoral

40:40

bit. This

40:42

is an issue that people like to talk about

40:44

as if it's something the country is evenly split

40:47

on or a revocably polarized

40:49

over.

40:49

Right, It's not fifty fifty, We're not, No,

40:52

there was.

40:53

There's been several polls that have

40:55

come out this year that showed eighty

40:57

percent over eighty percent of Americans don't

40:59

want any government involvement at

41:01

all in pregnancy. They do not want

41:03

abortion to be regulated by the law at

41:06

all. This is something that is really

41:08

really important to voters, and it

41:11

goes across parties. So that

41:13

is something like as horrible as all of this

41:15

is, and it is horrible to talk about this every day

41:17

and to write about this and to do this work. It

41:20

gives me so much hope knowing that

41:22

Americans really do understand

41:24

what's at stake and how important this issue

41:27

is.

41:27

Well, I thank you guys both so

41:29

much. Melissa Marie n Yu, law professor,

41:32

co host of Strict Scrutiny

41:34

podcast, and my go to Melissa,

41:37

you know, you might go to whatever.

41:39

Whenever I get into trouble, I would say, what would Melissa

41:41

Murray? How would she put this that I

41:44

like?

41:44

I you said, I don't call Melissa Murray to be

41:46

my lawyer, but I do refer.

41:47

As like, go to law

41:50

whatever it is. And Jessica Vilandi, founder

41:52

of Abortion every Day dot com and author of the forthcoming book

41:54

Abortion, Our Bodies, Their Lives, and the Truths

41:57

We used to win. Guys, thank you so much for being here.

41:59

Thank you.

42:03

Wow. Look, I don't want to say Melissa

42:05

Murray blows me away every time I hear from

42:07

her, but holy God, the

42:10

information being held in

42:12

a normal sized head that's just

42:14

just got a normal sized head, and yet

42:17

all that information, and Jessica,

42:19

you know you can tell you

42:23

know, Melissa's attacking it from a legal sense. Jessica's

42:25

really feeling I think the human

42:27

burden of this. Yeah, and boy she

42:30

articulated that so well.

42:31

Yeah, the personal stories, I mean

42:33

they they break

42:36

my heart every time, Like I just like I can't

42:39

wrap my head around the conversations

42:41

and how this is still happening.

42:44

But yeah, well she and the way

42:46

she said it. You know, look, even with these

42:48

legal victories, remember it's on the backs of dead women,

42:50

and you just think, oh god, that's right. You know, sometimes

42:52

we forget in these theoretical and now there's

42:54

that Lauren, what was that case in Idaho?

42:56

That's oh yeah, now coming.

42:58

Up the Supreme Court term

43:00

is meant to decide on Idaho

43:03

the United States, where

43:05

Idaho is pushing back against a federal

43:08

law that allows emergency

43:11

abortion in the case of the life of the mother.

43:14

So that's a fun way literally saying

43:16

even if the life of the mother is in jeopardy,

43:19

nope, sorry, yeah,

43:22

holy shit. So well,

43:25

wow, just a lot to certainly

43:27

a lot to chew on there. But and the call

43:30

to action from Melissa at the

43:32

end I thought was just boy, what a great reminder

43:34

of what's really at stake and fabulous.

43:37

That is the Weekly Show for this week. As always,

43:41

you can't do it without lead producer Lauren Walker,

43:43

Producer Brittany me Medovic, the Man

43:45

behind the Glass, Rob

43:47

the Tolo, video editor and engineer, Audio

43:49

editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, our

43:52

fabulous researcher Catherine Dowan, and

43:54

as always, executive producers Katie

43:57

Gray and Chris mcshape. Come

43:59

on, fantastic, best in the

44:01

biz, Best in the biz.

44:03

For God's sakes, Where can they find us?

44:06

We are Weekly Show Pod

44:08

on Twitter, Weekly Show Podcast

44:10

on Instagram, threads TikTok, and

44:13

The Weekly Show with John Stewart on YouTube.

44:16

We're on Instagram, Yeah

44:18

we are. What would we do on Instagram?

44:21

Just

44:22

picture?

44:28

Yeah? I don't I Unfortunately

44:31

for me, it's it's a desert out there.

44:33

If you've got to get pictures of this fantastic

44:36

guys, Thanks so much and uh we'll see

44:39

y'all next week. Thanks

44:43

for listening to this episode of The Weekly Show. If

44:45

you liked it, follow the show on your favorite

44:47

podcast app and tune in every

44:49

Thursday for new episode and

44:52

send us your ideas. Why not save

44:54

us the work? The

45:02

Weekly Show with Jon Stewart is a Comedy

45:04

Central podcast is produced by Paramount

45:06

Audio and Busboy Productions.

45:21

Paramount Podcasts