at the end of the oral argument to raise the issue that the liberal justices conveniently avoided. he says there is also an interest in fetal life, that is at stake as well. his solicitor general gave an answer to cavanagh because there is no answer. in the framers who wrote the original constitution nor the drafters of the 14th amendment ever intended to create a constitutional right to abortion. indeed they would have found such a concept to be barbarous and evil. the left claims to care about democracy, so let s let the people decide the important questions presented by abortion and if a court with the majority of six republican appointees fails to put roe to rest, then it should expect a conservative led movement to shrink the court s power. it would also mean adios to
when life begins doesn t matter to them. abortion is the holy grail. and president biden likes calling himself a catholic school kid is too unprincipled to take the stand that his own faith requires. that led justice brett kavanaugh at the end of the or large humans to raise the issue the liberal justices conveniently avoided. he said there is an interesting fetal life, that is at stake as well and biden absolutely general gave a nonanswer to brett kavanaugh because there is no answer. the fact is my the framers who wrote the original constitution and bill of rights know the drafters of the fourteenth amendment ever intended to create a constitutional right to abortion. they profound such a concept to be barbarous and evil. the black the left things to claire about democracy, let them decide the questions presented by abortion and if a court with a majority of 6 republican appointees fails to pedro to rest then it should expect a conservative led movement to shrink the court s power
right now called dobbs. and dobbs is going to look at the question of whether states can enact what are called previability limitations and that case has roe and its sister case casey written all over it the fascinating thing is that there is something for people to talk about, it s not coming from texas. brian: you think this law will ultimately be struck down? i think it s very likely the lower courts are going to find this unconstitutional. a georgia law that set a six week line in terms of criminalizing or banning abortions was struck down last year. this is not consistent with existing case law. i think the drafters knew that this was designed to get to the supreme court, to test the new majority. but the court could ultimately decide not to take the case. they have a case on the docket. they have dobbs. and that s all they need to review roe. brian: wow, here we go and talk
it puts a wall between a pregnant person and the pastor who would tell them where to go get an abortion. the friend who wanted to drive them to have the abortion. the family member or insurance company or abortion fund that wanted to give them the money to do the procedure, and the doctor who wanted to deliver safe medical care, and makes it impossible for her to get into the clinic. that s not what the drafters of face were envisioning, but it s exactly the outcome they were trying to prevent. private citizens blocking their neighbors from exercising their constitutional rights. that would be a creative application of face, but i think this is the year for creativity and adapting the use of these older statutes to the modern anti-choice harassment shaming and blocking techniques. all right, professor, thank you so much. appreciate your time today. thank you so much. california s governor hoping to survive a critical recall
those facilities for healthcare, using the face act that s a 1990s era law that prohibits making threats against individuals seeking reproductive health services and against individuals obstructing clinic entrances. do you think that is legitimate, will that work? well, i think attorney general garland is referring to the physical attacks or obstruction on clinics. and that was what the drafters of the face act were envisioning. however, the texas legislature has been very creative in drafting this statute. and i think the federal opposition to it should be equally creative. americans expect the federal government to intervene when states try to rob them of their constitutional rights. we have a long history of that in the south. and so what face prohibits is private citizens blocking someone trying to enter a clinic. and i would argue that s what the texas statute does.