they are going to seem popular. and it seemed to me to have a paradoxical conclusion that the more unpopular the decisions are, the firmer the court should be in not departing from prior precedent. sort of a super stare decisis regarded as the most erroneous decision. do you think there is that category for is it just normal? i think it is precedent on precedent. casey did the stare decisis analysis on roe. the one before this court was if that was wrong. your earlier question about whether viability was squarely at issue in casey it clear was at pages 869 to 871 the court addressed viability. the government had made the argument that viability i appreciate that casey
say is a reason why a reason why when you get a case like that you better be damn sure that the normal stare is there in spades and they go through and show the analysis. okay? what s the paradox? maybe you think i ve just made an argument there isn t one. but really, in my head, i m thinking i m not sure. there may be one. and i don t know if you ve ever thought about this or if you ve ever when that occurred to you i don t want to overrule the i wouldn t want the court to overrule the stare decisis section of casey and that s what is being broad up. i ve tried to make it clearer. the point the court was making was that the fact that
the state isn t asking the court to replace it with a clear 15 week line for the right. they re asking the court to reverse the liberty interest all together or leave it up in the air. if that were to happen immediately states with six and eight weeks and 10 week bans would seek to enforce those with no continued guidance what the skoefpt liberty interest is going forward. the thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks. and i just wonder what the strength of your reliance arguments, which sounded to me like being based on a total prohibition, would be if there isn t a total prohibition. as far as viability goes, i don t see what that has to do with the question of choice at all. i think as casey emphasized in reaffirming the viability line the court justified that as having a biological justification that marks the point in pregnancy when the fetus is capable of life.
the analysis goes wrong in reliance on the safe haven laws is overlooking the consequences of forcing a woman upon her the choice of having to decide whether to give a child up for adoption. that itself is its own monumental decision for her. there is nothing new about the safe haven laws or nothing new about the availability of adoption as an attorney. roe and casey took account of that fact and the bodily integrity interests we refer to but the autonomy interests retain in force as well. the reliance interests and the right to be able to choose to terminate the pregnancy rather than having to terminate the parental rights. that s part of it yet. for many women it is a very difficult choice but one this court for 50 years has recognized must be left up to them based on their beliefs and their conscience and what s
quite notable. harris: you know, andy, i want to know your thoughts on the highlights about this particular issue. something that jonathan just touched on and it was said so many times during the last almost two hours of the court arguments on this case. so the viability line that exists in roe versus wade, casey is that 24 weeks. mississippi says viability for life now because of science moving us forward should be earlier than that, 15 weeks. talk to me about what really was highlighted to you. what was important about that viability line? i think what stuck out to me about that is that chief justice roberts suggested that the entire roe was built on sand. viability was not something that was argued by either of the sides in roe. it was something basically that