the majority opinion by justice alito is a view of liberty and equality that is to me, as a scholar of the constitution, bears no resemblance to the amended constitution that was taken by generations of activists, americans, over time, amended to make it more inclusive and more just, more equitable. or free. it is a crucial part of constitutional progress. the 14th amendment guarantees the equal protection of the law, due process of law, liberty. these sweeping rights were put into place at a time when the nation was, after the civil war, deeply struggling with the question for legal purposes of what it meant to be free. the broad section of liberty were intended to answer that. the drafters of the 14th amendment looked at what it would mean to protect freedom. they were thinking about people who had released a bond of enslavement, people who had been enslaved, and now are enjoying freedom as americans. what it would mean to be free. there was a minimum of liberty and included rights that were really denied during slavery. they made decisions about one's body, crucially. to make decisions for oneself about one's family. again, right that was brutally denied under slavery. when we talk about equality of liberty in that regard, equal liberty in the constitution, a lot of people say the fourth amendment, i'm sure we will talk about it later, but that's not how it works. the words liberty are in the constitution, and when we look at what they meant, what it meant to be free, as i think americans know, one cannot show up in a free or equal member of society if one cannot make for oneself the most personal, most basic decision about one's own body, and whether to bring a pregnancy to term. whether to become a parent. i think the court got the constitution completely wrong. it left out the interest of women. it was shocking, and i think this day, this ruling, will eventually be overturned. it is brown versus board of education. reversing the separate but equal plessy versus ferguson decision. i think this is exactly the opposite. host: it will show that. host:host: let's see what zach thinks. guest: i have to disagree with most of what she said. she is exactly right about one thing. the word fortune is not found in the constitution. we are applying other constitutional provisions like the equal protection clause of the 14th them,, how can courts decide whether rights are fundamental and protected in the 14th amendment or other constitutional provisions? as laid out in the majority opinion, we look to whether those rights are implicit in the concept of liberty of our nation. whether they have deep historical roots. then we proceed to go through the history of abortion in the united states. prior to 1973, roe v. wade came down. there was not a long historical tradition of states protecting abortion. in fact many states, up until the day rosenstein -- roe was decided, they actively discourage abortion in their states. justice alito, this widely decided -- has widely decided that abortion is not a fundamental right found in the text of the constitution and could not be brought into these other constitutional provisions such as the equal protection clause. i think it is important to understand what this decision, which overturns roe v. wade and plan parenthood dies. it is not immediately criminalize all abortions throughout the united states. it simply returns the issue back to the people's elective representatives in the state legislatures, which is where this question resided for most of our nations history up until the court took it out of the vocal process in 1973. host: i want to remind people that if they want to talk to our guest, you can feel free to give us a call on the lines republicans can call (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. in independence, (202) 748-8002. we are talking about the decision to overturn roe v. wade. i want to ask about enforcement. how would this be enforced, and how does the united states -- the laws are already illegal to get an abortion in some states, it is expected within the month. how would they be enforced? guest: that is the question. when states have the ability to ban abortion under any circumstances, there are not limits in the majority opinion about criminalization. it is up to the states, but that is cold comfort to the millions of people across the country who can become pregnant and be sent to jail for an abortion. under this opinion, apparently, it could come and eyes abortion. some states already have laws that would give respect to the provider, and worryingly, potentially with the person, accessing abortion. there are also questions noted about what this means for the ability of people to cross state lines and access abortion. the constitution protects interstate travel. when it runs up against this decision, how will the court decide. that is a major constitutional conflict, and the attorney general has come up to say that the federal government will protect the constitutional interest in interstate travel. there are questions about enforcement, but we know that people across the country will experience a patchwork of rights when it comes to their reproductive autonomy. the burden of that, we know, will fall on the most vulnerable people. those who do not have financial resources, who might be in a situation where it is difficult to access abortion and other areas, and take time off to do so. simply not having that choice. that is not the way constitutional rights are supposed to work. it is going to cause great chaos and pain across the nation. host: zach, your views on enforcement? would it be doctors, facilities, women themselves? what are your thoughts smart --? guest: it goes back to the women. do they want to prohibit abortions in their states, do they want to prohibit growth issues? this is how many issues work in our society. we have a federal system of government with the federal government sitting in washington dc, and a 50 state government in the united states which decides many issues that greatly affect everyday lives, for many americans. with that respect, this issue would be noted different. it is important to emphasize that what the court was being asked to decide in this case was not the morality of abortion, not whether abortion is sound as a policy decision. it was being asked to decide what the constitution says about abortion. in that context, the court got it exactly right. the constitution does not require states to allow abortion on demand as was the regime under roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey. host: a lot of people want to talk to you and ask questions. let's start with janet in louisiana on the republican line. caller: good morning. don't you think that the female, the government or the child, should not be the only ones who pay? it seems to me that the males and females should be taught by parents, doctors, teachers, how to keep from getting pregnant, don't you think? host: elizabeth? guest: there are a lot of ways across this country that we should improve the care for people who become pregnant in terms of, you talk about education, and also health care. many other provisions. they would support parents and families, and the economic impact of this ruling, while i think primarily the impact is on the lives of the people who might be forced to continue pregnancy, they don't want to continue, or cannot continue because of health reasons. that is primarily the virgin -- burden, but there are ripple effects. many women have been able to have full economic participation in society because they have been able to control reproduction. that is one of the underlying bases for the many decisions that affirmed those rulings, as well as the rights of people to access contraception. the ripple effect of this ruling it will be great, in addition to the earthshaking impact that it has on the millions of people across the country who are impacted by the courts failure to protect the right of protective autonomy. host: james is next in north carolina. hello. caller: how are you? this is my question to zach. the justices all say they believe this is decisive. they believe a set of laws is a set of laws. if you're going to change the law? every time we get a democrat or republican president who puts more people in the seat, the law does not become a law. it just becomes a form of legislation. you have to keep changing the law. they didn't make a minor change. they made a dramatic change in the law. the democrats, they can make sure that they put enough supreme court justices on it to overrule it. the supreme court has no more legitimacy to me, at least, and one more thing. it seems like all of the justices and the people who are fighting roe v. wade, they are called yuppies. they have problems with women. even alito has that look. host: let's get a response. guest: it is overturning president, and it is a great question. there is nothing unusual about the supreme court revisiting and overturning a previous decision. it is something that has been done over 200 times throughout its history. in recent years, it has overturned past precedents about twice a term on average. it is important that a court has the ability to revisit a prior decision. as you said, it is not something the court should do lightly. there is a series of factors that the court considers when deciding to overturn a prior precedent. but just to give a practical example, if the court did not have the ability to go back and reevaluate its prior decision and overturned them, plessy versus ferguson, which upheld the various important doctrines of separate but equal, would still be good law. fortunately, the support that supreme court revisited that, and realized it was agreed justly wrong and overturned it. in that sense, there is nothing inappropriate or wrong about the justices going back and making sure that they got the law and the constitution exactly right. host: you work in the brassica is next on the republican line. -- york in nebraska is next on the republican line. hello? are you there? go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] what do these speakers think about the overall concept of the constitution. i feel the overall concept is equal opportunity when it comes to the pursuit of happiness. [indiscernible] i apologize if i am misquoting, but the content -- concept is each state feels like their individual challenges are united under the idea that everyone has equal opportunity, or if you want [indiscernible] which group of people can or cannot have access to equal opportunities. i will tell you why. host: elizabeth. guest: it's an interesting question, and when it comes to the fundamental rights, it was to recognize that certain rights were so essential to liberty and equality that they must be protected in every state that everyone has equal opportunity to exercise those constitutional rights because they are so inherent to the idea of freedom and equality and liberty. so, we have certain enumerated rights. those are rights explicitly listed in the constitution like the first amendment, and we talk about free speech, or the freedom to exercise one's own religion. then we have unenumerated rights. there are obviously the ninth amendment which explicitly protects unenumerated rights the way it sounds. the drafters of the constitution to the thor so many rights that were part of the idea of liberty and freedom and equality that to name some of them could mean that others would not be protected, so they did not want to create an exhaustive list of rights. that is why it is a matter of constitutional interpretation to say that abortion is not in there, it is not protected. you look to see if a right is textually protected, but even if it is not listed, you go through an additional step of whether or not that right is protected as an unenumerated right. if a right is so fundamental to liberty or equality that it falls under the constitutional rights protected across the country, absolutely. the idea that the niceties of america -- the united states of america would tech people equally, it is a citizenship stature. justice ginsburg very powerfully rooted the right to abortion, among other places in the constitution. the right to abortion, its critics say it is not rooted in the constitution. it is rooted in many different concepts. justice ginsburg rooted it very strongly in the idea of equal citizenship, and the idea that one cannot come to the public square, one cannot experience life in america if one does not have the ability to make decisions for oneself about one's own body. that is the most personal decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term. that is part of the problem here. what we are experiencing now, because of the decision overruling roe, is that we have a patchwork of rights where people can exercise that based on their zip code, based on their financial means, and their ability to travel to another state where they can access rights. that is not the way constitutional rights are supposed to work. guest: if i could jump in quickly. because of elizabeth, she brings up a great point. abortion is not in the text of the constitution, but the question then becomes how do we decide what those other two fundamental on enumerated rights are that are protected by the constitution? justice alito said in this opinion, what the court has said in previous opinions, particularly in another case, is that those enumerated rights are fundamental, and they have to be inherent to a concept of ordered liberty and have historical tradition within our country. based on that, the right to abortion does not have a deep historical tradition in our country prior to roe v. wade in 1973. it was controversial before roe and it remains controversial since roe. since that, it would not be protected as an unenumerated right under our constitution. elizabeth also mentioned ruth bader ginsburg. justice ginsburg and many other liberal law professors and legal commentators who may have preferred abortion as a policy preference, recognized that roe v. wade was a very problematic decision from a constitutional standpoint because the court essentially enacted its own policy preferences without routing this new right to abortion in any constitutional provision. guest: this is been a talking point from those who oppose abortion, and it is absently wrong. she is not here to defend herself. the point about roe is that it needed to be expansively rooted in the constitution. when i say the word abortion is in the con for duchenne, i am not saying abortion is not protected by the constitution. it absolutely is. similarly, justice ginsburg absolutely thought that abortion was protected by the constitution. she rooted it in ideas of privacy where roe v. wade rooted that right, she also rooted in the idea of equality under equal protection as well as the idea of equal citizenship in the claws of the 14th amend it. she also rooted in precedent that remains with bodily integrity. the ability to control one's own body, as well as the unenumerated rights and decisions to protect family life, including procreation, intimacy, and broader questions about child rearing. justice ginsburg's criticism that all of these opponents bring up is simply a broad described right to abortion. it was now that she thought abortion was not a right. i have to step in to defend her on that. guest: even if we agree with justice ginsburg, john hart healy criticized road that while it might have been active, if you as a legislature, roe v. wade was not a constitutional decision. it really made no attempt to even be one. again, even folks on the left who made favor abortion may recognize that roe is constitutionally flawed. guest: that's not how it works. host: let's talk to our callers. barry is in california on the independent line. hello. caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: first of all, i want to talk about not all this legal stuff, in something more personal. we had an abortion when i was young, my wife did. when i got older, we had a child. he died. we don't have anybody. so, it was not my decision to have the abortion, so i guess i don't have many rights as far as that goes. host: i'm sorry for over -- for your loss. let's get a response on the rights of fathers. what are your thoughts, elizabeth? guest: i want to say that i am very sorry for the callers loss, and i think that what his story demonstrates is that these are options, heartrending decisions, they are very personal decisions, and they are decisions that should be made with a pregnant person's family, their doctor, their god. if they believe. these are not decisions, these types of deaths -- sensitive decisions affect our lives and that personal decision of having children should be made by the individual in that constellation of the people who are directly affected. it is not a decision for the government to make, whether it is a state or federal government. just as you would not want the government not telling us when we can't have a child, you would not want the government to tell us that we must have a child to endure a force pregnancy. -- forced pregnancy. again, i am very sorry for your losses. it is a very personal decision that should be made by the families themselves and not the government, one way or another. host: let's go to the democrat line, frank in georgia. hello. caller: i would like zach to be totally candid about the heritage foundation's role in the selection of the justices that made this decision, both the foundation and the donors who also donate to other organizations who essentially sponsor -- have to be sponsors of appointees of anybody who is appointed by republicans. please tell the truth about that. host: sac. -- zach. guest: many of the justices currently on the board do have an original perspective on the constitution which simply means that they believe that the constitution should be interpreted based on the history and structure of the document. judges do not have a blank slate to simply impose their own preferred policies under the guise of constitutional interpretation. to that extent, i think it is a good thing that many of the justices on the court, some of the trump appointees but also earlier appointees such as samuel alito and parents thomas, they also hold the same view. they are a very good thing. as it impacts this particular decision, i think we see that coming into play. again, roe v. wade was really an outlier in terms of its constitutional interpretation. it didn't make an attempt to anchor the right to abortion in the text to a particular provision in the text of the constitution. what the justices on the current board are doing, it is they are saying that this is not the job of unelected life tenure justices to impose our preferred policy preferences on the american people. the appropriate entities for these very divisive. personal debates to take place over what is the appropriate policy is with the people's elective representatives in their state legislatures. that is what they decided here. this issue should go back to the people's elective representatives and their state legislatures. host: all right, patrick in georgia on the republican line. caller: thank you. i was calling about the rights of the father. i was wondering if the father has a right to stop an abortion, if they're willing to take the child. i was wondering what the constitution can be interpreted for the father's rights. host: elizabeth. guest: the right at issue here has to do with the reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity of the parent of the child. theory are the one whose body is going to be carrying the child, and we are talking about the right to abortion or whether someone has a decision to carry a pregnancy to term. that right lies with the person carrying the pregnancy. host: lee is on the independent line in california. good morning. caller: i just wanted to say, as a country it seems we have become so divided that we make everything a political issue, and i would like to see us come together and agree as a country and have our congresspeople held accountable for making these laws, rather than debating and using the media to fight over these things. i guess that is just a comment and i'd like your opinion on why we are not moving towards that direction, rather than all of this hate in that direction? i will take my answer offline. thank you. host: what do you think? guest: it is an interesting point. part of the backlash to roe v. wade that we've seen since it was enacted was the fact that this very important, very divisive personal question for many individuals was taken out of the political process. it was essentially a decision forced on all 50 states by the court's decision in roe v. wade. what we are going to see moving forward is that these very important debates are going to continue to happen. whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you can voice your opinion through the political process. your opinion from your representative. in that sense, i hope the process will play out exactly like it is said, and people will be able to voice their concerns to their elective representatives who will make appropriate policies. host: do you want to respond? guest: there is going to be a great. of uncertainty and the idea that we have to have these fights in every state, and i think it is only going to make the political heat hire rather than lesser. i just want to get the point that has been raised a few times. the court forcing on all 50 states. when a right is protected by the constitution -- the right to exercise religion or free speech, or the court deciding last week the right to have a gun for self-defense, that constitutional right is forcing all 50 states, but it applies in all 50 states. that is how fundamental all right is. guest: i agree. guest: let me finish. the idea that i come and millions of others across the country have to basically win a town hall about what to do with my uterus is should be protected by the constitution. guest: i agree with elizabeth completely. when a right is protected by the constitution, it does apply equally to all 50 states. but the question in this case was whether abortion is a right protected by the constitution. what the court appropriately found in this case is that abortion is not a protected right, and it is not found as a test. it is not in the order of liberty. we don't have a history as a country of protecting abortion rights. again, when there is a right that is not protected by the constitution, it goes back to the states, back to the political process where those very sensitive and important debates can take place. policy decisions can be reached. host: let's talk to tommy on the democrat line in california. the morning. -- good morning. caller: good print i am happy to be talking to both of you. what i have heard is that there is no text related to abortion. that is anachronistic, giving that most of the founding fathers had a positive state on abortion. and benjamin franklin's book, he supports that position. i don't find any right in the constitution that covers the right of one person over another person's body. usage of it. i am interested to hear what you have to say about that, and how it extends to other non-enumerated rights, and things like that. just a quick catch-up for those who are looking for think takes on these judges. focus on the heritage society. host: sackett, you go first. -- zach, you go first. guest: when a right is not enumerated, the question becomes how is it protected. appropriately in this case, the justices look back to our history, our tradition. they look back at common law. traditionally, abortion was criminalized. prior to the enactment of the 14th amendment, many states criminalized abortion. and if they did not criminalize it, they did not take steps to protect it. there is a long history of not occurred during -- encouraging abortion. it is up to the people and their elected representatives in the state legislators to decide what the appropriate policy should be, and that is exactly what is going to happen in this case, going forward. guest: i would love to weigh in on that. i think, first of all, i don't think that is an accurate description to say that every state prohibited abortion prior. guest: not what i said. guest: let me finish. there were states at the time of the 14th amendment that permitted abortion. but more importantly, the 14th amendment was drafted in the wake of a civil war. when we were breaking with straight -- state traditions, notably slavery, we were instead deciding a new direction. many people call the 14th amendment, as well as the 13th and 15th meant the second founding. that is what it was. we were breaking with an unjust past. we were breaking with an inequitable past. the idea that state history, that limited equality would be forever placed as a limit on the broad category of equality and liberty that the drafters put into the 14th amendment, in the 14 to mimic, the idea that unjust or inequitable policies in the state would limit those words in the constitution, they wanted to disrupt discriminatory state practices. the way that history has been recognized by the alito majority, it is wrong on the matter of constitutional interpretation and accurate history. host: let's hear from bird in kentucky on the republican line. caller: i'd like to start off by saying that i am against abortion, except in extreme cases such as incessant or the health of the mother and fetus. you say the poor will be affected more by this decision. i've got an answer. if a poor woman lives in a state where abortions are now illegal, and she needs an abortion, and she doesn't have the money to travel to another state, but the government chip in. use the money, some of the money that the government is using to transport illegal aliens from the southern border to all corners of the country. they can use that bunny, and there would be a lot left over. thank you. host: what do you think? guest: i'm sure that would have a lot of challenges to the plan. in terms of using federal government money. the federal government can take steps to ensure abortion rights, and the way in which you overturn roe to impact the most vulnerable, it is something that is absolutely crucial to keep in mind. even before roe was overturned, abortion rights for marginalized people in this country were often a luxury because of the access issues. now that is only going to be multiplied by an unknown factor. the federal government can act. i think people who are outraged by this decision and think about some of those steps, and push the government to think about codifying roe into federal law. we can use the enforcement powers of the amendment, including the 14th of mimic, to enact legislation that furthers the polity of liberty, even if the majority of the supreme court will not. certainly, federal legislation declaring that there is a right to protect for people across the country is one step that can be taken. guest: if i could, quickly. in the power of congress to pass nationwide legislation is clear. congress has said that under the 14th amendment, congress can take appropriate action to enforce rights at that art available to citizens, but they cannot use it to create new rights. there is a question as to whether that would be unappropriate constitution -- that would be an appropriate constitutional basis. the commerce clause would be appropriate. if i could, quickly, i want to go back to the history of abortion. even after the enactment of the 14th amendment, the early 20th century, many states did not favor abortion regulations and acted to prohibit it or discourage it. the first time of a constitutional right to abortion was not floated until the 1950's. in that sense, the idea that abortion is protective -- protected is somewhat a novel concept when it was first floated in the late 20th century. guest: there are plenty of people who recognize that the right to have a child, whether or not to form a family, and that includes the right to decide not to have a family, there are many people who understood that at the time of the 14th amendment, that included the right to include reproduction rights. it might have been new. some people who had been listening to those voices, they were there. host: let's talk to mathew on the independent line. guest: thank you for taking my call. doctors have to get involved in late stage complicate procedures, whether it is a hemorrhaging woman or a fetal anomaly. it is a difficult thing for me that the legal detangling for all of these states in which justices go about their lives and do not have to deal with multiple states and localities that will have to consider with medical boards about health care providers from lawsuits that will be generated from these laws that get multiple states. as someone who is taking in of to help people and do so indiscriminately and without judgment, what comes onto my plate if i want to work in a different state, it might become an issue. i have to become a felon because i'm providing medical care, based on how someone interprets the law. to mr. smith, would he discuss justice, it's when he decided to enumerate all of the other due process cases in terms of what is not expressly written about during the followed being -- founding of the country, and what we recognize as life, liberty, and right to self versus property, and justice alito was the most honest, even though i disagree with his interpretation that he ruled this way because abortion is a moral question. he recognizes other substantive clauses are not. it is because of reality, and because of that religion, and at the end of the day, we have to decide if we want those types of use dictating what we do with our lives, or do we leave it to be a personal decision by the individual. thank you. host: a lot to impact there. guest: i will answer the question about loving versus virginia. the reason that they did not address that, when they assigned other due process cases, because that was not a due process case. it was the equal protection clause of the constitution. it was correctly decided based on the equal protection clause. what is important to remember is that a lot of folks who are opposed to the decision basically are questioning a host of other decisions that could be implicated or overturned down the road. for a lot of reasons, that is not necessarily true. decisions like loving have a firm potential basis in the constitution. the equal protection clause as we understand it during the ramifications and passage of the 14th amendment in the late 1850's. there are others decisions that may implicate a right to privacy based on substantive due process clauses. they are different from the abortion context, and even the justices in the majority only recognize that abortion is unique and that there is a potential life in play. because of that, many other decisions are different. they would be considered different in the roe decision. the fact that roe v. wade is unique, the fact that it is another life involved in the abortion decision, that does make it a unique decision in constitutional law, and it would not implicate the other decisions that the caller mentioned as maybe being potentially overturned in the future. guest: first of all, i think the caller describing their experience, and the ways from which there will be crucial questions for health care providers trying to work to save the life and improve the health of their patient, i think we are in for a lot of unfortunately tragic stories in some respect. when we know abortion is not legal, the death rates go up. there is a bar order -- broader question about what rights are at risk. it is not a parade of horrible from people who disagree with the decision. it is there injustice thomases separate and concurrent, where he says that because of the reasoning, it calls into question the substantive due process doctrine that he and majority defined. there are other cases that should be reconsidered with cases that protect the right to contraception, the cases that protect the right to intimacy. cases that protect marriage equality for lgbtq individuals. i think it is very telling that there is an effort to say this doesn't impact some of these decisions like loving versus virginia, when they are the constitutionally protected rights to interracial marriage. at the time of 1868, there were many instances in which interracial marriage was prohibited. obviously, a virginia law was overruled -- overruled. it was on the books. the court recognized appropriately that the idea of equality of liberty could not exist with that type of limitations -- and i want to say that there are equal protection arguments that were made in this case that were being ignored by justice alito. he ignored them in his paragraph. host: let's talk to ronnie on the democrats line in new york. hello. caller: how are you? good morning. my question is actually -- i would like to get your definition of the. now, you mentioned that abortion was not mentioned in the constitution. neither our computers or jets or alternative economies. alternative ways of exchanging monetary purchases and sales. the most important thing in our constitution that i would take up defense against our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness. let's talk and example. a young girl is raped, 14 years old. a father, uncle, stranger. she is raped, 14 years old, and the government in tennessee says you are going to go to jail for 30 years because what you did is highly illegal. where is her pursuit of happiness? guest: look, that is a tragic story. no doubt about it. it highlights again that these are very difficult questions. very fraud questions. many instances, it is up to the people in each state how they want to resolve these very important questions. you mention life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that is not found in the constitution. it is found in that declaration of independence. in terms of the other question about how we decide what is protected, if it wasn't in existence at the time of the founding. we have a process for deciding, and it is not that judges are able to create new rights, or they are able to update the constitution. the appropriate way to do that is look at what is protected, what is the original public meaning of a life at the time of the constitution being passed or the constitution is a -- constitutional moment is past. you apply that to present circumstances. that is very different from justices simply creating a new right out of whole cloth that is not in the constitution or protected by the constitution at the time it happened. host: let's talk to ron in new york on the republican not -- line. caller: my question is in regards to a case that was brought to the court that cause this ruling. if i understand it correctly, the case was brought because there was a limit in mississippi of 15 weeks. is that unreasonable? if we go forward and change or make a new law, what kind of limits should we have? thank you. guest: the case came to the court, and that folks who brought it explicitly said they did not need to overturn roe v. wade in order to find for the state. yet, the majority decided to do that, and justice roberts noted that he would've upheld mississippi law without overturning roe v. wade. one of the points about why it is an error to overturn roe is that now, as the caller points out, there really aren't limits on what the states can do. roe has a very workable framework, and that is one of the things you consider when you are talking about overturning a right. we are talking a lot about the meaning of the constitution with respect to these rights, and that is an appropriate conversation to have, and it shows how important the right to abortion is in this concept of freedom and equality. but another incredibly important facet of this case is overturning precedent. it is taking away a right that has been taken for granted by a lot of us for 50 years. when you are deciding to take away a right, which is not been done before. recognizing a crucial write like this and taking it away, but even when you are overturning decisive precedents and other contacts, you go through a process, and one of those is workability of the framework in the case. certainly, there were slight changes made to the framework. that is why if you look carefully at this, it is overturning roe and casey. it articulated a refinement of the ro standard of undue burden on an individual's right to choose and have productive autonomy. if you look at whether it works, and it generally did, it is hard to talk about this in oral argument about whether there is a workable alternative that balances the right of a pregnant person with the states interest in potential viability. so, you look at that, you look at the divisive contacts for reliance interest. that is a legal term for the ways in which millions of americans have counted on the ability to decide for themselves, questions about their own destinies and reproductive capacity. as well as economic division, professional decisions. there are ways in which millions have relied on the right to articulate -- the right articulated inroad to order their lives. well i think the decision is clearly and egregiously wrong constitutional interpretation and decision of liberty and equality which i think is unduly cramped and not in any way grounded in our amended constitution, it also is deeply problematic. guest: just a couple quick points. i've heard this talk that a reversal of a right has never happened before in the supreme court's history. a professor at yale law school has written extensively on how that is wrong and in correct -- incorrect as a matter of constitutional law. i would recommend these writings as a subject to the viewers. in terms of whether the law can be upheld without overturning roe v. wade in planned parenthood versus casey, both sides agree that in order for the coat -- court to hold up the band, they would have to overturn roe and casey. even the u.s. government, who opposed the law in this case said that there was no middle ground. if the court upheld the law, they would have to overturn roe and casey. to the practical matter, the abortion ban is actually more permissive then several western european countries, which implement their band at 12 weeks earlier. there are a lot of considerations here. to say that the cases previously wrong or not mainstream, that is not an accurate description. guest: i totally disagree. you can talk about how something granted has been taken away as a different point as a martial progress. again, it is going from classy to brown and back to plessis. that is a broader point than the argument. it is agree justly wrong from my reading and scholarship of the constitution to deny that right to make a decision is rooted in bodily autonomy and rooted in the right to make decisions of procreation for once and we, and rooted that one can make control of its own body. the access to citizenship has been so eloquently put forth for oneself. and, as was recognized by the court in other cases that sounded in the constellation of autonomy and heart and home rights. the right to determine one's own place in the world, you cannot control one's own body and you could be subject to forced pregnancy. it is hard to see how egregious it is. that is not a matter of constitutional interpretation. and it is a truth for the majority of americans that want abortion to be legal. while it is true that the supreme court did not follow public sentiment, that public sentiment reflects a deep and profound truth about the constitution. there is a quality and freedom required with a minimum of liberty. host: michael is in texarkana on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i've been a fanatic since the day you first aired. i have several points to cover and i will be as quick as i can. i want to address that salmon from the heritage foundation. has he considered the cost of bearing a child that is now forced to bear child. who pays the hospital bill? you can imagine with the explosion of welfare and food stamps that will cost the federal government. second, i strongly suggest that the heritage foundation change their moniker to the adoption agency because you're going to be flooded with adoptions. it costs $50,000 to adopt a child. i know that firsthand. i was a disabled veteran trying to adopt. it costs $50,000 to adopt a child. for a couple adopting a child of $40,000 a year, they cannot. with all due respect to your intellect, be prepared to set up a great foundation for adoption at the heritage foundation. if you feel strongly in telling a child, if a man demands the right to choose, demanded. guest: as a practical matter, the heritage foundation, i support pregnancy crisis centers and other adoption agencies. that is something that the heritage foundation has done and something i have partaken in as well. i'm sure many of my pro-life friends and colleagues have also done that. again, the question before the court in this case as justice kavanaugh highlighted, was not the wisdom of abortion as a policy choice, it is not the question of whether abortion is or was moral. the question solely is whether the constitution requires states to allow abortion on demand to occur. simply put, the constitution does not require that. host: one more call on the democrat line. good morning. caller: thank you for being able to put me on. full disclosure, i may pro-life democrat. what i am asking is for both of them. number one, if i am correct, the original roe v. wade person and number two, wasn't it the viability of the fetus that was the question? that's why it was overturned? we didn't have the technology that we did today. that's where my question is. now that we have viability and we can see with ultrasound, does that not change the former decision? that's what it was talking about. host: i respect the person, i respect any person's decision to choose to have an abortion or not to have an abortion. that's an individual decision. the viability line has been affirmed by the court repeatedly. the framework modified that slightly to be the undue burden standard, whether state regulations faced an undue burden. the standard had been modified to the extent it needed to be. there wasn't one proposed by either side that was more workable. the majority devalued the woman's interest. host: you get the last word. briefly. guest: i think increased technology has brought home to many folks that there is a human life involved in the abortion topic. there is another human life involved. viability and the concept of the line with something to the court created out of whole cloth. it's not of the constitution. it's not required by the constitution. under the court's decision, it's very difficult, questions of when to regulate abortion. host: thank you both so >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these companies and more including mediacom. >> we never slow down. schools and businesses went for two and empowered a new reality. we are built to keep you ahead. >> mediacom supports c-span as a public service along with these other television ov