certain extent now to stop abortions at 15 weeks because of the viability standard. they believe the bar has now subsequently moved. here s what she had to say about that. we believe that the viability standard and not just we, but most people believe the viability standard doesn t make any sense in terms of whether a baby yet to be born lives or dies. so the viability around roe versus wade was at about like 28 weeks, and so for every decade it s changed about a week. somewhere around like 22, 23, somewhere around there. so again, 15 weeks is a conscious decision to place it before viability so that we point to the humanity of the unborn child and whether or not it can live outside the womb on the table right after it s born or not. and i tell you, hallie, one of the arguments that s being made at the rally behind me that is arguing on behalf of antiabortion protesters here, they re talking about and naming children that are born before 24
mississippi has a six-week plan it s using to defend the 15-week plan. i know, but i d like to focus on the 15-week ban. that s not a dramatic departure from viability. it is the standard that the vast majority of other countries have. when you get to the viability standard, we share that standard with the people s republic of china and north korea. and i don t think you have to be in favor of looking to international law to set our constitutional standards to be concerned if those are your share that particular time period. i think there s two questions there, your honor. if i may, first, that is not correct about international law. in fact, the majority of countries that permit legal access to abortion allow access right up until viability, even if they have nominal lines earlier. for example, canada, great britain and most of europe
are people under the constitution. and i think the only thing that justice kavanaugh got right and it s in that quote that you played earlier is the idea that you have to pick. and the reason you should pick women is because they are people under the constitution and embryos and fetuses are not. so in terms of changing this landscape from the viability standard, which is the only principled gestational line and that s because it s the only line that accounts for the fact, the person in whom the relationship between the embryo or fetus and the person in whom it lives. to pick 15 weeks, there s no logic behind that number so that is an utterly unworkable standard and it reduces abortion rights significantly. joan, you were talking about an attempt to find a middle ground. chief justice roberts maybe signaled he was attempting to do something like that?
it s happening here on the ground in front of the supreme court. you re just a little ways away from me. if you can switch around this way, and i just want hallie and the viewers to be able to see. there s a dividing line, hallie, between folks that are protesting in favor of abortion rights and then folks that are protesting against abortion rights. literally, there s a barrier between them with two separate rallies going on. i have to close one ear to hear what s happening on this side and then open up the other ear to hear what s happening on the other side, and the argument is across the board. you re talking a listen to pete, right? they talk about the viability standard. the viability standard is 24 weeksment many of the arguments here is that the viability standard should be moved up because science has changed over the last 40 plus years. of course it s all playing out in front of the supreme court as we speak. they re going to be hear all day. they re going to be at these rall
0 say. really? yeah. they used to be more polite. i have to say, the court over the last few years has gotten a bit more sharp in their questioning. and even sometimes to each other, and making digs at each other. that s an unfortunate trend. but i think for the most part, you ll hear a respectful discussion of the issues between the advocates and the court. maybe the most important thing to think about is when the justices are asking a question, they re not necessarily wanting to hear the answer from the advocate. they re making a point to one of the other justices. and so you as the advocate have to just understand, you re guiding a conversation more than like giving a speech and saying why you re right. and that s where that listening skill is so important. can you figure out what the justice is trying to say to her or his colleagues. so it s not only the question, but also what may be behind the question, vis-a-vis another magistrate. exactly. it s 3-d chess. that s very