allows a state to absolutely override the existing authority of the supreme court and the case law of the supreme court. right now of course roe v. wade is still the law of the land. and the question of its constitutionality will directly be addressed in the mississippi case that s going to be heard on december 1. but in the meantime, this question, can a state put in the hands of private citizens the ability to enforce laws and therefore somehow circumvent supreme court precedent is a really important question. and i m surprised, honestly, that the court didn t choose to answer it the night before the law went into effect on september 1. i think you and a lot of people were very surprised by that. we ll see what happens tomorrow on that. but we know the supreme court expedited these hearings, adding it to the schedule only nine days ago. does that underline the urgency
of this issue? i think it really does, because what they ve seen is that the impact of their failure to intervene before the law went into effect means that in the state of texas, roe v. wade has pretty much ceased to exist. it has been overturned in our state. and that s not really the way supreme court precedents and decisions about whether those precedents should stand should take place. instead, there should be a direct conversation and analysis of the constitutionality of the laws that are in front of them. that s not what happened here. and so since september 1, people across the state of texas who have tried to access abortion care have been denied that right even though roe v. wade is still purportedly the law of the land. i m going to drill down even further into some of that,