and what i want, when i envision, is people taking to the streets and demonstrating that. how about in texas? after you gave that speech, how did your high school take it? how did your town take it? did you get a meeting with governor greg abbott? i did not get a meeting with governor greg abbott. by the reaction to my speech was actually overwhelmingly positive. i received hundreds and hundreds of messages of support and of love, and since giving that speech, i received a lot of opportunities to continue my activism at the scale that i do now. and that s something that i do every day. you got those messages and that support from texans or nationally? what i m trying to get at is, if you are voice, if your perspective is the future of your state, why does your state make the rules and restrictions that they do? and i m obviously not accusing you of that. i m trying to get inside the lone star state to understand why it is the way it is.
because there is nothing in the reasoning of today s opinion from the six justices that would stop them from accepting something like a fetal personhood case. fetal personhood, a concept that the right has been building in this political movement, that they ve built around the abortion issue a fetal person could case, get into this court, would give the court a path to not just let individual states ban abortion, which is what they did today. if they took a fetal personhood case, that could be their vehicle to impose a nationwide ban on abortion, on the order of the united states supreme court. when that would apply, yes, even in california, even in new york, even in anywhere. and yes, that would be a radical thing for the supreme court to do. but wouldn t be that much more radical them but they have done today? i mean, they ve kind of broken the seal here, haven t they? roe was a 50 year old precedent that had been reaffirmed by the supreme court, by itself, multiple times. that did
suppression laws, the more you bless partisan gerrymandering, the more you say this is too hard for us, and therefore, states can continue to constrict the vote. the justices don t just become a sort of, minoritarian check. they can become part of reinforcing, consistency reinforcing minority rule. and i think that s what they re leaning into without entirely reckoning with it. that now we have a courts that is persistently making it harder for majority views and wishes and policies to be effectuated. that is not necessarily doing something for this constitution. it s raw power. judges, they matter. valley a lithwick, barbara mcquade, judge currency. and thank you for joining us tonight. i appreciate it. when we come back, the battle for abortion rights is deeply personal for people across this country. but for congresswoman jackie,
women s rights. it was a choice for them, it was a project that did not emerge organically it was something that they really didn t start working on since the 19 80s, ronald reagan for example had to do a u-turn he had to repudiate the abortion rights bill as the inside of the california governor, when he became the first president to make opposition to abortion a central part of his political identity and the personal transformation on this issue shows the political transformation that was happening in the republican party. pretty soon the opposition to abortion would be an entry requirements for elected officials in the republican party. and then, pretty soon after that, anywhere republicans have political power, they would use it to attack abortion rights. the states became laboratories for these policies. they became almost mechanized overtime, but as soon as one republican-controlled state would innovate and come up with some new way to restrict abortion rights, all the other re
women s rights. it was a choice for them, it was a project that did not emerge organically it was something that they really didn t start working on since the 19 80s, ronald reagan for example had to do a u-turn he had to repudiate the abortion rights bill as the inside of the california governor, when he became the first president to make opposition to abortion a central part of his political identity and the personal transformation on this issue shows the political transformation that was happening in the republican party. pretty soon the opposition to abortion would be an entry requirements for elected officials in the republican party. and then, pretty soon after that, anywhere republicans have political power, they would use it to attack abortion rights. the states became laboratories for these policies. they became almost mechanized overtime, but as soon as one republican-controlled state would innovate and come up with some new way to restrict abortion rights, all the other re