strike down the landmark roe v. wade decision, the draft opinion is a full-throated unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision, which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights. and also, a subsequent 1992 decision, planned parenthood v. casey, which largely maintain the right. a leader writes, roe was egregiously wrong for the start, we hold that roe and casey must be overturned, it is time to e heed the constitution, and return the issue of the abortion to the elected representatives, which means returning to the states. and more than two dozen states, there are what are called triggered laws, which would immediately render abortion a crime immediately upon the supreme court issuing such a ruling. as josh gerstein reports along with alexander ward, the immediate impact of the ruling would be two and a half century
timeline. as they ve gotten close to knowing that a ruling like this is likely coming, we ve now started to see, there used to be a taboo on saying that the doctors would go to prison. and now they re saying, in some states there talking about bluntly the doctors will go to prison. even more acutely, there used to be until very recently there was a taboo of saying that a woman, or even a child who is raped or the victim of incest, at least they wouldn t be forced by the government to give birth against their will, to carry that pregnancy to term, and give birth against their will. that increasingly, literally including girls who are pregnant as a result of rape or incest, those exceptions are disappearing one by one, with each passing week, every time a republican legislature takes at this issue. and, so we are now at the precipice of something that has become a much more extreme prospect, becoming exceedingly likely. both the radicalism and the practicality are speeding
duluth, wake senior editor at slate magazine, thank you for time tonight kelly, as we continue to respond to this breaking news. i know it s hard to talk about something as we re still absorbing, and and none of us had time to read 90 pages of this opinion, let alone the 37-page appendix, thanks for helping us as we re learning it. thanks, rachel. i want to bring into the conversation now, one of the members of congress who is most qualified to talk about this matter, specifically because he is esteemed constitutional scholar. maryland congressman, member the house judiciary committee, congressman jamie raskin, whose book to be here about the january six investigation. but congressman, i have to ask tonight, and start tonight by talk about this breaking news, thanks so much for joining us. sure, i m glad to be with you rachel. have you had a chance to look at the reporting a politico, at the ruling that has been published? yes, i just sped read the decision, i found it
july. so, it s fair to say that this is a situation that is unresolved at this point, and i can t promise you that various things may not change between now and late june. josh, in terms of the substance of this opinion, as written, i get news draft the majority opinion. with the caveat that this is a historically unprecedented lead of what appears to be a draft majority opinion from the court before any ruling was issued, with the caveat you just described as if this might go through any changes, maybe use substantial changes before we see the ruling from the court is published later this year. with all those caveats intact, look at justice leader wrote here, how does this comport with expectations in this case? obviously, as you are just describing, the leanings of the justices on this matter. i think, to realize minded observers were clear even before oral arguments, and certainly clear thereafter. there is also still common wisdom, that the justices would try to soft pedal this a
evolved since roe v. wade was handed down in 1973, so it really seems like alito is trying to cobble together a majority. people can also look at it, and we think how much does it do to address the concerns of shea chief, roberts and the credibility of the court and the to the chiefs concerns. which also supports the notion that, maybe he is not expecting to be part of this opinion. josh, in terms of the likely impact of a ruling if it doesn t its final form look like whatever parted and publish tonight. if we had our republican controlled house senate republican controlled senate, any a republican lawyer house, is there any line in those ruling, as you read it, that would prevent the legislature and the president from