but that is going to be the law of mississippi. let me ask you, what about a fetus that has serious or fatal abnormalities that will not allow that fetus to live outside the womb, is the state of mississippi going to force those girls and women who have this tragedy inside them to carry the child to term? are you going to force them to do that? well, jake, i ll tell you, i think that these questions illustrate exactly what we ve been talking about. that is, you re dealing in examples that are rare and are very small percentage of the overall abortions. the reason for that is because when you talk to americans, regardless of what the polling says with respect to overturning roe v. wade, the vast majority of americans recognize that the abortion laws in america right now, that is what are extreme. america s abortion laws are extreme relative to the rest of
The western world. you know that even if the court did not overturn roe, jake, even if the court did not overturn roe, even if they just decided to uphold mississippi s 15-week ban, that 39 out of 42 countries in europe would still have more restrictive abortion laws. the vast majority of americans support restrictions that are reasonable on abortions. the overturning of roe is simply going to return those decision-making processes back to the states. to the legislatures in all key states. i m asking you about the law in your state and the exceptions that the law does not offer to mississippi women and girls who are victims of incest, who have fetuses that have fatal or very serious abnormalities, which is not really all that rare, to be honest. i know plenty of women that has happened to and they had to they wanted to have a healthy child but they weren t able to. and your law would force them to
well, that s going to be the law because in 2007, the mississippi legislature passed it. i will tell you, jake, this sort of speaks to how far the democrats in washington have come on this issue, but in 2007 when the trigger law was put in place, we had a democrat speaker of the house and we had a democrat chairman of the public health committee in the mississippi house of representatives. but why are you why is it acceptable in your state to force girls who are victims of incest to carry those children to term? well, as you know, jake, over 92% of all abortions in america are elective procedures. when you look at the number of those that actually are involved, incest is less than 1%. if we need to have that conversation in the future about potential this is your law. in the trigger law, we can certainly do that. the reality is, again, that affects less than 1% of all abortions in america on an annual basis.
Improve educational opportunities for them. and we ve worked extremely hard in our state to do that. we ve got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs. but to do that, they ve got to improve the quality of their skills. we as a state are investing heavily in that. yes, you re right. we ve got a number of years of poor outcomes. we re working every single day to improve that. and i think you ll see us make significant progress just as we have seen significant progress on the educational outcome front in mississippi over the last ten years. so, the snap back law that was passed in 2007 has no exception for incest. so, assuming the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, the state of mississippi will force girls and women who are the victims of incest to carry those children to term. can you explain why that is going to be your law?
Argument policy to make. i personally think you can be pro-choice and still think roe should be overturned because it s badly written, not grounded in the constitution. there are a lot of critics of roe as constitutional law. i think it s interesting how quickly oppose this draft, and i don t think it will be the final thing. i agree. and talking about the merits or lack thereof of roe and abortion rights, you know, like it s fine to be concerned about gay marriage and these other things but you think overturning roe would be enough yet president biden on down have all gone to these other arguments and i think that s interesting. this is revisionist history, i m sorry. all of those justices went there and said this is settled law. they didn t go and say this is wrongly decided. they said precedent not wrongly decided based on the wrong things, et cetera. i m sorry, that s a red herring. so you can t go back and say oh, well, the only reason this is