something that is clearly settled, or at least that many people have come to depend on. the legal standard may not be settled, but the idea that abortion should be legal seems to be largely settled. we re going to talk to one of the leaders of the abortion rights movement involved in this case. i know you ve been talking to people, too, on the other side of the issue. as you ve been out there in front of the court covering these demonstrations. tell us more about that. so we ve been talking about the viability standard, one of the arguments, hallie that s going to be made by the state of mississippi. the viability standard in roe v. wade is around 24 weeks, right? and i pressed the head of susan b. anthony, which is an antiabortion rights group that has been lobbying for that for the last 30 plus years or so about viability. and we well know the statistics here. it is rarely a fetus survives before 24 weeks. i asked her about that, especially with this mississippi case, which is ar
opinion. she said in her very first interview days after roe that she believed abortion ought to be legal right through the first trimester of pregnancy and not beyond that, and she repeated that as you mentioned, i was with her at the end of her life. she repeated that at the end of her life. she actually did have an opinion on this. if, of course, the supreme court does away with the viability threshold, it isn t then that the law of the land goes from viability to 15 weeks as mississippi has it but rather all previability bans are potentially okay, and so abortion can be banned going right back to the point of conception. joshua prager, i so appreciate you being with us and giving us your expertise this morning during our special coverage. thank you. we re going to have a lot more on the supreme court argument over mississippi s abortion law and the future of roe versus wade as we are live here outside court. my colleague jose diaz-balart is
so he had switched over and joined with the three more liberal justices on the court. and the question is, does that vote matter now that amy coney barrett has replaced ruth bader ginsburg. and the only way it does matter is if the chief justice can pull one more moderating vote over to its side. that vote, if at all, may come from brett kavanaugh. what are the stakes of this case when it comes to legal precedent in the court? that s really the issue here. the issue is, do we continue to have a court that establishes well-established law, or do we have a results-oriented deviation from that in the area of abortion? as cecile said, the law here is clear. the supreme court should not have taken dobbs on appeal. the only reason you take a case like this is if you have a feeling that there are neal s five votes to begin to engage in change in the law. and the question here is will that change be incremental or an
governors to make those decisions on behalf of the people. that s what they re elected to do. that s the will of the people. from a legal perspective, is that a strong argument? no, not at all. the constitution is there to serve as a backstop to protect us from the tyranny of the majority. in fact, the ninth amendment to the constitution recognizes unenumerated rights. there s nothing in the text that says there s a right to an abortion, no, but the supreme court has found unenumerated rights, the right to vote, the right to travel, the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to an abortion. it comes out of the due process clause in the 14th amendment. if roe versus wade falls so does the reasoning and the potential impact could be on same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and gay sex. all of those things are protected by the same argument. if this one falls, we could see all of those dominos fall as well. there s another interesting argument that s being made by mi
states with republican legislatures, we would see copycat legislation that also bans abortion in those states. certain ly there will be some states that preserve the right to an abortion, but women who live in other states will have to travel to those states to get an portion. those who have the means to do so will have that burden, but will be able to get an portion. where this really falls is on women who do not have the means to do that, women of color, women of lower income, they re not going to have that opportunity, and so i worry that we return to that pre-1973 world where we see back alley abortions being performed. mississippi s attorney general who is leading the charge for this abortion law, one of the folks doing that, talked about why she thinks it s necessary on fox news. i want to play some of that. the reality is this is a rule of law question. it s time to return it to the states because abortion policy making should rest with the elected legislators and elected