To my left is catherine colbert, who recently retired as the constants hushed william 66 director of the senator leadership, studies professor of leader studies and profession a professional practice as the Political Science department, and college notion youtube she worked on the landmark case casey, since then shes worked for people for the american way, the end of our Public Policy center at the university of pennsylvania, mary sickle, is the syrians weaver miller professor of Florida StateUniversity College of, law she is off historians written articles on this topic, including after rope, the loss history of the abortion and beyond, wrote roe v. Wade in the fight for privacy, and her new book, a subtle abortion america, legal history. Roe v. Wade to the president and his forthcoming soon. Finally of Catherine Glen foster, who is president and ceo, of americans united for, life in addition to our work she deserves on the boards of Legal Society in d. C. Metro chapter, family policy alliance, and the women center as well as serving as a senior fellow legal policy into the charlotte closure institute and a fellow, with James Wilson Institute on National Rights please stormy and welcoming our three panelists. So work here to discuss the future of, row for the past year or so, or maybe a little bit longer theres been a number of state laws, and activity at the state level about reproductive, rights subside activity has been to go far and protecting reproductive rights and other states have passed laws restricting access to abortion. So mary, allstar with you since your historian can you just start by telling us a little bit more about, whats been happening over the past year, and putting that activity into historical context, why is this happening now, what can the history of the debate over row tell us about, what the states are doing currently . Think whats, changed obviously thing this changed is the membership of the Supreme Court we know have a person who, fight justice majority to overturn, row and also what youve seen is in many states control of all three branches of government, by one party, that enables legislators to pass this kind of law. I think what is striking though, is that you also see a break from the strategy that were groups like a wall pioneered, which was to, sort of ship away a pro graduating, and give what the Supreme Court would be expected, to accept in terms of restrictions that would be most likely to be upheld, bc and also i think to some wrists that restriction that would play well on election, day you see, in a lot of states, i live in florida, idlib are close to alabama, you see states going much further than that, much more quickly than that, there are i think more divides, about what the court is going to be willing to do, so we are in a moment historically where there is debate within the Anti Abortion Movement about what the best strategy is going to, be i think that is in part because until now we spending a uniform target on that side wishes roe v. Wade we are now very much in a moment where we are thinking about what the world is going to look like. After all the way. It imagine probably everyone on the panel thinks that that is what is coming. And there will probably be disagreements about how and why. I think thats the historical moment we find ourselves in impart history, it is helpful to realize, that the goal has always been, understandably, for people who oppose abortion, to ban abortion, and not to chip away at abortion but to create a right to life, that would make abortion illegal, and you are starting to see i think in some states, states asking for what they want, and hoping that the Supreme Court will, allow them to seek it as opposed to catering to what the justices are presumed to be willing to do, or what voters, are we supporting majorities are presumed to warrant so catherine. Very much in a well whats going on the state level, in terms of strategy, at for instance in alabama she mentioned there is a full abortion ban i believe that was passed, and the governor signed into law the alabama, human life protection, act adjust want to read a little bit about from her starting statement was kind of understand what they were thinking, when she signed that, she sat governor ivan said no matter once, matter once personal view on abortion we can all recognize the least for the short term, this bill may similarly be unenforceable, as citizens have this great country, we must always respect the authority of the Supreme Court, it when we disagree with their decisions, many americans, myself included, disagreed when roe v. Wade was handed, down in 1970, three the sponsors of this believe it is time once again, the u. S. Supreme court to revisit this important matter, they believe this action they bring about the best opportunity for this to occur, is that really kind of the motivation behind passing these laws, is sort of directly asked the court to revisit that . Or is it more of a chipping away, as mary mentioned of some of the other restrictions that took place. You cant really understand alabama without also understanding the flip, side states like new york, as you mentioned you have a lot of people, a lot of constitutional scholars, a lot of attorneys, a lot of the public locating attacks the makeup of the court, seeing possibly changes there, we dont really know how those play, out looking at public polling on abortion, and particularly arent, some restrictions, or some protections for women, things like, safety standards, informed consent, full informed consent, things like that, and also looking at the abortion, rate which is a currently, the lowest its been, since before roe v. Wade, also noting, which i think even more important than that, the abortion rate among unintended pregnancies, and looking at the increasing percentage of women who may not have planned to get pregnant. May not want to be pregnant, but still are not choosing abortion, and so looking at all of these factors, you see that when roe v. Wade is overturned, its chipped away that, reminder what the situation is, we do expect this issue would return to the states. At that point we would expect a certain number of states to have follow a more new york type path. Assert number of states to follow more alabama type pass, and the most states would be in the middle, passing perhaps some health and safety standards, some informed consent, some other restrictions, but not going so far on either direction, and so its not surprising that this year more than ever, states are taking a look at, this and or couldnt recently introducing the bill, increasingly passing some of these bills into, law that will, whether they go into effect, once row may be overturned, or provide some level of protection now, youre seeing that, there is this kind of movement happening. So katie you argued casey, and i think i read interviews that you are a little surprised the outcome, nevertheless the court upheld row, im curious about your reaction to kind of whats happening now, its surprising that a couple decades after row casey, there is talk about back to the states what is your sense of whats happening . Is it working we are in the States Legislature were now. I was in 44 states and two years before casey. All of whom we took up abortion bills, several 800 antiabortion bills, why because they thought the Supreme Court was prepared, something was happening now, the biggest, at the time we fully expected the court overrule row. In fact, let me just be really clear, they did, in the first, you argue a case and, then the justices go back to their conference, they take an initial vote on the case, overruling row, by the most extreme standard, its adopted the rational basis test, permitting states to do everything including criminalization of abortion. Justice kennedy, at the lastminute, over a month, later changed his vote, or a more fully understood, not only the implication of that decision, but frankly how that affected the institutional integrity of the court. So we are now at the point, where i dont think the current justices, will be as brave, as Justice Kennedy. I will fully protects, unlike my adversary here. This court is per pair to overrule row, im return to matter to the states, and permit recriminalization of abortion. What do i say that . Because they have not, theyve been very cavalier about this since gorsuch has joined the court, the two latest justices, and more than anything, everybody says, but oh Justice Roberts hes going to save the day, he was the good vote on health care reform, Justice Roberts is not going to save the day on abortion. He was very much a student of Justice Rehnquist he was a clerk for justice lane quest he believed it rehnquist views and most of these issues, and it was Justice Rehnquist who wrote the opinion overruling grow so my view its absolutely clear. Row will be overturned we will return to permitting states to real criminalize abortion, only question in my mind is one. And i think this court is politically savvy, and will wait until after the 2020 election to do this. So what does that mean for all of us. It means that the issue of abortion will return to the states. Currently there are 22 states. Fully controlled by the republicans. What i call trifecta states. 14 states. Fully controlled by the democrats. Unlike the republicans. Democrats dont always fall in line. And so it doesnt seem to me there is actually a prochoice majority in those 14 states. I wish there were. But i dont really think there is. In contrast. It seems to me there is an anti choice majority. In the 22 states. At a minimum. Within a year following in overturning of row. Were going to see 22 states in this country criminalize abortion. Or take such extreme measures that the means of abortion will be unavailable. The second thing that will happen. Is i think we will begin to see. More attention. To state legislatures. Of who becomes a state legislator. And if i up one word of advice for people in this audience. Is if you care about abortion rights. If you care about preserving womens access to legal procedures. Youve got to care about whos on our state legislature and. Pennsylvania we, are very close to being able to retake that by the democrats and i think we need to pay strong attention to ensure that our state legislature is not only prochoice, but are controlled by the party that is willing to enact protective legislation. So mary, you mentioned that the timing of it is now based around the Supreme Court, and the court has not ruled, on the merits on abortion decisions is just as common ive been, there but he did descent, into june services versus key case, where he think that was about admitting privileges for doctors in louisiana, it was there anything about his dissent there that might tell us a bit about how he might rule, or do you believe what katie seeing here in terms the outcome . I think all of us, i cant speak for catherine, but my something is that all of us to seem to the court will probably eventually, inform or in name overturned row. Im not sure i agree that it will happen as quickly as katie was saying. But i think, if you could take anything away from Justice Kavanaughs, and the court, at the moment, they pretty quickly will be having its long conference, in deciding whether to take medical on the merits, they arent on that, yet this was just a decision about whether louisiana is admitting privileges law will go into effect. And just discover not to send it from the courts decision to block the law firm going into effect. And i think he seized on what is vehicle that you see the court probably, use which is that the undue burden, tests that comes out of casey has always been ambiguous. And even in its new kind of renewed form, those 2016 after a decision, its very much based on the facts on the ground, and so, the argument, was basically the quarter seen this all before this is exactly the law the court struck down in 2016, the sort of insulting the courts intelligence, that weve been having this conversation again. Kavanaugh said, but wheat the facts are different, louisiana isnt texas which was the case in polar stead, presented of proof of variety of things, about abortion access. As a logical vehicle, if the, court assume, if there is a barrier right now, or any kind of hesitation i would assume on this court, about overturning, row its optics in politics, its not on the substance, you would assume, that the people who bad Supreme Court nominations are doing their, job but every one of the court, on the merits think that role should go. But they might be worried about doing it in a way that looks partisan. Or doing it too quickly, or doing it it away that jeopardizes the results of the 2020 election. Or doing it away that makes the institution, or they themselves personally looked at. You can do a lot with the undue burden standard that say anything about overturning rope. Without even saying youve overturn the 2016 decision, just by saying that the facts on the ground are different. Or to be where we will go immediately, i dont know how long were going to stay, there i think there will come a point if you bring for example a law, saying we are going to ban abortion, after six weeks, after a womans last menstrual period, because if futile harp it has been detected, its, really you cant with a straight face say that that is not an undue burden, under any of the courts precedent, sooner or later if the court wants to let the states do, what they want, and not limited it, they are just going to have to be a direct encounter with row and casey, my reading of Justice Roberts and just his confidence that that might take a while, and then i prefer, these sorts of, more facts to drive, in and also, by the way, harder to understand, if youre concerned about optics, its hard to explain whats going on with that, so if the go is, if you think row is wrong, and you are trying to move beyond, it you can get away toward doing that without the potential political fallout, using undue burden standard, that will be what i would expect to see next. Catherine, curious approach, so this different kind of state legislation is being cast, the alabama law, which is more of a, theres a louisiana lot this more about a limiting privilege, is more of a fact based analysis, about whether its an under burden or not, im curious about how for instance, forward to challenge the alabama law went to lower court automatically just have to apply like rowan casey, and then appeal to the Supreme Court, they are just not here, it it might not even get there, are versus a more fact based case, under casey, the whole Womans Health forces heller step, decision where might involved but a bit more about okay with look at the factors, and with happening. I guess in paris spot hall that almost outright bed could make it to the Supreme Court, and what is your take on the fact based analysis the Justice Kavanaugh employed in his dissent . First of, all i wouldnt expect that an alabama style law would be a case that would be taken up at the court, in the near future. And i dont think there are many legal scholars that would believe that. For a lot of reasons, i dont think it would necessarily get appealed up to the, point i dont think thats the kind of cases the court is looking for right now. Weve been seeing, some of the cases, that they have declined recently, there is a recent photo remains lobbed indiana, where they are looking at these more facts base issues, a inhaler senate putting particular this balancing test idea. Were really. Any federal judge, is now able to go into the fact, of the sort of sociological, details related to the law and the impact. And then make a decision, potentially struck down on the. Law it is going back to the idea of the Supreme Court official abolishing for the the fact of the situation, rather then put the constitution then the president and what they should be turning towards. We that in texas and i would expect we could continue to see that Going Forward as courts and some of the lower courts are trying to find a way. If you have any reactions regard to catherine points, can you react . Let me be clear. He did not need a bouncer overall role. And the language which strikes a womans access to abortion presented to the court the question of what the appropriate standard for which cordial evaluates abortion laws Going Forward in casey the court couldve had induced again to rational based a standard of review that lawyers speak for americanize a shun and in any case whether it is a restriction or a banner, had some issues before the court so i dont think. Let me be clear, i think its really a mistake for us to believe that a debate is between regulations and the total bands. Either presents their issue to the court. The court can use it to give states the power to criminalize abortion. Thats what were talking about. Many states will do that when given the chance. Why . Because they are controlled by a majority that believes that is an appropriate thing to do and the notion that both the rule of law and moderation will prevail in this particular Political Climate has gone away. Many of the state legislations that are controlled by trifecta republicans to gerrymandered seats, these are not people who care who feel in fear of losing their seats in most after 22 states so they will be extreme if the political or winds column too. The same thing with your assumption that a lawyer for judge is not going to go against current u. S. Supreme court president. We have seen the most radical group of people appointed at the federal bench and we have seen the last 25 years. They wouldnt even discuss whether or not they thought brown versus board of education is the appropriate law, so his radical judges. They will strike down a bill and force it to be appealed, it and i think we do ourself a disservice to believe that this wont happen, and the only reason im so emphatic about that is because now is the time to take action in the appropriate action to take is to start supporting state legislators who believe what you believe. Whether youre against abortion or pro choice, and a question of how abortion is regularly Going Forward, wherever we believe will be determined by who sits in our state capitals, and therefore it is our obligation to think the most dramatically. Think that this could happen, because now is the time to make that change, otherwise is today. You have trifecta as in 22 states, you have nine states have trigger laws. If the Court Reverses law theres a lot on the books that says you return to the prior, that may not be appropriate or legal but its going to require a lot of litigation so it seems to me our best bet Going Forward is to start thinking proactive measures. In not there is a consensus that the court is going to chip away to some extent or directly overturn or in a matter of time. Im not single chip away. Shapewear they already did. They did that in casey. They went from the highest level of constitutional, theyve been chipping away for 25 years. Many states have tour through abortion providers, some states have won. We are done with chipping away. This cory is going to take more dramatic actions. Im curious if you have a response to that point and retorts about the chipping away versus the overturning. First of all, i dont know how quickly the Court May Take action on this. We do know that most years certainly about half of the years plus we have seen quite take up a case on abortion. We have seen in large part chipping away for a close to 15 years now, and that really indicates how unsettled row is. It indicates that there is unsettled to the court and that he has to keep finding new basis to uphold the tenants of row it are disagreeing with the original premise with that idea looking towards the medical history and the medical legal history and in fact when you go back to 19 to that case and you see that the court was turning to the lions interest, to uphold row because they were trying to find a reason to uphold reform and its hard for me to imagine since throw itself a more anti feminist a decision. A more anti feminist rationale. When you look at a court saying that the woman cant sit on their own and a level Playing Field with there will rely upon abortion to compete with minutes his ideas in order to succeed and to plan our education and families and future i cant think of a more offensive idea and that so as opposed to court of woman myself, and knowing my experience and knowing that in my case and in the case of so many women who i have counseled and comforted and represented, that the decision really wasnt a choice. Now we turn to a portion believing there was no other choice, no better choice, and looking at the experience itself how in my case and in the case of many others, are a choice and our autonomy were stripped from us behind those doors and the impact its had in our lives i would say it is not surprising. Its not surprising when you have the legal scholars on both the left and right criticizing row and saying maybe i agree with her as a policy but has a constitutional matter, because he really isnt based in the constitution as part of the president to decide rome. And a few short pages later said in fact these are quite different cases. A different situation, talking about marriage versus autonomy. This is a decision that the legal scholars from the left hander right, and so many cases agree should be overturned and will be overturned willing to believe that will happen, when the lights were on the later. It can i take issue with that . I cannot believe this is the third time in the last three weeks have been confronted with his view that is not appropriate to recognize the rights to make shall tearing it is a part of our constitution. Our constitution has had a long history of giving bodily integrity and autonomous integrity by the highest level protection. Yes, youre right, there has been renewing away but he seems to me the millions of dollars being spent by the evangelical and Catholic Church it spends trying to then a great and take away the rights of women contributed to that, and he did make a job. Out give you that, and we were not sufficiently vigilant to protect what we think is important recognition within our constitution, but to say it is illegitimate or cant recognize or not appropriate to recognize the most fundamental rights and make decisions about your family. What are you have, sex who you marry, who you have sex with, whether or not you have a pregnancy when i carry the term or wanna a pregnancy, whatever the decisions are it seems to me protected by the u. S. Constitution in the ought to continue to do so. Merry. I wanted to ask a question going beyond this sort of mechanics about romeo may not be overturned. During the Justice Kavanaugh confirmation, so i will see a huge issue and was brought up multiple times, so on the one side of the debate you have state legislators and governors like governor ivy who basically seemed to have roy casey asked a law and continue to challenge it, which strikes me as almost questioning the Supreme Court in a way in questioning those decisions. On the other side you have the critics of justice cabinet criticizing the confirmation process and the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a result, so if there were to be a decision lets say whether it is this turmoil next term either striking down or tripping away at it that it seem as pretty unpopular, could that lead or contribute to criticisms of the rose legitimacy in any because it is such a heated topic of . I think that its a lose, lose i think they were at a point in American History were anything the court does, is going to be perceived as political, i think if youre someone like Justice Roberts who wants to be the hero of the story, it would be pretty appealing to do nothing, or to do very. Little or to do things in a way that people dont understand, i think that, really if people are calling me in the media saying what happened that is a win, i think its a Court Overturns row, and they say they are overturning, wrote that could be politically possible, theres lots going suggesting people want abortion to remain legal, polling on abortion makes abortion opinion america sank afflicted when you dig much further american seem to like some abortion restrictions, many dont, but many do, but when you get into the sort of legality, youre not criminalization, people seem to think that role should remain the law, the clearer the court is about what is doing, so the thing we havent talked about yet is theres a possibility i think a remote possibility, but a possible it is a court will at some point recognize the right to life which will course resolve a nationwide criminalization, i think thats on the table soon, but there are some reason to think that could happen i think Justice Gorsuch isnt interested in natural law arguments that land them selves to recognizing a right to life i would not be surprised just as thomas is interested in that im the person thinking that is going to take a while to get to overturning row and not seeing this going to happen tomorrow but that is another question as well i, think that would be very controversial as well, thats probably the single biggest variable in terms of predicting what the court will do and when is the courts probably worry that there could be a backlash, especially if they do something in a very Clarence Thomas style kind of opinion overturning row. I think that that is probably the only thing that would either slow down the train, but i think there is a real possibility that that will happen, and its also worth saying, occasionally at these kinds of Events People ask when will this be over, and the answer is never. If it was overturned youre just going to see a reverse of what happened, when roll came down with the roles reversed, where you have the prolife or Antiabortion Movement defending a precedent you have the prochoice or anti Rights Movement the camo come down to each state many states are in the middle of the floor which is ultimate swing state theyll be huge price in places like florida, and they will even be fights in some ways and like alabama because this was a consequential, before legislators in alabama said, simply this is a vehicle to test, row we are not serious about enforcing this, think we will expect to see, the conflict intensify regardless of what happens catherine what is your take on the legitimacy issue was illegitimacy question when rose issue or what would happen if row was struck down how it affects the courts . Certainly as a mission before we have some legal scholars on both sides question illegitimacy of row. Think the most clear perspective will not recently has come from Justice Thomas in particular, in one section in 1983 case, relating to patients rights to sue. His dissent from denial of the court it decided not to hear the, kate he thought the court should, have he spoke very clearly to his colleagues on the bench, saying if this case were not about abortion, if wearable any other matter, and we wouldve taken this case, up if one of the parties in the case, wasnt named planned parenthood we would take in this case up. I think that could be written to really almost anyone on the court, because this is a case that should have been heard. We need consistency in that idea of who quit it patients sue . When can a patient sue . And have a choice of medical provider. And the fact that the court didnt take that, case is quite symptomatic of the courts current stance on abortion. And not having taken up some of these current cases, we dont know when the court will take up the case again, on average as of at least a couple of years ago the court takes a case on abortion every two and a half years or so, and so we do expect there will be something soon, but we dont know exactly when that will be. Let me address the legitimacy question as a, lawyer as a citizen, as somebody who cares deeply about the constitution, im extraordinarily concerns, that not only is both the confirmation process for justices, and the continued view, that the justices are partisan, in many of their renderings, their willingness to overturn president , very cavalierly, some of the most recent cases, all undermined the legitimacy of the court. And the legitimacy of our Justice System is the most important aspect, of what preserves our democracy, because the judiciary is that balance is that check. On the other two branches of government, and so we need a court, that is not only legitimate in fact what is perceived to be illegitimate as well. Until we return to a system and weigh partisanship, and rancor, and frankly just talent is recognized, in who is being appointed to the, courts of this country, are going to be in trouble, i think that is really problematic, it is not surprising to me, given how many norms constitutional norms, are challenged and have been pushed to the limit, by both the current administration, and other things that have gone on in the last ten years. But i think the legitimacy of the court is really important, i want to say one more thing, i can be up here now tonight without recognizing the historic nature of today, it is nothing to do with abortion. For those of you who dont know, nancy pelosi announced that the house will begin impeachment inquiry, thats a historic event in our nation, and we need a legitimate court, to be able to handle, what is going to go forward, not only around that, issue but about many other issues, coming forward, frankly abortion is the least of it, in many cases i would love to think my issue is the most important, but frankly what were talking about democracy maybe thats more important than abortion. Tomorrow the Constitution Center is doing event the line take festival battle for the constitution will have representative adam schiff, there as on as the counterpart we talk about of sure this, issue to continue on the line history we cannot able to be there well see at the festival, i want to get some audience questions, before we ramp up because there is a lot in the room, what sealed money we can do, merry allstar with you, this question asked why do you think abortion is such as salient political and constitutional issue in america . Its, complicated i think in part because there are people on both sides with sincere and really profound convictions, i think some of those are driven by morality some of those are driven by personal experience, some of those are driven by religion and those just arent going to change anytime, soon the other reason i think this is true its because we have a political system more parties have aligned, theirs and identified we prolife unintended highly prochoice party that is in no way historically inevitable once it, happened you had parties in some ways reinforcing existing social and political divisions, about abortion for their own political gain, quite often if you speak to people in europe they will be puzzled about why abortion politics in america are the way they are and i think some of it is it americans im selves are genuinely divided about abortion, with some of it is because american politics has centered on abortion in a way. I would have a different answers that wishes i think its all about a quality, i dont really think its about, a procedure at all, its about the affront that some people in our nation believe that women option opt to control, decisions about having children. And frankly decisions about their lives in many, ways is so to me, misogyny is a huge part of this, its the unspoken part of it, but if we are really just talking about a medical procedure, frankly one of the safest medical procedures in the nation we would be having this debate. Other why do you think its such a big political constitutional issue . I would certainly agree that massage is a huge problem america still, we see that through so many of our systems, and thats something that we fight against every day the fact that we have to go to the Supreme Court to try to defend the rights of pregnant individuals, for example its a situation where we do have to fight every day for our rights, that said, thats not why im here, im here because i had this experience i know how it impacted, me im here because i know that a society that says that i cant compete with a man, without having a legal access to abortion, as a society the needs to change. Women are the ones who need to change here if we cannot both have children, be pregnant, and simultaneously fully participate society, fully participate in every aspect of our communities, and our society, and our nation that is a nation that needs to reevaluate. And start developing new ways for women to fully engage in our communitys. Chaos are with you with this one. What happened during the one month period that changed a line of pc . I dont know. Ive talked to a number of clerks who work for him. I think to fall the. One is once justice wrote the opinion and understood fully that four criminalization would have been permitted he began to rethink how that would play in america, and i think you are comes down to his concern about institutional integrity in the court, and if nothing more Justice Kennedy was always concerned with that and didnt want the court to be preceded as a body that we changed based on who appointed the particular justice, that the rule of law was an important and citing the wooden empire and under the rules that were applicable at the time of casey, there was no reason to change the law unless he abandoned those basic principles. I think that is at the heart of it. There was also Justice Oconnor who was very key in being able to help him through that and there you i think washy adopted the test. Detroit opinion of case he was the test that Justice Oconnor had previously adopted i think that for her it really was an understanding of what some women, particularly buried women were going through when they faced unintended pregnancy and our point of view her concentration on the facts help us understand there are some circumstances. Mary, given the current competition of the court and that this Administration May have a third pick, how significant is the 2020 election to defeat future of row . I think it is significant. One of the things we talking about is the legitimacy of the court. There has been a lot of proposals watching the court. People have talked about term limits, court packing, Clarence Thomas. Its always significant. I think its not as significant as Anthony Kennedy was a, call out of my crosses the anthony farewell tour and his departure was major in a way that almost nothing else could be, but i think it is still significant in part because were talking so much about it with the basic structure of the court should look like and in no small part because of decisions like row. I think its also significant in so far as the court maybe reading leader if this issue matters to people. Everything about the quartz potential against a public reception to a decision, if abortion is a major issue in the 2020 election insensitive front message. If people are not has focused on abortion and are not focused at all may not saying the same signal to the court. Catherine, is it possible reasonable to discuss the mention of decrease in abortions that have been occurring without talking about access to contraception, birth control, ieds and those sorts of issues . Sure. There are many reasons why the abortion rate has decreased in america. Obviously they see d. C. And other entities have been idolizing goes and include things like contraceptives, a lot of havent been put into place, and things like resources for pregnant woman. And the centers out, there the governmental resources were provided to me that we didnt provide always anti their kids perhaps. A number of different ways in which we are increasingly reaching out to women and walking them through what can be a difficult and process, and hours we improve our communities support in accordance also for us, we are seeing increasingly and with women similarly as we see scientific chances of medical advances and things like ultrasounds, women are increasingly able to pursue other avenues, whether it is parenting, placing a child in a home for adoption or any of the other options as well as preventing pregnancy. So the institute has looked at this carefully. Yes throughout the lowest number of proportions. The able to see what the reason is. I agree with you on that, but i have to tell you i think increased access to contraception and the availability of contraception under obamacare and the expansion of medicaid in many states, given women and greater access to Family Planning is a big contributor along with the fact that there are fewer women who pursed vivian. I think the important part here that he administration is going back with all of this me. We are reducing womens access to contraception in a whole host of areas. Reducing funding for planned parenthood. Have you read the data. If you eliminate contraception to young woman in america, youre going to increase abortions vertical or illegal, and we have an obligation to make sure that does not happen. We only have a couple minutes left and there are so many more questions. I want to hold one her question which is the actual topic for today and the question is, and ill start with you, should roe v. Wade be returned. I think, i mean, i dont think so but i think like i said this is going to be an endless process. I think in some way the only sort of competing message we dont want it to be over turned its not going to be over, sorrow view weighed will be more of this to come, if you recall after row there was a sense of complacency along the winners and a sense of people being fired upon they lost. I think there will be a historical moment we find ourselves in very soon. There parallels to winning, as a lesson in history. Catherine, same question to you. Should roe v. Wade be overturned . It should be overturned. It is a decision that is not yet subtle. Weve seen that with the abortion cases through the subsequent decades and in the opinion of legal scholars and the movement of americans who oppose abortions and continue to fight back on this where women and when it are proposing in passing bills the borough back and provide increased protection that word in improving so many ways and take away from that of unlimited abortion. It should be overturned because it is in firmly based in the constitution as we have seen from so many of these label scholars who have said and believe what you will about its policy elements. This is now a decision that finds its moorings in the constitution and so i do expect it will be overturned sooner or later. And the last word to you. Should roe v. Wade be overturned . No. For a couple of reasons. First of all i think its firmly and were grounded in our constitution. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Every quarter has looked at that question for the last 50 years agrees with that, so to say its not really based in the constitution is wrong but more importantly why action may be overturned . Because it seems to me fundamental questions about whether you have to overturn or you dont, whether your sexual or whether you are in our. Whether you marry who you marry ought to be led to the individual and ask the state. If you take that away from people in the biggest impact is that for women, young women, women of color in rural areas who live in states that have your resources are going to suffer Serious Health consequences. Some of these women who are that i, think we are as many women will die today as they did in this before row, but women will die if you recognize abortion, and that to me in an abomination and should never happen in our Current Society and we must take every step we can to ensure that women have access to safe and legal medical procedures. applause thank you so much. For being here tonight and thank you all for coming. ,. Cspans campaign 2020, years on filtered view of politics. Hi everyone my, name is adam carr and im the 2020 still income winner and im here to encourage you to continue to wrap up this competition lasted atlanta getting close but oleary, is to have time. This is about where i started filming my documentary the first year i entered. I mean the d. C. Office is right now and im just going to tell you that cspan 3 link im with an employee in a opportunity for me to express my that infusible the Political Climate in the coming days and connect with some local and leaders. Im excited you are interested in this and are pursuing this because its it is its a one in a lifetime opportunity and im excited you are taking it. There is time for you to answer this to encounter competition. You have until january 20th to create a five to six minute documentary that its 30 you want to candidates to address drone 2020. We are giving our hottest numbers in cash prizes for the grand price of 5000 dollars. For more information go to our website of tearing cam that oracle. Next a discussion on congress, course and the administrative stays at the annual Freedom Conference in colorado. Im all right. Were switching gears. We have a very compelling discussion coming up on what is in the way the Fourth Branch of government and that is the administrative state. You have such an impact on all of our lives and our businesses. The wrath of the