Historically High - Roe v Wade - Why Bodily Autonomy Matters

Episode Date: July 20, 2022

You're pissed, We're pissed. Like most of you in the USA, thanks to a group of overreaching and religiously motivated Supreme Court Justices, we've been hearing non-stop about Roe v Wade and its reversal. Now while most may have an idea of how this legal precedence protecting a woman's right to privacy and choice regarding abortion came about, we're gonna provide you all the details. We're fired up because we care about the women in our lives and those out there fighting for their right to control their own bodies. Support the show Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

I do enjoy these for the most part. Well, it gives me, here's the thing, man, is I feel like, I feel like I'm pretty aware of things, but then I read into these types of situations, and I realized that, like, I didn't know all the details, or I kind of knew, like, the result of it, but I didn't know how they got to the result. So, like, when...

And I guess with this one, like, I don't know. I don't really don't... to doing our normal like lead-in because of the subject matter on it and how relevant it, I guess it is right now. But you just always hear, you know, well, Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade, established precedence. And when it's in regards to abortion, I think the, this was my misconception. I'm not going to say common misconception because I don't want to say everyone didn't know kind of exactly what it was, but as I thought it addressed. It addressed abortion in a way that made it applicable to the amendments.

It wasn't just saying abortion is legal. It went about in a way that said abortion is covered under a woman's right to privacy, which then in turn is protected both under the 14th and the 9th Amendment. So I had the misconception that it was literally just a ruling that said, yep, you can have an abortion, which, I thought it granted a woman that it was something specifically stating that it granted the woman a right to make the choice on that. Well, and kind of the whole point of having a Supreme Court is for them to be able to basically decipher the rights that we have and the things that are written down in the Constitution. And as they're doing it and fleshing things out, because obviously we don't have rules for everything.

in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. None of that stuff is, it's, there are certain things and things that should be in there and shouldn't be in there, but like we talked about... I think we made a joke about that a while back that, what is, it's a chicken or the egg thing. They can come up with

laws if you can sit there and think about something and say, is this going to happen? Let's make a law against it. You can probably sit there and write out a pretty well-structured rulebook or whatever without having precedent for anything. Hey, don't kick someone when they're down. Well, that hasn't happened before. Yeah, but I'm sure it could happen.

It will. But we still have enough stuff. You know, there's still some things that we don't have laws against because they just haven't happened yet. No, and that's the whole point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution to come up with solutions for these new issues that we run into. And there are certain things that we can go back and look at and say, hey, this now is not necessarily constitutionally relevant because there's been a material change in what's going on. But when you run into something like abortion where our technology and understanding of the human body and everything has only gotten better and we only understand it more, that shouldn't be something that we rebel against and say, well, now that we understand it more and we know

how to do this in a safe manner, we know the side effects of it, we know a way to do it in which some life is preserved. I mean, you kind of have to get into the argument of is it life, is it not life? We're not doing that here. We're doing it in the, you know, despite the act of it, we're doing it in the safest manner possible.

Yeah. And depending on how you feel about it, everybody's going to feel something different. To me, this whole thing has just always come down to if this is something that you're going to do, I have no, no saying it.

You're not, I'm not going to look down at you bad enough at this point. And we've kind of come to realize at this point in time, if you know four females in your life, there's a good chance that you will have known somebody that has either had to have an abortion or has been very close to an abortion. It's just you have these instances of people

where it's not necessarily commonplace. People aren't going out and just getting them right and left, but it is a serious matter that we run into. The other thing, too, is it's not something that, you know people want to you know i'm trying to think of how to kind of phrase this so people want to use the argument that by abortion not being legal or not having safe abortion accessible it's not going to be as much of it you know much of a drastic impact as they think it's going to be they're not looking at all of the the variables and one of the things is that abortion if someone has an abortion

that's not something that you ever know about that person unless that person decides to tell you. It doesn't, you know, so there, you know, you could have people in your life right now that have had to have them, chosen to have them for a myriad of reasons. It could be financial. It could be where they were at in life. You know, it's called family planning. And I think we're going to, I know I probably will. I'll repeat these reasons kind of going through the whole thing as we delve deep. deeper into it, but there's a ton of reasons why someone should and should not have a child. And that is up to that person to decide what that means.

Now, I'm not saying that, and I want to get this just like, I think it'll be better to kind to get this out earlier on. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some type of guidelines or oversight in it. You can't just say like, yeah, it's go for it, you know, from, conception to up until the kid is born. That's the argument that a lot of people want to use, that people, that's why people want abortion legal, is they want that up until the baby is born to be able to go and terminate it. Those circumstances that have happened that are not medically necessary or related are so insanely rare that you can't even, I don't even, I'm sure you can track it by

having a number for it. But what I'm saying is that you can't just use the worst case scenario to go ahead and throw the baby out with the bathwater just because it's been used in a way that you don't agree with a handful of times. There's there's so many repercussions that people don't understand either because, you know, their kids are grown. It's a different society today. Everyone's circumstances are different. financially, mentally, just... We know through research that late-term abortions, which is anything in the third trimester or later,

are literally less than 1% of all abortions that happen. And out of that 1% what 1% of that is a person actually saying like, oh, I'm making my decision now because I hadn't made it for the last six months, versus how many of those are medically necessary to preserve the life of the mother? Whether there's a malformation or something going on. You can't see a lot of that stuff until the baby is more developed.

And it's not a choice that I don't think anybody takes, or that I think anybody takes lightly. It's not something that jumps out on the page where somebody just makes a rash decision. They still have to go through talking. They suggest counseling. It's, to me, it's kind of like when you hear people say, oh, well, welfare doesn't work because some people get welfare. that shouldn't. And it's like, yeah, that is true. Some people do work the system.

Do you know who says welfare doesn't work? People that have never been on welfare. People that ever needed it. No, I can tell you, I can tell you, and I have never needed it personally. I'm very, very thankful that I've never needed it personally. But I will never tell somebody that they shouldn't have less. If I can, I, I'm not a, fuck man, I, I'm not a socialist or anything like that. But like, I like public programs that help people

that are less fortunate, man. We all need to do better for everybody because that's how we get better as a society. You can't just keep leaving people at the bottom

while everybody else climbs because then you still have people at the bottom. Those people are still here. They're still people. You have to lift everybody up and, you know. And how fucking lucky are you

to be able to have that opinion that you don't need it? Yeah. That it, to have, that opinion for other people because you don't need it, you feel like that gives you the ability to say, well, since I don't need it, nobody should need it. Yeah. And it's just nothing but a selfish point. It's, you could at any time in this country be one catastrophic event from needing that help.

Are you going to say that, yeah, there are probably people, no, I'm not going to say probably, there are people that take advantage of the welfare system. Absolutely. There are other people who take advantage of corporate policies, of loopholes, of Wall Street, of all these other things to get rich on the other side of that. What I'm saying is that you have rule breakers on both sides. Okay, you have people able to go ahead and bend laws or get around loopholes and stuff like that to make a ton of money. So don't complain when, you know, there's a few people on the other end of the spectrum that are trying to take advantage of it. That's across the board. But that's such a small percentage versus the people who actually need that and rely on that.

The benefit from that, they end up coming back. They end up doing great things afterwards that just need it for a second because they're on hard times. And you think those people like, do people think people want to be on welfare? No. And again, I'm sure there is a small number of people that do take advantage of the system. I'm not going to argue that. That's not something that I don't think happens.

At the same time, if that is 5% of the people, and the other 95% of the people greatly benefit from it. And are contributing to society to try to then get out of a situation where they need welfare. So they can then contribute into a situation where people need welfare. It's there in case you, it's there in case anybody needs it.

Be thankful that you never need it. But just because you never need it, like you just said, don't say that how you live is how everybody should live. That's exactly what this shit is. What we're talking about, this Roeby Wade thing. That's where I was headed with it,

It was, it's, I'm sure. Did you just fucking segment me? Maybe a little bit. To me, it's one of those things where if you never need an abortion in your life or you never know anybody, that's fucking awesome. I'm so happy for you that you don't have to be concerned to know that somebody that you know and care about has that trauma in your life and be able to help it. That's great. If it were possible, you know, that would be the best thing for anybody is not have to go through it. I'm sure people that go through it and have to deal with having an abortion or being close in that situation, that's not.

something that people just take lightly and that people can just brush by. It's a serious medical procedure. Prior to prior to being in a position to need an abortion, do you think anybody at any point in their life being like, you know, I really hope at some point I have to have an abortion? Nobody, yeah, nobody's like what the fuck kind of thinking is that? The only time it becomes necessary is when someone finds themselves in a situation. Hopefully, and I'm, it's, you know, it's not splitting apples here or split in here. people are going to need abortion at some point, safe abortion, and they're going to be in bad circumstances where, you know, these, these fucking states that don't even allow for, like, rape or incest accommodations or anything like that, are you, is that saying, like, you just don't, you actually don't think that that's valid? Or are you saying that, like, we can't have this because then everyone will go ahead and try to use it as a loophole to get abortion?

I'm like, then fine, let the people use the loophole. But do you realize what you sound like if you're like, there is no, as bad as it is to say safe abortion is not available here, but to actually say that no exceptions. Like what, who the fuck are you to even say that? Well, I hate to draw comparisons to political parties. But the same people that are saying that and the same people that are saying no exceptions are the same people that want to have. basically full car plunge to have ammunition, to have guns, to have all that. You can't tell somebody that they have no rights over something that they want and that can be accessible to them. But then find yourself in another position to say, well, I want complete autonomy over my collection of weapons.

It's the freedom buffet. You pay your, I don't know, what would you say? Your price of admission is your taxes. Let's just say that. And then you get to walk down the Freedom Buffet line. you get to go ahead and pick and choose which freedoms you want. It's the constitutional buffet line. So you're like, I want some of that, you know, Second Amendment, but ooh, I don't want to.

I don't want any of that. Everybody gets the same rights. I want, can I get something, hey, yes, the cook. Can you do something special that allows me to have these rights, but not maybe the other portion of the populace to have these rights? The same people that make the argument that rules don't stop people from doing what they want to do. still want to make rules thinking that that they can stop people from doing what they want to do it's just a complete mind fuck to try to put those two things together and think about it in a way where that's logical and i i i'm still 100% for do what you want to do and as long as it doesn't

affect me it's nothing that i need to care about but this is something where i hope that it never affects my life i mean i've known people that have gotten this procedure done i'm sure as to you. And it's just one of those things where I just want to be there to support people and make sure. Because going through this procedure, like, nobody has a celebration. There's no cakes that are involved. Yeah.

It's not like, you know, the procedure itself is just one step in the process. Like, first you have to make the decision, which if anyone thinks that that's a cavalier easy decision, you know, think again. And then that's just me even trying to put my. in the position of a woman. That's not... Yeah. But...

So, like, how did we get to where we're currently at? If we're wanting to go back... I see you went with the Roe v. Wade, the reverse shit sandwich. Yeah, that's... The more that I studied on it, we talked about it, that's how I felt like it was. See, I did. I went Roe v. Wade supremely fucked. Supreme Court burn.

that's like a shot at Taco Bell and the Supreme Court at the same time because if you eat a a Supreme Taco you're usually fucked too the way that I kind of laid it out is we'll talk about kind of just the nuts and bolts

one of the things that was held so secretly for so long was Jane Rose actual identity just because it was anonymity it was important I didn't know it I didn't know that's what it was.

I thought the person's last name before looking at this. That's what I'm saying. That's how kind of far removed from actually the details of it I was, is that is, is, and this is kind of off topic on this. So when they're using the term, you know, the pseudonym Jane Roe, do they use Roe if the person is wanting to remain anonymous but is still alive? And Jane Doe, if it is an unidentified dead body. I don't think that that's what it is.

I'm not sure where they get Roe and where they get Dell. because we'll talk about it during the Scotas case for this. There was actually a second one that was going through Oh, it was the husband and wife, right? Huh? It was it the husband and wife?

Yeah, and they were the Doe's. Yeah, Doe versus Bolton. Okay, and that was coming out of Georgia. Okay, so it's just an anonymous moniker. Yeah, I don't know where they come from. Anonymous names, I would want like Kurt Blastman or something like that or like Power Speedman, something sweet that would sound good and look good on the board.

Max Power. Yeah. So Roe versus Wade was initially argued December 13th, 1971. It was re-argued for a second time October 11th, 1972. And we'll get into that when we talk about the case. The decision happened January 2nd, 1973, when they came back and actually made legit ruling on it and gave their opinions. And that was the Supreme Court ruling, right? Yep. Okay. Yeah. So the plaintiff in the case, Jane Roe, was, woman in Norma McCorvey.

A little background on her just to kind of set the stage for how this all is going to kind of play out. She came from a poor alcoholic mother. Her dad ended up leaving her when she was 13 years old. Just not a great upbringing to being left alone a lot, having to kind of fight for herself and for herself. She had been arrested for stealing money at a gas station while she was outside washing windows to make money.

as a teenager was doing this just to try to make any money. She only got to the point of being in ninth grade and she was in boarding school and ended up getting kicked out of boarding school. She got sent to live with some family friends. She had made some accusations that she may have been molested at that time by them. Nothing really ever proved, but I wouldn't rule any of it out because she just does sound like a very honest woman at this point. at the age of 15

Big 1-5 hits She's working as a Like a sock hop Like outside of a drive-in on roller skates Ends up meeting her first husband Woody Married at the age of 15 into 16 Seems like just a wild thing And I'm sure even at the seven or in the 70s

I always feel like the 70s doesn't seem that far removed In reality it's 50 years ago But even like Yeah, I know But even then still 15 sounds Very young It is very young

Like there's no Yeah Your brain's fucking mush What are you doing getting married Well in the fact Woody wasn't a young man Woody was a decent amount older He

Inevitably becomes abusive And just this sad story She ends up having a baby from Woody Who she puts up for adoption just a very sad state of affairs. After that, she starts working in a bar. She ends up getting pregnant two more times. The second one, I believe she put up for adoption two.

And at the time of the second child, she's working as a carnival barker, traveling around the south, working just yeah as a carnival Barker Come see the beard She's a lady

She's a carny Yeah So not a great life at that point But she's still kind of making it for herself And at this point She ends up Getting pregnant a third time She decides this one

She wants to have an abortion It needs to happen at this point She goes to see a doctor in Texas Her doctor tells her that no abortions are allowed to happen in Texas. Hands her a card for a number. She thinks, hey, this is a great deal. He can't do it because it's illegal for him,

but hopefully this is a number to get me to somebody underground. It turns out after she calls the number that it's in another adoption agency, and she tells the woman kind of her story. She says she doesn't want an adoption. She wants an abortion at this point. She knows she can't help a kid. She knows she can't care for a kid.

She just knows that it's not. It can be another kid into the system. Yeah, another kid into the system who, by all accounts, Norma's life was just a shit show from the moment she was born. Just a poverty-stricken, abusive, molesting. You only know what you know. Like, that's... Yeah. It's sad.

It's such a bummer, just to think that... To me, when I hear her story, it's just... It's somebody that can't escape, and it's not, you know, this sounds way easier just to say it, but it's someone that was just not able to escape their circumstances. You get people that are able to do that, and that's amazing. But then you get people who the circumstances are just, you know, they're against you from the start. You're raised in it.

You feel like that's the only life that you deserve to live. And you just kind of continue on. And how else do you know at that point that you can provide better for your child if you're still just scraping by? Yeah. So she gets a hold of the adoption agent. They're talking through. The adoption agent brings up the name of two ladies,

Linda Coffey and Sarah Weddington. They're both young attorneys kind of right around Norma's age. They end up meeting in a bar, which 70s again a crazy time. Pregnant lady meets two lawyers in a bar to start talking about abortion and are having like drinks and beer and all that kind of stuff. I don't know how far that went, but just seems odd. but Linda and Sarah

who Sarah had actually previously in her life before starting law school had had to go to into Mexico to get an abortion because it was also illegal where she lived too they basically picture

they say hey we know you want an abortion we have a plan we want to they had this plan for a while that they were looking to do this they just were looking for the right person

so it wasn't just like she needed these lawyers These lawyers had been actively, Weddington and Coffee, had been looking for a person to represent, and they were actively, like, seeking out pregnant women who were in bad circumstances. I'm not saying this in a predatory way, but because they recognized that there was something about this law that needed to be corrected, they were proactively trying to find someone they could represent to get this in front of a judge for a ruling. Well, in Weddington already going through an abortion herself where she had to leave, leave the country to get it done.

She already has that feeling. And they're just, I think honestly, I can't say exactly what they were thinking. We'll get into kind of some of the stuff with Sarah Whiteington earlier, which I didn't realize how just asked backwards we still were in the 70s, but we'll talk about it during the case.

But eventually, they give her the full pitch at the bar. They asked her if she wants to be Jane Row. And she ends up agreeing to it. So that is set up for that. A little bit of the pregame kind of before that.

This is the first shit bread and the shit sandwich. We're going to talk about a lady named Shirley Wheeler real quick just to kind of to set the stage as to where we were before Roe versus Wade took place. Shirley Wheeler at age 18 was raped and impregnated by two of her friends. Just two of her friends caught her, raped her. impregnated her. Abortion's illegal at this point. She ends up having your child.

Where was she at? Florida. Okay. So, actually, I think this one occurred in South Carolina. Okay. I want to say this one occurred in South Carolina. She ends up giving the child to her brother and sister-in-law to raise. After that birth, during her birthing process, she got, I guess, what they said, a near-fatal temperature.

Okay. while giving birth and became hypoglycemic. Okay, so she got a, she had a fever during birth and then hypolycemia, okay. Which ended up following her for the rest of her life. And because she was hypoglycemic, she had a hard time with like taking birth control. Okay. And getting that right and correct. Which I'm assuming at that point in the 70s, there weren't a lot of different options for birth control.

So I mean, if you can't take the two or three that are on the market, because they all share maybe a common ingredient, you're kind of like, shit. what do you do you try your best i'm sure but eventually if you can't do anything you can't do anything we are all humans we all do for the most part have the desire to bang and these are just things that happen so she becomes pregnant with her second child and knows that she got pretty lucky with the first one knows that she made it through the birthing process okay still pretty concerned about her health just basically it was something where her doctors had her that having a child probably wasn't going to be her best option, but they couldn't do a surgery to tire tubes or anything like that. And obviously, you can't guarantee that every guy

that you have sex with is going to have a vasectomy. Yeah. So her second child, she ends up going to a doctor. And again, in Florida, they say, hey, it's illegal, can't make this happen. She ends up getting a name and number for a doctor in Jacksonville, which the way that these happened back then, underground abortions, you were meeting people in back alleys, they were blindfolding you, putting you in a car, taking you to these underground places where you were having these done. So the anonymity of it because nobody wanted to get caught was just something that had to be ratcheted up to 11 because if you knew who the doctor was that did it to you and somehow it comes back to get you, you can rat them out.

Or perhaps if you want to are not under duress or something like that, you're you know, people. Yeah. Yeah, it's, well, that'll play a big part in her story. But she makes it down to Jacksonville. Gives the doctor $400, which in today's money, her abortion would have cost her $3,000. I'm not sure what the going rate today is,

but three grand sounds like a hell of a lot. Ended up becoming pregnant a third time, which is kind of cool story about this, and it's kind of a bummer for him. But her second and third, child were from the same guy. And this guy is just an all-around stand-up guy. We'll talk about him towards the head, but just a really good dude.

So she goes back for another abortion for a third time. And again, this is medically as well. Still underground, but just a medical issue. No, yes, that's what I'm saying is it's not necessarily her being like, oh, like, I'm getting this abortion just because I don't want the kid. Again, this is a medical thing. It's something that the doctor told her that carrying a baby to term again is a dangerous thing. So her third one goes really poorly and she ends up, it doesn't take the first time. There's a lot of bleeding and different bad things that are going on.

So she goes back for a second time on her third one and has the procedure repeated. And unfortunately, it goes really south. And she's bleeding out like crazy, ends up having to be admitted to the hospital. and the fuck thing about it was back then if you went to a doctor and you asked for an abortion they would tell you no it's against the law but if you had an underground abortion or you had any legal abortion and something went wrong

then they were legally allowed to treat you okay so the doctor couldn't touch you to give you an abortion but if something went wrong during the abortion not under his watch then they're legally allowed to make sure okay it's the hypocrite code they can't just let you die regardless of the reason it's like Like when someone comes in and is like a criminal, but it's shot, they're still required to treat that person.

But I'm not, again, comparing her action to a criminal action. I'm just saying doctors have, regardless of the reason that you're injured, I think they have part of that hypocrite oath is that their job is to try to save you. To me, it just seems so messed up, though, the fact that they can't do them, that it's illegal for them to do them, but they can still, like, they know what you did. Yeah. They just go on about it that it's okay to be taken care of. So after she gets out of the hospital,

I'm not exactly sure how the police had found out about it, but they end up coming to Shirley and her boyfriend's house one day. Excuse me, sit Shirley down, and they tell her that unless Shirley tells them who did it, who performed the abortion, that she was going to be arrested and taken to jail. And I don't know if Shirley didn't know, or she just had a really strong feeling that she shouldn't tell them,

because it's, they didn't do well for her, but they're still out there providing a service for other people. And chances are, she didn't know. Chances are she was blindfolded the whole time and just had no idea who it was. She ends up going to jail. They do just some insanely terrible things to her in jail. They bring pictures of dead babies

that they claim were her aborted child and showed her in the jail cell, just trying to get any information after her. Yeah, that she may or may not. have had. She ends up going to trial, convicted on manslaughter. She's potentially facing 20-year sentence in prison, which two decades is just an incredibly long time.

The jury goes ahead and takes a whopping 45 minutes to decide that she was guilty. And that is, is her trial? So she was able to, was the trial in Florida? Yeah. Okay. And her trial, kind of the crux of how that was, was they were trying to decide if she knew that the baby was moving at the time of choosing the abortion.

There was something in the law that if you had knowledge of the child... It was a lot of... It sounds like it's a lot of theory and speculation. Yeah. Speculative type stuff. And the prosecutors had thrown out different things about what age the baby was, and it turns out that the baby wasn't that far along during the trial to the point toward movement probably wouldn't have been something that she was feeling.

Yeah, I'm guessing, you know, due to the fact that this is something that's directly related to threading her health, as soon as she knows that she's pregnant, she's probably not just sitting around and be like, I'll get around to it to get this taken care of. This is probably something as soon as she realizes she's pregnant, she's trying to get the situation resolved. Well, not to mention as soon as she finds out, she has to figure out where she's going to come up with 400 bucks to get this time. done. You have to start collecting your funds, find a place to go, find a place to stay, all this different stuff. So Shirley Wheeler

is known kind of overall as the first American that's ever been held criminally responsible for having an abortion. They went a little bit light on her with the sentencing. She got sentenced to two years probation, but she was also told

that in the state of Florida, she wasn't allowed to live alone, live with another single woman, or live with a man that wasn't her husband. So she either had to be living in a home with her married husband or not live in the state of Florida. Those were her two options. And her boyfriend at the time was, like I say, an absolute stud. During her trial, he actually went out and got a vasectomy before knowing that they weren't going to be allowed to live together. And basically it was like, hey, I got a vasectomy. We don't have to worry about this anymore. This isn't ever going to become

an issue again. I'm taking care of. You're taking care of. We're going to be safe now. Then the ruling comes down. They find out that they can't live together unless they're married. She has a week to get out of Florida or make a choice. He proposes to her and says, I want you here.

I want you to be my wife. We love each other. This is a great situation. Let's make you as safe as possible. She ends up deciding to go back to South Carolina with her family. Luckily, a short time after that the Florida state of appeals

like the highest court in Florida went ahead and struck down their abortion laws for being too restrictive so as soon as that abortion laws struck down there was a woman that she was writing to that was a federal lawyer and as soon as she found out that it was

struck down the federal lawyer came down put the appeal in and they got her charges vacated. She was able to move back to Florida and do all that but that was kind of the precursor. This happened in the 70s. So we're literally knocking on the doorstep of the case happening. Okay. That happened

in 70? Yep. Okay. It was when the case took place. Okay. So late 60s when it all happened in the 70s right then. So that'll move us into Rovers Wade. It'll move us into the main course. That was as tough

as it is to look back knowing what's happened over the last couple weeks with how this whole thing has been changed. The Scobos case is just kind of a great thing that happened. It was a real change for the country to the point where we were having, we were seeing polls. People were being asked this question, do you think abortion should be legal? And we were getting 60, 70%, yes, it should be legal. It should be something that is medically available for people that need them to have.

Tying everything back in. It brings an issue into the light that's probably been. in the shadows for so long, but then once it has a little light shut on it and everything, you find out it's got this huge supportive movement to it. You don't know how many people it's impacted until, it's like, it's the elephant in the room that no one news is in the room.

Yeah, and states at this point have kind of started to shift. There were states that were coming on board with abortion legislation as far as trying to regulate it and saying it is legal in certain situations. Surprisingly enough, man that signed the abortion bill California making it legal? Nixon. Former president?

Nixon. Ronald Reagan. Oh. Yeah. So the big regs got that taken care of in California and then came out as president as stonfully

against abortion even though he did send a bill. Hey, you got to get elected, man. Well, you say what you need to get the votes. Roe versus Wade takes place during a reoccurring character

on this podcast. Richard N. Nixon. He's the president at the time. He had, over his tenure, he had to fill four vacancies on the Supreme Court during his presidency, which is a hell of a lot. There's no other president that's had that much opportunity. So, just so, this is kind of a throwback to a previous episode. If you haven't listened to the Richard Nixon one about Watergate, jump back into our own heart, of course. But jump back, listen to that one, because it really kind of like, puts into focus. During his re-election in second term, Watergate had happened

prior to that. So he got an entire second term. Well, was given an entire second term, but not fulfilled. Most of us, was it most of a second term? I think it was two years.

Two years, okay. So he still had additional time in which he could fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. So just kind of something tying that back. Well, and also too, during Watergate, during everything else, during Vietnam and all this, he has these issues at home that he's dealing with trying to fill these four vacancies.

One of his first ones that he had to fill, he had put up two separate justices for this first position to fill. Both of them got shot down very quickly. They were both, as soon as they were interviewed by Congress, They just both couldn't stand up to it. And there was kind of a feeling that Nixon was trying to put his people in place to protect the things that he wanted. He was leaning heavy conservative with his choices. First two end up flaring out.

Chief Justice Warren Berger was kind of involved in the process. He talked to Nixon one day and he said, hey, I got this guy. His name's Harry Blackman. Him and I grew up together. He's a great lawyer. He's done a lot of different kinds of work. He's a very well thought out guy. I think he'll be a good pick.

I think he'll be somebody to go through. Try, don't go like too deep on this. To your knowledge, when you're someone who's like a candidate for a Supreme Court position, Supreme Court justice position, what do you have had to, what's the level that you had to reach to become a candidate for that? can you only be, are you available to be nominated for that if you're practicing private law? Or do you have to work for, have worked your way up throughout the government to become like a justice sitting on like the state Supreme Court? Do you have to be, do you have to fit those, you know? Usually you don't see many people come out of private practice to come back into government because usually the way things work is once you get your law degree, you be.

become a state prosecutor. You work in the state prosecutor's office. You work for the state. You work for the government. And then you kind of have two options. You can either start graduating up. You can start working towards being a judge. You can start worrying or being a DA or something like that. Yeah, something higher. Or you can go into private practice. Private practice is where all the money is because you're defending people and you can charge whatever the hell you want. Yeah, because basically isn't the public defender's office is like the training ground and then law firms going into like we want this person that beat us and case and this person that tried this case well. Okay. So I would imagine that with the Supreme Court, you would have had to have failed previous positions on like lower courts. Yep. With, okay, lower circuit courts and everything like that. Okay. And one of the nice things that Blackman

had in his hip pocket, there's, there's a clear hero in this story and it's going to come out as I kind of talk about it more. But Harry Blackman had had experience working with the Mayo Clinic on their legal defense team. So he had seen things. from a large standpoint where it's technically I think the Mayo Clinic is more private but he was a part of that legal team so he really understood like looking at big class action things and things that affected a lot of people also within the medical field that sounds like yeah so he had a good background there and it was something that he draws from throughout kind of this whole case so um after that gets filled with uh blackman then

When Roe v. Wade gets its first chance to be argued on December 13th and 71, the issue comes forward that there's only seven sitting Supreme Court judges. Well, hold on just real quick. Before we go on that, so when it was initially first argued on December 13, 1971, that was in a district in Texas. No, this, they basically saw where this was going and it just got ushered through the courts in Texas to get it moved up towards the Supreme Court. Okay. And it was something where they weren't looking for it necessarily to be a state. It was jumping off from a... Because it did. That's what happened. It went before, I'm not sure exactly which circuit court, because the whole reason it's called Roe v. Wade is because it was Roe versus Henry Wade, who was the local

DA within that county or district in Texas. That's why it's Roe v. Wade. And so it went, Roe versus Henry Wade, the local DA in that area. It got bumped up to, I think I want to say, the state Supreme Court, and it was still Roe v. Wade at that point because it carried over, and that's who it was originally against. So if a case gets pushed up to a higher court, it keeps the delegation of its name. Yeah, there's still the plaintiff. Correct. White didn't become Wade versus Roe at that point. And then at that point, once it got, passed in favor of Roe at the Texas Supreme Court level, it then got appealed on both sides, which was very weird to me. I'm sure there's a reason for that, but it says both sides appealed it

to get it to the Supreme Court. And I would, the only thing, and I might be completely wrong on this, the only thing I could think of to have it appealed on both sides is even if the side on, for row one, maybe they wanted to appeal the decision because it didn't they didn't win on all accounts. It could be a clarity issue too where they wanted a more defined ruling. Or they wanted to make this a national ruling. They appealed it to make it not just a state ruling

but to bump it up and make it a national. It could have absolutely been that. They were looking for a federal way. So what you're going to talk about now that was just going to be the Supreme Court case, right? Yep. Okay. Yeah.

So like I said, it was a very unnatural argument the first time because you have nine Supreme Court judges, but the fact that there are two vacancies, there's only seven sitting justices on the court. In 71, Sarah Weddington argued in front of those seven judges, all while the other case we were talking about Dovey Bolton, which was the Georgia case, was running at the same time as Roe v. Wade. So they were seeing two different ones. Kind of something about Dovey Bolton was it didn't go as in-depth as Roe v. Wade,

was it was sort of about they were the same things but it was just less of a broad yeah i think because it was a married couple yeah they felt that it would be it wouldn't stand it's not stand out as much it wouldn't be as impactful as giving just a single woman the autonomy over her body to make that decision because if i feel like if this would have been with a married couple when it does get past you would have conditions that it has to be a decision between because ultimately it's the woman's decision. But I feel like had it been with a married couple, there would have been some type of clause with federal legalization on it that it would have been like, well, there has to be a

contract and agreement between both parties to make this happen. So I think that that's why it probably pushed Roe v. Wade to be the primary case because it allowed more of an all encompassing for all women. And a decision just to be made by one person. And there was another case, not jumping ahead, but I want to say it was 1994. and it was a case against Pennsylvania where Pennsylvania had made it a rule that for a married woman to get an abortion,

she had to have signed permission from her husband. So luckily that one thing got shut down out of that case. But basically the whole argument that Weddington was using to make was that there was a need to uphold the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment protects due. process and equal protection. Due process of the law before the government may deprive someone of life, liberty, of the suit of happiness, which can be argued personal autonomy will be something that

gives you for your life, your liberty and your happiness. It was something that, and they were able to tie it in, too, just to kind of back themselves up. They were able to tie it into the Ninth Amendment, too. So they said what it determined, the court determined, that a woman's rights to privacy were supported by the 14th and 9th Amendment. Her rights to privacy being private decisions reached between her and her doctor.

Okay. Yeah. It's, they had a fair, they cast a fairly wide net, and I think when they looked at it, they found that it, like you say, between the 14th and the 9th Amendment, there was a lot to cover in it.

Yeah, well, that's the thing. The more you can tie your point of argument to the amendments granting these rights, the more likely you're going to win. Mm-hmm. You know, they have both of these amendments supporting what they're trying to argue. They, one of the things, because it doesn't directly lay it out, but the idea that the personal autonomy under both of them wasn't ever said, but it was implied.

It was sort of an implicit right to be able to say that I have full control over what happens to my body was something that they really hammered down upon because it is true. at that point if you do have the right to privacy, you have the right to have these discussions with your doctor. I know, isn't that? So that's the argument, it's both for and against. So the argument against it is that it doesn't state in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights,

you know, it doesn't actually state a person has full body autonomy. Yeah. But the counter argument to that is like, should that even have to be said? Well, and the reason that it doesn't say a person is because they're giving you the benefit of the doubt that you know that that's already implied is you have full autonomy of your own body.

Yeah. It shouldn't have to be. I'm sorry, they didn't dumb it down enough for you, but just because it's not there doesn't mean it's not implied. Well, and how far do we break it down? Do we break it down to fucking tattoos and piercings? Yeah. I mean, that's bodily autonomy that you have.

So how far do we have to get down to cover every little thing? If we did that, the constitution would be the fucking Bible. I know. It would be like 7,000 pages. Ooh, but it is. It is to something. people at them. I guess. We see the 14th

and the 9th used in a couple other cases that have been decided before this. I don't think it's Virginia when I wrote that down. I think it's Loving versus Vermont, but I haven't read down Loving versus Virginia. Let me check that real quick. But the loving case is

what brought in interracial marriage. So that was Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. It was Loving versus Virginia. No, that I'm looking at... Yeah, I'm pretty sure. Excuse me. Griswold versus Connecticut, which ushered in the ability to use contraceptives as a...

Excuse me, as a married couple in order to... How were these ever... Like, why did these ever have to have a ruling? They're so like... It's like all this shit is like none of the fucking government's business. Yeah, like, who cares what color you're marrying? That's the whole point. Who cares what kind of person it is?

Nobody should give a shit about that. The fact that there was even something that had to happen and be like, yeah, we got to figure this out in a court of lobby. And like, no, you shouldn't have to. We want to start being able to use contraception so we can still have sex, but we don't get pregnant and everything like that. Like, hold on a second. We got to figure out if you're allowed to do this. We don't want to have a medical procedure to make sure we can never have children. We would just like to maybe take a break for five or six years and not have to worry about anything.

Hey, you know what feels really good? sex. Sex feels really good. You know what doesn't feel really good? Having a kid every time you want to have sex or having the risk of a kid every time you want to have sex. That sounds like the most dangerous game. That's the worst spin of the wheel that you can have if that's a 50-50 shot every single time. You need you need a little help. Oh, and in that situation, the biggest side of relief would be like, oh, she's already pregnant so I can now cram as much sex as I want because she's already pregnant, but then after she gives birth, then it's back to play and freaking rolling the dice. Yeah. When the pull-out method is, Strong's method of birth control. It's just not a safe option. I don't know where condoms were at this time.

I didn't take a deep enough dive to see where condom technology was in the 70s. I'm sure it was. Yeah, because you watch that 70s show and they talk about condoms and everything. Yeah. Yeah, I don't think it was still all lambskin, but I'm pretty sure it was probably better on. But again, that's a contraceptive. That's absolutely a contraceptive. A condom. For years, early man wrapped his. his penis in animal skin. That was how they used to do it, you know, and sent it with a piece of leather strap.

There was a, you've seen the history shows like the people to build America, food to build America, all that. There's one now that's called like sex lies and gambling that built America or something like that. There was a dude that was selling condoms.

He worked in a sausage casing factory. He would take home the sausages that they couldn't sell because they were they misshaped or too light or whatever. Okay. He would cut open one side. He would pull all of the stuffing out. He would sew the top of it shut.

And then he would wrap them up. And he would sell them underground to other people as condoms. And he ended up getting arrested for it. Was this at a time when condoms were being made? I want to say it was like the 40s. So it was way before this. But there was a time when you could be arrested for selling underground prophylactics. No, that's crazy.

what I'm saying is I think there were still in the I want to say I've seen enough World War to stuff to think that they were provided some type of prophylactics

or maybe it was just like antibiotics for the eventual diseases they were going to get but regardless okay so we're going to keep getting away from this but anyway no

he should not have been arrested for selling sausage casing maybe it was because it was a was it a health code thing I don't know dude was it like hey we don't

mind that you're selling these. You just can't be selling the ones that have had like pork sausage stuff to him. Yeah, like you're pulling out meat so some other guy can shove his meat inside of it. This is an obvious health code violation, sir. It's just such a fucking crazy thought. Okay. So we were at the

Griswold contraception. That one, okay. So those were two cases that were argued successfully using the same things. And I feel like those, if we can use them in those and they were good enough, this probably should be good. You shouldn't need a whole lot of things to argue that you should be able to marry somebody else that's a

different race than you. But those are probably two good things that you could use it for. Correct. So Harry Blackman and Burger being boys before this, they were both born and raised in Minnesota together, so they had known each other for a long time. And Harry Blackman used to refer to himself as old number three because he was Nixon's third choice for that seat. So he even had enough humility to be like, well, I.

wasn't the first choice. It wasn't the second choice, but all number three always comes through. So, Berger asked him to write the opinion. He wanted that to be his job. And Burger had asked him to write sort of a narrow opinion just because they didn't want it to swing majorly one way or the other. Okay. And they had already kind of tallied up what votes they had with the seven and realized that it was probably going to be like four three in favor of Roe versus Wade. So when there, when these judges are arguing these essential laws or cases whether it overrule them, rule in favor, whatnot. Is it basically just them sitting in a room arguing with, arguing their points to everybody, like how a jury would do it once they've received the information they're trying

to review everything? Or do they kind of find out who's going to be in favor, who's not both sides write down what they feel it should be? And then they present that. to the group as a whole and take a vote on it. Like, I wonder how that works. They, from everything that I've seen about it, they do, they go back in their chambers, they have their discussions about it. They do, I don't know if they do research anymore. It feels like they haven't done any research for a long time.

They're just going on gut instinct at this point. But one of the cool things that we'll talk about the Blackman did, they'll go back in history and they'll look at different things, different cases, different other cases that were argued on these same grounds. look and say, is there judicial presidents to say this is a good argument for this situation? That's how it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be impartial. You're supposed to be able to go ahead and either reverse carry motions, I'm sorry,

and lack laws. You're supposed to, if someone, you know, you get brought this case, this Roe v. Wade case. There shouldn't be any talk about your feelings of the case, your religious opinions of it or anything like that. What it should be of is you're looking at the constitution and the rules that are already established and you're saying this falls into this. It doesn't fall into how you feel. It doesn't fall. It falls into this area about personal privacy because this is a conversation between a doctor and his patient. Yeah. And because of that, it has to go ahead and fit within the rule of law. It does. What we're running into today is where

running into these cases being overruled because of it's essentially religion. Personal biases. And personal bias. It's, they've morphed what it is to the point to where I feel like it's kind of a joke. I guess you could call me an extremist to say that we just need to dismantle the whole thing and build it up a better way. But that is how I feel about where we are today. because if you have nine judges that are up there to try to do represent the will of the people as to how they feel like we should be governed as a society,

you need to take society as a whole's opinions into your choices. You do, but you also can't say that this is a nation of laws when you're having religious biases. Yeah. Well, there's certain things that have happened. the case a few years ago about the cake shop that refused to make the gay people's wedding cake or whatever it was.

As a person, you think, hey, that's pretty fucked up to do to somebody. Like, it's just two people that are trying to celebrate their marriage and they just want a cake made for them. So why can't you just do that? But, by the letter of the law, and if you do want this to stand for everybody,

a private company does have the right to refuse service based on their right to refuse service. And if it is a religious view, that sounds to me like it's a cop out. But here's the whole point is it's your feeling. I think the cake shop should have probably just been like, yeah, whatever. But at the same time, their right is to say no. Their right is to also take all of the negative feedback that comes with that.

Yeah. But it's their choice. They know that there's a benefit to both or a negative to both. The freedom of choice is what is protect. by law, as it should be. That would be like, you know, if someone came into a cake maker and wanted a schwasica put on a cake,

and that cake maker said no, you'd have people on the other side then saying, good for that cake maker. They said no, and then that person about the schwasica would be like, well, what about my freedom of expression? And what about my freedom of speech? And they would say, well, he has the right to choose as a private business

not to do that. So the law protects him. you have the right to refuse service that person that's angry about your right to refuse service has the right to shit in front of your cake store. Yes. Just how it works. You have freedom, but you don't have freedom from the consequences.

Yes. So can we get a quick P-break-in? Oh yeah. I could go for that. All right, and we're back. So, we just talked about Loving and Griswold and how they were used kind of in the same ways. So since

Blackman's given the job of writing the majority opinion, he ends up kind of struggling over it because he's gone a lot of the same ways as Burger has, and they kind of called him their nickname for him as a Minnesota Twins because any way that Burger would go, Blackman would go to. So there was a little concern about that. Blackman wanted to separate himself as a judge on the Supreme Court, and he wanted to really make this one his own. Berger wanted the narrow opinion Blackman wanted to make sure that this was going to be something that was really given a good shot to happen

So Blackman asked Berger if they can do a re-argument Once they get to nine justices Because he wanted a full decision He didn't want this to be something where people could look back on And say well this was decided by seven judges We have a nine judge Supreme Court So we need to rehear this Or if he thought that you know the majority

of the seven would go one way and he needed to go the other and he was waiting for two other justice he felt could be more beneficial on his side too well and the catch 22 of that was the other two judges that were going to be filled were going to be by Nixon so they were most likely going to be republican guys who stepped in and Nixon had actually floated the idea of like his popularity going up by putting the first woman on the court and one of the other judges showed up to his office It was like, yo, if you put a woman on the court, you're going to have to fill another vacancy because I'm out. I'm not doing this. And so Nixon went against that, ended up putting up two more Republicans that got in.

Can you even like imagine the fucking chess game if you feel like you have justices that are coming up on like retirement or anything like that? And then like if you're a justice where you're either in the, you know, you're getting ready, you're wanting to retire, you're getting up there. age and you know that by you giving up your seat, someone is going to get put in that seat that is going to be adverse to what your beliefs are. They're going to be on the other side. If the presidency at that point is not beneficial to you. They're going to fill your spot with somebody that's going to be beneficial to them. Man, what do you think not only is the pressure like about deciding when it's time to step

away, which I'm not saying you should have people that old on the Supreme Court making up laws, but I can see why people stay for so long because it's almost like they have to stay and keep their team in power. Or they have to stay because they feel like they're the ones holding back everything from going to shit. I just feel like it's one of those things where... Like Ruth Bader Ginsburg served until she was dead. And not to mention, went through multiple forms of cancer and everything else that would have

taken down a lesser person. Yes. Just to stay on there. But I can't leave because someone else will fuck it up. Like I have to stay in here and try to do this myself. Well, I think there's a little just bit of pride in doing it because I feel like if you were to tell me you could either choose a job between being the president or being a Supreme Court justice. I'm going Supreme Court justice 10 times out of 10 because you have a lifetime appointment. Yeah.

Which in itself should not be the case. Should not at all be the case. No. Because how do we think that like everyone's like, of course, like congressional term limits need to apply and everything. Like, how do people not even, how does the next thing at their mouth is not, no more lifetime appointments? Those should go in hand.

If you're not willing to have somebody get elected to Congress, who then, there's a ton of them who have to have a harder time getting bills and laws push through, but you're not worried about the people that are actually enacting the laws and there's less of them, those are the people that you should be like, oh, those people need to be at the top of the game and need to be competent with what it's going on in culture today. Well, we've painted ourselves into a bit of a corner where the people that can go ahead and choose about the term limits are the people that have been in there for so long and collecting such nice paychecks and doing so many other things that the people that the corporate lobbies are so deep in their pockets. Why would you want to walk away from that job? You do whatever you could to keep that job because it's the fucking easiest job in the world.

People talk about how tough it must be to choose laws and all that stuff. They get recesses all the time. They get fairly well compensated. And not only do they have all that time to do so, all of the work is being done by all these other lower courts. They're able to call on all that research and then use all of that to make their decision. That's just what it is, is when the decision needs to keep getting bumped up higher, you're just getting a second opinion and then a third opinion. Not to mention when you're talking about congressmen and those types of people, they have so many. aides and so many people that help

them that go through read bills and just give them the summations of it or go through and highlight things that they have to read. Did you hear what happened in Minnesota? Uh-uh. Minnesota just legalized edibles. Just edible? Just edibles. So there was a, I'm assuming

it must have been a Democratic submitted bill on the floor. And there was some stuff in it that was amenable or agreeable with a bunch of Republicans. But part of it was also the bill was to make edibles legal in the state. I want to say, yeah, it was Minnesota because Michigan's already legal, I think.

They didn't, a bunch of the Republicans didn't read through the entire bill and see the part about the edibles and just passed it through after it got passed by the state Congress and got signed into law, they went back and asked the Democrats, they're like, hey, can we go ahead and re-propose this and do an amendment because we didn't want to vote for? And they were like, oh, no. That's not how this works. We're like, no. You're, because you didn't read it,

no, sir. Yeah, because you didn't do our job, we're not going to make your job look better. That's fantastic. That goes into the laziness of it. Like I say, you don't have to read these bills. And hopefully all their clerks and everybody that were working below them to read it,

we're like, hey, let's not mention this. Yeah. It's just that simple. You have the easiest job of the world. and if all you have to do is just listen to the people that are paying you under the table to do their own bidding, why would anybody want to leave that? You already don't have a soul at this point. Like you're,

you've sold that to be in this position one way or the other. You've said things that you don't believe in just to get to where you are. Why would you ever want to leave that? So, Burger's choice in Blackman, I believe, is one thing that really made this whole thing turn out the way that it did. and Harry Blackman Can I get some clarification on this? Yeah.

So right now, when you're talking about Burger and Blackman, so Berger was on the side of banning abortion. Yes. He was on the pro-life side. Yeah. Okay. At this point, Blackman was also pro-life. On that side of the kind of space,

if you're going to divide it in the spectrum being like for abortion against abortion, Blackman is with Burger on the against. That's why Burger wants Blackburn. to write the, write it. I think Blackman was more given the assignment because he knew that he was really good at these things. Okay. And the fact that it was a medical case and he had so much background in the medical community that he was going to be able to write one really well. Okay. Gotcha.

So at this point, Burger goes home and has dinner. He has a wife and three daughters and makes the all-time dad mistake of sitting at dinner with your three daughters and your wife of asking them what they felt about abortion. and it launched into a whole argument. He had one very passionate daughter that was against abortion, one kind of free love daughter that was very for abortion, to the point to where he just got up and took his dinner plate and went and set it in the kitchen and then just went and sat in his room. Like he didn't even continue the argument.

He just got up in the middle of the argument and left. He's like, that did not go how I thought it was going to go. He was a real creature, a habit. They said that he would show up early to, start to get a jump on the day before everybody else showed up. And then as soon as everybody else showed up and everybody was there, the first thing that he did was asking him if they wanted to go down and have breakfast. So he would take like his aides and the other justices and everything and they go down and they eat

in the cafeteria. And the way that it's set up is the Supreme Court judges have like their own back dining area where they can get all their food. He didn't like that. He wanted to go out and be in the cafeteria. So he was like the one lone justice that would go out and sit among all the other people that work in there and eat. And he would always get the same thing.

He would always get scrambled eggs and toast. They said that he did that for like months on end. And then one day it was his, one of his aides that was there, they were all sitting together. And Burger goes to do his order and he says, I want to stack of hotcakes. And the guy says at this point, we thought

that Blackman was on drugs. We thought that there was something wrong with him and we immediately asked what was wrong. Wait, is this Blackman or Burger? Blackman. Okay. Was I saying Burger? I think you might have said it. No, this is all Blackman.

All of the daughter thing? Yeah. Black man had daughters. Okay, got you. Okay. So they're sitting in there. The guy asked Blackman if he's on drugs and he kind of gets this little wry smile on his face.

He goes, I'm feeling fancy today. But he basically sequestered himself and was doing so much research to write his opinion on this whole topic of Roe versus Wade. He went so far back as to look at old, uh, like Roman legislation and to look at the way that Greek people handled these types of things because there wasn't in the Constitution. You were looking for information, the same place that like the founding fathers looked for information is you would look at the documents in which democracy was based on and try to find out, hey, if they got the idea of democracy, why can I get the idea of what these cultures did in these situations too? How did they feel about body autonomy or the application of these laws? He wanted every little bit of information that he could get. He was calling back when the Supreme Court was at a session for the summer,

he actually went back to Minnesota and rented out an office in the Mayo Clinic's library of information and would have his people there bring him all sorts of different medical information, medical records and all that to take a look at. He wanted to see this from every single angle that he could to come up with the best opinion. He sounds like someone that you would want researching this stuff and making the call on it. Absolutely. Just kind of to go back a little bit.

So at this point, before the Supreme Court ruling, it was all, it wasn't federally legal or federally allowed. It was up to each state. What this is basically doing is this case is going to determine whether it is going to be federally enforced or legal. Yeah. Or just left up to the states. Okay. Yep.

So it's either going to be bumped back down to another. court or it's going to be this isn't a federal ruling, you handle it yourselves as states. So they were either going to take no opinion or they were going to take the opinion federally that it should be something that's legal. Okay. So at this point, Blackman has a really good outline of what he believes. He believes that the arguments are valid. He believes that these are things that should be taken into account when making this decision.

and he is writing an opinion kind of at this point with his notes leaning towards making, basically ruling in favor of Roe. And his aides get a little concerned at this point because they know that they're going to be replaced come next term with new presidential or new justice aides that help him out. So all of the notes and everything that he had written over the summer before he went on vacation and got done with it, they went up to his secretary and they said, hey, lock these in a box, make sure that every other helper or anything that comes in next year, because they were worried that they were going to get more Republicans in there,

they were going to say, hey, we need to not let him see this. The secretary locks it in the top drawer of his desk. So when he gets back, the first thing that he sees when he opens it up, he sees all these notes that he took over the summer to refresh himself and to build the case. So when it comes time for the re-argument, which happened, October 11th, 1972. Cases brought, basically the same thing. This time it's in front of nine judges, so it's all official at that point.

And Weddington argues the exact same case. Blackman wanted a decisive decision at this point. He knew that it was going to be close to a 5-4 ruling. He wanted to make this as big of a route as possible so that a situation potentially coming up in the future, you couldn't look at it and say this was a decisive case. where it was a 5-4 ruling, there's probably room

for more interpretation here. He wanted damn near... That's what's really sad is you think that those 5-4 cases you could argue in the... You know, you could argue in the case of... It was so close then that let's go ahead and look at it now. Mm-hmm.

Hold on, I'm about to... I feel like I'm going to sneeze. You could look towards anything that we're doing now, or not now, because now's a shit show. But a 7-2 should be like... 7-2 should be very, very, very difficult to say, let's revisit this. It's basically a clean sweep at that point.

You're so far one way that you do believe strongly. You're building the validity and strength of your case by the vote itself. Your precedent should be very high on something. It's a seven to two decision. Blackman knew that he had two dissenting judges that were going to vote dissent regardless of anything that they heard because they didn't think that it should be a federal choice, that it should be something that's handled by the state. So it should be kicked down to the lower courts for them to handle. Which I think if someone believes, I don't think there's ever a situation where someone feels so songly in the difference.

I'm sorry, the difference between federal and states' rights. I think it's religious bias. I, because I don't think you're going to get two judges that are like are so pro-state's rights that they're willing to just say no. I think, I don't think that kicks you over into the no category. I think it's got to be, and that's just my opinion. I think it's religious bias. Yeah, it's kind of tough to think. Because you could definitely see them having biases, but I could also be swayed into the belief that they believe so strongly in the way that our country is set up where states have their rights that they want them to have that choice.

Like you can be so much of not a nationalist, but more of a statist. Correct. But my thought process is this. My thought process is if you're against it, your best option is to kick it back to the states. because then they can set their own because then at least some states are going to say no whereas if you're for it you're just going to say yes

because then it can affect all states yeah um luckily being the the man that Blackman was and the orator and the way that he knew

how to read people he was able to snag one more from the dissenting side and it was I believe it was Justice Powell, where is he? Justice Powell wanted Roe to be a lead decision.

Yeah. So Justice Powell was somebody that he brought over from the dissenting side to make it a 6-2 case at that point with Berger still undecided because Berger wanted to make sure just being the man that he was and being the chief justice, he kind of wanted to make sure that he was on the side

of right. He didn't want to be the chief and be on the dissenting side. He wanted to see which way the wind was willing before he made his decision. Pretty much. So like you said, Justice Powell wanted to make sure that Roe was going to be the lead decision because it was more encompassing than the married couple, the do's. Yeah, than the Doe, the Bolton case. So they went ahead and made that the lead case that they were going to because anything that they passed with Roe

was automatically going to make anything that they could have passed with Doe, it'll cover all that animal. Correct. If it's going to cover a single woman, it's for sure going to cover a married couple. Exactly. Gotcha. So that was that plan. And one of the things, things that they did kind of run into a little bit was at what term you could call an abortion, a legal abortion. And they still talked a lot about trimesters in it, which is kind of weird because they determined that viability was going to be the dividing line between when it's legal and when it's not. And viability for the common man and something that I had to look up, I kind of knew what it was.

But it's the point in which a fetus can survive outside of the human body. body. So it can survive independently on its own, which I don't know. I think all babies are different. I'm not sure. It depends on its, you know, size development, everything like that. Don't, don't quote me. Again, this is going to be, there's going to be some, not fudging the facts, but there's going to be some gray area in our facts and everything. I want to say they said it was around like six, six months as soon as you get into that third trimester is kind of where the line of that viability, where they set that line. Okay. So into the third. trimester. I think at that

the second to third transitional point I think is where it was. The fact though that Blackman did the research like this to even determine that kind of stuff. You could tell that he had facts to support to say hey not only do we need to go ahead and

make this in the affirmative we need to set up a system in which it's just not the Wild World West it's not a free for all. We're going to go ahead and try to even though we're making this legal and federally protected, we're going to make sure that we're also

being cautious about it. It wasn't just like, yep, do whatever you want to do. Again, a woman should have the right to do whatever she wants with her body and everything like that. Absolutely. But as a person, this, you know, and as someone who has a kid, this, like, this does speak to me too when they're saying like,

you know, because you track your kid on the little app and you see what size they are and you see what development they are and then you meet your kid. And it makes you feel different. but I'm for it and the fact that there's this thing and it would just like, hey, don't do this after the second trimester's over. I'm like, I get that.

But if there's something medically, you need to be able to still do that within that time period, that third trimester. If there's something that determined medically is not viable, you still need to have that option. Well, and if a child only develops with one lung or it's not going to live long outside the womb, you have to start making those decisions.

It's that weird compromise between knowing what's right for an individual and knowing what people should have the freedom to do. But then, like, that party is just like, ah, that's a kid. Like, at what point is that a kid? It is. I think we probably have very different. Honestly, I think that, I think the vast majority of people have those two things in their head that, like, that helps them make their decision. I don't think it can be just cold and dispassionate. I think the law has to be, but.

Yeah. You have to just figure everything. out so there aren't those pockets of gray that we talk about that it's it's going to be something that could come before the court again to try to get more understanding. They're basically trying to cover all their bases. So now they don't have another case that comes up and is like, well, when is viability? Yeah. And then they're going to be battling all these different courts.

They're trying to cover as much in this as they can. Yeah. It's just they need it. They need the understanding. And as you alerted to, alluded to earlier Berger realizes that a 6-3 decision is going to put him on the losing side

and he's not going to look good. So I guess... It's going to pass and he's going to take the L even though they get the win. He wants to take the win. He's going to have to be a part of the dissenting opinion and that's not going to look great for the Chief Justice. So they say the day of, potentially the week of...

Sorry to interrupt. How often do you think that happens is these decisions are actually much closer than you think. But what it is is how many judges want to, because if you're voting in the affirmative, it almost makes it seem like it was your decision, like it was your choice.

You're the one that almost came up with it. Well, and you're the chief justice. Yeah, you're the winning side. Yep. I think there's definitely a lot of that. Yeah, how many when they know it's not going to, you know, them voting no is not going to change it? They're like, well, I don't want that loss on my record.

So I'm just going to jump on the winning side and get another W. you. Well, if everybody is in favor of this, they probably take a poll of the people, and if they know it's going to be 5-4, but they can make it 6-3 and be on the side that everybody else wants, it's going to carry more favor with people. So, Berger jumps in on the affirmative side, making the decision 7 to 2. The split for the 7 was 4 liberal justices and 3 conservative justices. So they had the majority. And that could have played a part into it, too, was before they got these. last two conservative judges, they wouldn't have had the numbers had it been seven. Yeah.

So, because you still have the four liberal judges. So it would have been four, three, it's seven. At that point, Roe versus Wade becomes the precedent

for abortion federally, and it becomes basically decriminalized. It becomes legal at that point. And going back, poor Norma, her, story doesn't end just with the case. And it is a bummer.

And I think it does play a little bit into her. But because the case did take so long, she wasn't able to get the abortion that Weddington and the other, that coffee had promised her. So she still ends up kind of taking the loss here and having her child, who I believe was put up for adoption at that point. and she felt certain feelings towards the pro-choice movement after the decision because she felt like she wanted it to be more about her

and she wanted to be the one on stage giving the speeches but she was just kind of a I don't want to say dumb I don't want to say a bad person she was just sort of fundamentally flawed she had been through a lot in her life there was a lot of trauma she wasn't well-spoken she had a ninth grade education And for her wanting to be the poster child, I get it. You were a part of the case. You were a row at this point.

But this could have been your win. This could have been your win in life. And instead, you get relegated. Yeah. And she ends up later on after that, she's working in an abortion clinic. And a pastor moves in next door to the abortion clinic, obviously, to start running into some of the pro-life. government calls it terrorism so I'm willing to call it terrorism too they moved in and her and the pastor became friends

she ended up later on becoming a born again Christian and being baptized and all that great magical stuff that happens and becomes a pro-life person and she never said that she was regretted wanting an abortion anything like that she just said basically that she wasn't treated with the respect that she believed she got from the pro-choice side. She says a, you know, she said that she felt like the case made it to, like she felt that her circumstances because her circumstances were due to, wasn't her reason that she needed the third one. It was medical, it was for a medical reason as well, wasn't it?

I think it probably played into it, but at the same time, I think it was just her level of poverty and knowing that she having another child wasn't going to be conducive to her being able to survive. She mentioned something, and again, I'm not quoting or anything like that, but it was to the effect of, I feel like it should have only been in my, not her own circumstance, but like in very rare circumstances that this should be available. And she's like, I felt like I was used to make it just something. very common and casual. So she kind of like bought into that that people are using abortion as the new contraception. Yeah. I can absolutely see that.

But then they also say that so she went like from bringing you know pro choice, pro life and then on her deathbed, this is kind of controversial. So there's been some stuff about like she came out and said that like I was actually paid a lot of money to go ahead and flip over to the pro life side. I'm not going to argue that controversy or anything like that because it takes away from this whole thing.

All I'm going to say is that you can see it from both ways because she is the poster child for this precedent. And then she comes out and says that she is actually pro-life. She's had a very rough life. And if she's presented some money, I could see that occurring. Absolutely. But again, controversy, not going to go ahead and kind of bring it into this. but getting back to essentially, yeah, there have been several, not just several, but, you know,

multiple, what am I trying to say? Like numerous. Yeah. It's not rare that there have been like domestic terror attacks on, an abortion clinic isn't even the right word. It's like, you know, we know Ms. Planned Parenthood. Yep. Women's health centers.

Yeah. These are places where The term abortion clinic makes you think that that's the only thing that goes on. At Planned Parenthood, it is something, it's a service that is given at Planned Parenthood, but at the same time there's also so much family planning that happens. That's why it's literally called Planned Parenthood. Because they help with contraceptives, they help with birth control, they go through family plans.

That's what I'm saying. It's like people call them abortion clinics. It's literally just like a medical center where you can get so much information. It's not just even. even about like what to do post-pregnancy or it's you know it's it's to prepare you for that it's to go ahead they do STD checks like if places like that were were like de-stigmatized and just came out and was like hey we offer health services for young people like you should all be doing this this should be something that everyone comes in here and is getting checked

after relationships after a one-night stand like we provide all those types of services normalize that stuff a little bit more and we're going to be a lot healthier as a society If you aren't covered by insurance and you can't go see a doctor for birth control, come see Planned Parenthood. Come help them, help you. Make sure that you're making life choices that are going to potentially prevent you from having to make a decision like an abortion. I'm having a hard time seeing that board down there.

I got it. You got it? I think I can reach it. So since 1977, there have been 41 bombings and 173 arsons that have happened. at abortion clinics, women's health clinics, just all sorts of different things. To think about that any other way, when you see like a bombing that happens in a foreign country, when you see just for example a bombing that happens in Pakistan, you immediately think terrorists because it's an active terror committed for a cause that these people are passionate about.

You're on the other side of the cause. Mm-hmm. And 173 arsons, that's 173 clinics that were burned down or burned to the point to where they weren't functionalable for what their causes were, just because these people didn't believe that they should be allowed to exist. Mm-hmm. You had 91 attempted bombings or arsons that were foiled before it happened. Thankfully, I mean, another 91 is just a startling number. in 1977, like we say, it is a long time away. But 41 bombings that happened in what?

41, it's not even just the number, man. What I'm saying is it's 41 domestic Terodox, just specifically against, like, you know, family health clinics. Yeah. Against places that provide a medical service. A legal medical service. Yep. Uh, you had 619 bomb threats, which,

that's a shitload of bomb threats that's a lot of calls that are clearing out a lot of different people. Can you imagine like when there probably wasn't, I'm guessing that there is probably some type of automated system to kind of screen a call

and kind of get it to the right place now when you call Planned Parenthood. But like early on, can you imagine when it's just some person at the front desk picking it up and it's like, you're gonna fucking burn in hell baby killer. And that was literally three

three out of every four calls. It had to be. For that number for as many times as this was happening. Hell. You were getting one call a day, at least it was this. Oh, I'm... At least.

God, I would love to talk to somebody that, like, worked front desk early on. One a day. Dude, I'm going to tell you right now, you're getting multiple, multiple, multiple times. Yeah. It's just probably at any point in time, it's still happening. It's just, it's every, everywhere. You had over 1, 260 incidences of vandalism. at these places, whether it be

windows smashed, graffiti, just any sort of vandalizing these places. And as a woman who's going in there to make a life-changing decision, and you're seeing all these people outside picketing and screaming and calling you a sinner and telling you you're going to hell, calling you a piece of shit.

How many women, you know, being that it's already, and that's why they are out there picketing is because it's not to try to go ahead and change anyone's mind that's driving by or, you know, that's working there to try to get them to change their opinion. What it is is when, you know, someone pulls up and they've made that decision and they're getting ready to go ahead and walk in to have that done. How hard is it to be like, I got to fucking walk through that? You got to walk through hell just to go in and deal with something. And be like, I'm already fucking anxious as shit.

I'm scared. I'm scared. I'm sitting here. Like, how many times did people have to go alone and everything or have to, you know, cover their heads with a coat? But they're out there just basically trying to bully. That's what it is, man. Is it's not, they're not doing.

You're not changing a law by doing it. No. You're out there. You're trying to make a decision harder for somebody, decision that you don't agree with. And so what you're trying to do is you're trying to take it under your own you know, responsibility to make a decision

physically harder for somebody. Something that will never, it won't ever affect you. You're doing this to strangers. You're not doing this because it's your sister that's getting one. You're doing this because you feel like everybody else should feel the same way that you do.

It's just, I understand. I get protests. I know what they're for, but protests are usually for something that happens where a bunch of people are out protesting in front of a Capitol or something like that, where they're showing...

Well, it's a picket line. Yeah. It's not approached it at the last point. It's them making a picket line to try not to let people in. And it's not targeted harassment. You're not... No, it is. It is because you're targeting that specific...

Oh, protests? Yeah. No. No. Yeah, the stuff of plan protected, that's definitely targeted. Yeah, it's all targeted. some of the just bad shit crazy things that happened in 1982 Hector's Valos was a doctor

who got kidnapped by a just faction of pro-life people they kidnapped him and his family and held them for ransom and luckily everybody got out with their lives at that day but since 1977 there's been at least 11 murders that have occurred in the U.S.

I guess that's since 1990. So that's even sooner. That's 11 murders that have happened since 1990. Can you imagine if a group of pro-choice people kidnapped like a fucking pro-life pastor? Yeah, it would be World War III.

Yeah. But for some reason, for the party of pro-life and for the party of wanting to bring children into the world, the fact that they murdered at least 11 people over this cause seems like it's sort of a slap in the face. There's a, no, there's an age limit for when they have to stop caring about you.

It's okay. No, no, pro-life does, it comes with the next period. You come with, you come with a countdown clock on you. Yeah. And as soon as you reach a certain age, as soon as you're popped out with as many people. It's the Carlin skit. You've seen the Carlin bit. Which one?

The one about, it's the one that's been going around so much about the government, only being pro-life up to the point when you're born. After that, they don't care because they're not into well. welfare, food stamps, head start, daycare, universal. Yep. And so they only, you're only important to them up to, they care about you as the fetus. And then up to the point you're born, then you're fucking on your own until you get to military age. It's just, if you haven't seen it just go, it's a, it's a really, really well done and pointing a bit.

That's what gets me. And I try not to let different things that I see, like really affect me emotionally when I see them. like bring that rage and anger. But they were showing people the other day that were holding signs up that says, we'll adopt your child. Oh, that's been all over, yeah. No, you fucking won't.

First of all. If you want, yeah. First of all, have you, have you seen you? No, you look creepy as fuck.

The other thing, too, is then why don't you already have one of the 400,000 foster kids that are currently in the United States right now? Yeah. No, no, no. You,

you won't. adopt that child because you would already have as many children as you were able to financially support it to this point before someone wanted to go and give you a fucking sharpie and a piece cardboard. If somebody walked up to you with an adoption contract at that time and handled it over to you and told you to sign it, you wouldn't be signing it at that time. You're holding that sign up strictly for cloud just to be an asshole. Hey, we will adopt your white baby. Yep. That's what it is. Because guess what? If you were looking in the foster system and you were just like, I want a kid now, you'd be like, I don't care what it is.

Give me a kid now because I guarantee that ain't on your fucking resume or your application or whatever it is. If you're a white Christian family that wants to spice it up a little bit and give you an Asian child or a black child or a Native American child, those are things that you see happen. Those are people that want, they don't want just any child. They want to select what race, color, child that they're going to get. And it's great. I'm not bashing anybody that adopts children. I have certain feelings about it.

But don't wait for an opportune moment to be like, oh, now it's time to adopt. Yep. Don't use your moment to fuck somebody else's normal. And the people that actually are adopting kids don't need an assign to said, we'll take your child. They're too busy adopting these kids and taking care of them already. Putting the work in. Yeah. And how many of these people understand?

That's the thing, too, is I'm, you know, stuff's hit me right now. The people that are helping, like, adoptive children and adopting the people currently in foster care, Those are probably the people that are like, yes, you do need legal abortion. We see firsthand. We've seen the system that these kids are in. We're trying to get as many kids we can't out of this system and help. But the fact that there's more and more kids getting into the system, that's not fixing it. Well, they care about every child.

So you would not be, if you were serious about adoption, I don't think you can be. I'm not saying, you know, you would have to be strictly pro-life, but you would have to be, you would have to have, you know, you've seen it. You know that there's too many kids. You've seen the end of the rainbow and it ain't pretty. Yeah. You see these kids that grow up without an identity because they have been given up for adoption and don't find a new life. You see kids that are taken off of a Native American reservation and brought to a white family where fucking nobody looks like them.

Nobody in their neighborhood looks like them. They lose everything from that reservation. They lose their entire self to the point to where they don't know. That's not your name anymore. That's not your culture anymore. And it's not going to fucking help them at all growing up because they're always going to know that they're the kid that looks different. They're going to wait till they're in their 20s and then be like,

where did I fucking come from? Like what's going on? They're going to be like, I missed a whole life of this. Like, they can even be thankful about being like, hey, thanks for taking me in and taking care of me. But like, wow, you really took all this shit out of me, didn't you? Yep. Yeah, you completely bleached me and gave me a whole new story.

And it's, it's just a bummer. One of my favorite things is, like, you know, I've seen clips. And, of course, you're always going to see what you're looking for and everything. I'm just using this as an example. But they were out at a pro-life rally. And, you know, there were signs like, you know, children are, you know, precious conception. Life begins as a conception. We'll adopt your children or adoption is the choice.

And they were like, they were like, all right. Right, so they were talking to him. They're like, so how many kids have you adopted? She's like, oh, well, I haven't adopted any kids. And they're like, but you're saying adoption as a choice. They're like, oh, yeah, she's like, that's the choice. She's like, but you've never adopted. She's like, no, I wouldn't be able to.

Yeah, it's their choice and then it's your choice. But I'm just like, oh, you're just, you don't have any idea what you're arguing about. No, no, you can fight for something up to a certain point, but until you're willing to take a step forward and I'm not trying toot our own here. Obviously, I say this a lot, like a shocking amount, but we're just two white guys that this stuff is, we're really secondarily affected, but unfortunately in the country that we live in, the majority of people that do get things done are white men. So our goal is to support, uplift, the causes that we feel are necessary. And I mean, here's the thing. You have someone in your life

that this affects. Whether it affects them, you know, seriously, minorly, if they ever need to use, you know, have abortion options, if you're not a parent yet and you have a daughter, or if you plan on having kids, maybe this affects your kids. Like, I'm not saying that you need to agree with everything, but you need to understand that you don't get to push your beliefs that are not based on facts or law on other people. their beliefs. And we're not saying

everybody that's pregnant, go ahead and get an abortion. That's not where this is. We're saying everybody that needs to have that discussion and that feels that that discussion is necessary, they should be able to have that discussion freely where there are two options. Because technically the option to carry a child is a choice. A risk in itself.

Correct. So you should have the choice to not, yeah, it's, we're going to keep coming back to this number thing. So what was the, this one? one I remember actually back in 2015. That's the one that stands out to me was that the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting. Something that it seems so recent that you just wouldn't believe that happened. A lot of these things happened in the 90s and we were younger in the 90s where you weren't quite in the news cycle. But 2017, the Colorado Planned Parenthood shooting that left three people dead and several wounded, all because of one guy.

who his last name was Dean Jr., something like that. I don't remember exactly what it was. But he felt like he was the protector of children that he had to commit this act of violence because he had to protect and save children. He had to take lives in order for other lives to be born, which is, to me, just a... Crazy?

Yeah. Yeah. There's a lot of different forms of crazy, and that's like a narcissistic crazy where you feel like it's your one goal in life to be able to make that happen. You're a fanatical zealot. So transitioning out of that, unfortunately,

this, we're standing in the middle of the shipbread. Yeah. The book still being written, it's just, it's another, there's another bad part. And it's not over. Hopefully this is a situation where we see in the future there is common sense and just a good amount of legislation that will make this happen.

But on May 2nd in 2022, there was a draft leak, which I still would be very curious to see where it came from because it just seems like a very odd time for it to drop. There was a draft leak of the overturning of Roe basically saying that they are as a court ready to overturn it. And this came as a fairly... See, I can't... Well, yeah. I wouldn't call it a surprise because it wasn't a fucking surprise. We went through a point in time where Brett Kavanaugh,

the devil's triangle, Brett Kavanaugh, went before his hearing in front of Congress and was asked if he felt that Roe versus Wade was settled law and that they wouldn't take it up here. Was Kavanaugh? Kavanaugh wasn't replacing Gens, uh, Ruth or R.B. Kavanaugh was replacing Scalia?

I want to say Scalia, but he might still be alive. Okay, so Kavanaugh is taking a seat, and then it's Amy Koning Barrett that was replacing Ginsburg. RBG. Okay. So both of these two

during their congressional hearings are, I know that Amy Koning Barrett said that, she was saying that there's precedence in support of Roe v. Wade and that she didn't see a situation in which they would be calling that into question or looking to overrule that. Kavanaugh basically, in different terminology, said the same thing and confirmed that. Because that's a question they're going to ask everybody that comes through. I believe he did use the term settled law, which now we know nothing is settled law.

So they, under questioning by Congress, stated in their, congressional, what are the, you call those appointment hearings? Yeah. That they would not be looking to overturn Roe v. Wade. Okay. That in itself right there is perjury. And I know that there's, I know that the way that they said, answered their questions, they can phrase those in a way to then come back and say,

well, I said that I didn't foresee a situation. It doesn't mean that there wasn't a situation, just that I did not foresee it. There was a new case that popped up. So. V Jackson So you So you found a way To say you wouldn't do something

But leave yourself Enough room within how you set it To say that there were extenuating circumstances It's basically like loophole perjury Is what it is You left yourself a back door You intentionally set it in a way That made sure that you could go ahead

And go back on it later Which in itself is planning to perjure Yeah And Not to die a whole lot into political leanings and all that, but these are both people who did have strong religious views and

one much stronger and crazy. You know that it's, you know that the backbone of it is religious views because look at any pro-choice rally. The majority of signs are religious based. That's how you know that it's that that's where it's, that's where

it's, you know, its teeth are. Because it says in a book that you're not supposed to do this. And does it even, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the Bible, does it say anything about, it also says in the same book, like there's orgies and like daughters hump and dads and literally God just killing entire civilizations.

Jesus sending bears down to attack and mall kids that made fun of him as he walked down the street. Yeah. All sorts of just wild stories. But it wasn't like, this for so long and politically it I mean we had a the actual ruling well it was seven to two there were three conservative justices that were on it that voted for it so at a time this wasn't a politically sticking issue until there were certain players in the Republican

party that looked towards religious people and said hey you can get on board with this and we can really do something to change the country so eventually when it was over ruled when Roe was overruled. It was June 24th. And it was on the grounds that the right to abortion was not deeply rooted in this nation's history or traditions. Okay, here's the, here's my obvious point to that. It can only abortion being recognized, safe abortion, was only able to happen when science and medicine became advanced enough to allow it to happen. So to say that it's not deeply rooted in this nation's history or traditions

would be like saying there's no more cars because cars have only been around since the 19, what, tens, 1920s? And cars aren't in the Constitution. And cars aren't in the Constitution. And this cars are not deeply rooted in this nation's history or traditions. um cigarettes cigarettes are not you know because the modern cigarette was stuff is only made available or becomes relevant when it's needed or when it's not so much needed because i guess you know abortions

for reasons for medical um medical reasons would need to be you know available or done long ago in history what i'm saying is that it wouldn't become something available to women's safely through medical professionals until essentially technology deemed it to be so. And as soon as it was, we started, we became very safe about it. Yeah. We have the technology. It is there.

Alcohol, something that's not in the Constitution, was rooted out of the Constitution. And then they realized how deeply rooted it was into the country instead of the Constitution. And then they went ahead and flipped it back. They didn't foresee that the guys that actually wrote the Constitution were heavily using it. Yeah, we have two amendments for alcohol. One of them is a no and one of them is a yes. Yeah. It's like, well, okay.

So clearly we can change things. Can you imagine one of the founding fathers, like, you pulled John Adams in? And he was like, yeah, I was reading through what you guys have done to it. They're like, you guys haven't done nearly enough. We thought you were going to add some more shit and kind of make this better. But I noticed here that there's a little blip where you guys actually got rid of alcohol. And then you guys made it legal, like, no, six years, eight years later. They're like, yeah, what happened?

And it was just a really bad decision. We were all super hungover one day and decided to write this because we didn't want anybody else to feel the pain we felt. Yeah, these things, and this is where we kind of start to talk about how these decisions need to become laws. So the case that was overturned on June 24th was Dobbs v. Jackson. And it was a case about the constitutionality of a 2019 Mississippi state law. that banned most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic, had sued Thomas E. Hobb, state official with the Mississippi State Department of Health.

In March 2018, lower courts had prevented the enforcement of the law with preliminary injunctions. The injunctions were based on the ruling of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was another case that happened, I believe that was 1994. and that had prevented states from banning abortion before fetal viability, generally within 24 weeks on the basis that a woman's choice for the abortion during that time was protected by her rights to privacy under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. So this was already something that should have been settled law because we've already litigated the shit out of this.

We already had an agreement of 7 to 2 saying that it was a woman's choice. So who was Dobbs? Dobbs was the I believe he was the state health officer Okay So yeah that's what he was Okay

So again, letting his Personal beliefs Had this case And For nothing other than Conspiracy brain kicking in this had come happening right when the time when the court was changing.

This was 2018, I don't want to say it was Kavanaugh, but I think that they knew maybe that they were going to continue to grow and get a chance at it. Do you think that during this, okay, I'm actually probably going to answer my own question because as soon as I started coming out of my mouth, I knew the answer was yes. I'm sure that there are constantly on a repeat cycle

cases being brought before state legislatures and also the national courts trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'm sure it comes about very frequently. Just when you have the same people in office, the same nine people in there, it's easy to just say, nope, this deals with this. Nope, we already, our precedence, precedence. They won't even see the case.

They won't even see the case. And so all they have to do is wait for their to, like you said, further to change to be on the horizon, and then they can start listening to these. And this one was just the one, the next one in line. And they were like, okay, this one happened in 2018 and it wasn't heard until 2022. So they had four years to play with it. Or they were just sitting on it being like, this one's really good.

Yeah. Let's go ahead and hang on to this one for a few years. As long as it can be, you know, judicially viable, like it's, you know, statute of limitations or whatnot. And since this ruling has happened, there were so many states that were on board saying that in the event of Roe versus Wade being overturned, our abortion laws will go into effect within two weeks. Oh, they've had contingencies, so you know that they've been made aware. Yeah. They're like, hey, guys, here's the date we're looking at. Go ahead and get all your stuff set up, and this is when you can plan on it happening.

Just the planning that went into this was just, there was a rat for the beginning. Yeah, it's been a long time coming. And I don't see how you don't address, like, the obvious impacts. Like, abortions aren't going to stop. because what you're basically doing is you're setting us back to like they say we're going back to before row where it goes back to the states where people are going to be doing and I'm not saying back alley to be literal but you're going to have people that are or under you know basement underground abortion clinics where they're not as safe it's it's exactly what they say it's not just a fucking saying abortions aren't going to stop safe abortions are going to stop that's what's going to stop you have companies stepping up and saying if our employees need to go ahead and go out of state for these, you know, for any of their medical decisions, we're going to go ahead and reimburse them or cover their costs. So you have states, you know, companies that are stepping up where state governments

won't step up to get their employees, you know, the medical options that they deserve and that they should have without question. The other thing too is, and this is probably something they don't give a shit about. There's been shown to be an increase in domestic violence or murder of pregnant women in areas in which abortion is not available. Because you have the abuser and the

abusee tied together by a child. You invite that opportunity for a domestic abuser to keep abusing the same person because there is a link between them. Yeah, you get people... That's the most safety issue thing ever. I know. You get

you get people who are already in, you know, a poor situation, you know, struggling financially or in abusive relationships. And you come to, you know, as a woman, you get pregnant. And how many times does that woman here get it taken care of, take care of it? You know, and I'm not raising a kid. And a woman has to go and do that by herself. But she's trapped in that relationship for whatever reasons. I'm not going to go into it. There's a lot of people in abusive relationships all across the board. But what I'm saying is that how much of a woman's ability to take care of it has led her to survive in that relationship? Because what's going to happen when she's like, I can't, like, we can't do that. He's either going to force her or she's going to feel forced into an unsafe situation or if he doesn't

want that situation and he's abusive, domestic violence is always the precursor. to murder. We've talked about that in the OJ one. That in almost every case where a boyfriend or husband murders his girlfriend or wife, there were previous instances of domestic... It didn't just go from, you know, one to 100.

There were previous instances of that. It's something like, I want to say it's 80% of domestic abusers that attack the neck and a strangulation or something like that will end up leading to murder. Yeah. Like they, that's one of those precursors

that when they see it, they know that this situation is about to get deadly very quickly. The other thing, too, is, you know, financially, we have such a big gap financially between our different classes and everything. And when people aren't provided options for family planning is exactly what it is, like, you're planning to have a family or not to have a family because you're not able to. When you have these financial hardships, it makes it much harder for you to go ahead and seek better options.

You have a child, so you end up staying in that same job that maybe isn't the best fit for you, but you're stuck in it because of certain, you can't take a little risk because it's not just you taking that risk. You can't try to take the risk to better your life, to build a better life for your children. You're pregnant, you're a year away from graduating with your degree.

Yeah. You're a year away from finishing, but you have to drop out because you have to be able to support another human. Or you get pregnant your first year in college, and you were on a scholarship. or you were planning on doing something great and you were going to go to something great and you still could go to something great, but how many people get derailed? Because they were not ready to take care of both themselves and somebody else. And what is that? And the other thing is, is don't even go, people don't even go into how that affects the kid.

What happens to a child when they're raised in a situation where they may not have been wanted or couldn't be supported? like that that causes psychological issues on a child which then grows into a psychological psychological issues in an adult this it happens man yeah like you're born into an abusive family or your parents resent you you feel resentment from your parents because your parents didn't get to go and have the life that they wanted yeah and I'm I'm saying that that's not that's not common but what I'm saying is that in those situations where we can avoid those people going through that there should be options to do so well If you're somebody rolling a back,

if you're somebody that's pissed off about other people living off the government and receiving aid, but you want these people to have as many children as they're going to have, that only perpetuates the cycle of needing assistance from the government because there's not enough to make that up. Yeah. So if you're going to be angry that people are leaching off the government. You're confusing.

You're trying to go ahead and take someone who's looking at like a section of the picture, and that's all that they can focus on. If you back out a couple feet, be like, oh, that, oh, that impacts that? Oh, you mean them having, not having reasonable access to, you know, family planning and medical care can lead to them having more kids, which in turn taxes me more because they need more assistance. Hold on a second. How did you do that? Yeah, it's like a fucking magic trick for some people. They don't, they can't see how it happened, so they just immediately believed that it was a magic trick.

That shouldn't have happened. Well, and here's the alternatives too That would never ever see the light of day Why Why isn't there anything? And I actually think that there have been legislative Or pieces of legislature put to the floor They just never made it to the public

Or have been known Vesectomies for men at 18 years old Because they are reversible Absolutely love it I'd get a vasect me today if I was allowed If the government What if the government subsidized it to? They're like, do you know how many college at, do you know how many superstar athletes we could have if before college, all the dudes just give vasectomies?

This, all right, I'm going to workshop this as I go. Okay. Do you think that there are more mothers out there than fathers? Do I think if, okay, I think I know where you're going with this. do I think are there more women? I know what you're trying to say by this. Yeah, that's where I'm not connected. Do you think there's more men who have had children with different women

than women who have had, there would have to be because... No, no, no. There's more men that have had women with different children. Had children with different women. Yes, because if you think of every family, for the most part, I'm not saying all of them. Yeah. But the traditional family would have the same man having multiple children with one woman with the same man.

But that wouldn't make you, like that wouldn't make more fathers. That would just be a one-and-one compatibility. No, no, that would, yeah, you just have one father. But if you have one guy who's impregnated three women, then you have more mothers than you do fathers. Correct. But that would mean that that guy is responsible for more children, though. Yeah. Because each woman only had one kid, whereas they're there.

that guy had three kids. If we're working the problem backwards. So there's more fathers. Then the vasectomy seems like it would be far better than women having to worry about birth. Without you even having to do that in my, that math in my head, I was already on team. Yeah. And I'm not saying that like, here's the idea. It's beneficial for everybody.

I really think it is. It can be reversed. And here's the deal. I'm not saying that there needs to be controlled. But dude, get that thing reversed when you have a good job. when you have a good car and when you're with the woman that you're going to marry. Can you imagine if that got normalized being like, hey, we're just going to go ahead and, because a woman can't get pregnant without you.

But you can definitely get a lot of different women pregnant if this thing's loaded. So we're going to go ahead and take care of this, come back and see me. And do you realize that if that was mandated, how quickly and easily? You think vasectomies are easy now, which they are, it's an in and out, frozen bag of peas, wash some NCAA. basketball and you're good to go. If it was something that was mandated, the procedure would take five minutes

and it would be the most easily reversible thing too. Could be completely invasive at some point. Oh, yeah. Just wouldn't even have to go inside you or anything. It's an outpanger procedure. They just laser part of your ball sax and they're like, guess what? We just sterilized you for the next five years. Yeah, your boys are still good.

They're still cooking, everything like that. And when it comes time to come out of dormancy, everything's going to run the exact same way. Do you even understand how big of a favor that's for a guy too? Yeah. Like. The feeling of freedom. For everybody.

Feeling of freedom sounds bad. The protection? The protection to know. No, it's everyone's comfortable. Like, if you're having consensual sex, everyone is comfortable. The girl knows that it's consensual and that she can't get pregnant. The guy knows that he can't get her pregnant. Just imagine.

It is, it's free. It feels more free. I'm not saying everyone should just go fuck willy-nilly, but everyone does it anyway. Yeah, exactly. That's what it is. Nothing stops sex from happening. You don't have to remember to put anything on

if you're drunk or anything like that. That's different because there are things that come for life from that situation. As far as STDs and things like that, it's still probably pretty important to wrap up. But at the same time, I feel like we have certain cures for, STDs and we don't. Okay, but if you're, hey, if you don't wear one, you risk pregnancy and

STDs. Yeah. So at least you get away half the risk. Yeah, exactly. And take away something that could, I hate leveraging life in terms of like financial situations, but it's not really secret to know that if you are just out slinging it one night and you do have a child, there will be repercussions beyond just having that child. Mm-hmm. That's the other thing, too, Do you like, I don't think guys have any idea, young guys have any idea what child support is. That should be, you know, along with the course in high school about like, here's how you balance your checkbook, here's all you do this. There should be a course and it should be like men's health studies. And it should be like, guys, here's the lowdown.

Here's how all your shit works. Here's how to find out in college if you have an STD. If anything feels weird, here's who you contact. it should also be something about like and I'm not trying to be like masculine or like traditional or anything but teach people how to check their own oil teach them how to change a flat tire and and teach that during women's studies as well if you want to have your own women's course yes what I'm saying is people at this point in time lack basic skills they can't change a tire themselves they can't check their own oil like that needs to be basic things if you're going to drive a car and if you're you know learn how to boil an egg all that good stuff but anyway what I'm saying is break it down to guys leave in high school and say, guys, this is your monetary commitment to a girl that you get pregnant after a one-night stand. Here you go and just show them the child support between one, ages, one, and 18.

If you want to be a good father, guess what? You're going to help support that kid after 18. And this is the minimum you're going to be providing. If you love this kid, I know. And if you love this kid, you're going to be buying this kid other stuff. So guess what? This is your minimum obligation. And this needs to also fucking follow you.

Yeah. Just because you get married and have a new family doesn't mean that that burden goes away. Oh, no, no, no, no. So, oh, there was one other thing that I kind of read and kind of pissed me off that it's not even talked about is that. So legally, a mother cannot apply for child support until after the baby is born. The law doesn't recognize the father as a parent during pregnancy. Yes, I like where we're wrong. we're going with this.

Okay. To the men who did the impregnating, the unborn baby is not legally a person. Took the law because it is not qualified for child support, the support of the father, and they can't tie it to the father. Like, imagine if as soon as you found out that you were pregnant,

that person became instantly responsible than for all of your medical bills and your checkups, because that shit I'm telling you right now, even with insurance, it's expensive. Without insurance, I can't imagine, how it's done. And you have to do it often. There's a lot of stuff that comes up.

It needs to be responsible for all of that baby stuff when they're first buying it. When you're buying the crib, the seats and everything, I'm going to tell you right now, a lot of guys would be keeping their dicks in their pants, is if from the moment of conception, when they say life begins of a child, child support fucking begins too. I'll take you one step further that's going to put all big government probably off this. If at the moment of conception, when you find out that you're pregnant, you are allowed to file a life insurance claim against your unborn child. Just in case anything were to happen to the child before it's more.

Oh, and find out how much big business, what they recognize as a life? Yeah, I'd like to know. How many of those people on the board of like freaking MetLife, those Christian people on the board of MetLife and Prudential and all the life insurance companies? when you say, oh, guess what? We're going to have to start paying a life insurance policies on unborn children. Yep. Because they're alive.

You're going to see a lot of people on those boards of directors being like, maybe we need to rethink what we consider alive is. Not to bring it to life as a bargaining chip, but if you have life insurance on an unborn child and you have a miscarriage, that needs to be paid out because that would technically be life insurance. where the trial is going to see a lot of people. You're not going to, here's the thing. You're not going to see anybody here or say anything.

You're just going to see that quietly go away. You're going to see the requirement, you know, go away because those people that are, you know, on boards of directors and everything that are pro-life, pro-life, they're going to be like, ooh, I'm not that pro-life. Yeah, we do life insurance. So if you put them in that mental pickle, of trying to figure out. You guys got to pick a different term then.

Do you guys want to be pro-life? You only get one life. You can either be pro-life or you can do life insurance. You guys pick. It's one of those lives to stay in there. Yeah, either quit your cushy job because you can't handle it or just go ahead and do the right thing. I feel like that's a big thing because if we're going to establish when life is,

we need to be able to establish when you can have life insurance. Because if it's a life as soon as it's being made, if it's a life as soon as that sperm meets us, that egg, then it should be covered under cover. And guess what needs to? And here, you know, your insurance does cover your medical insurance covers, like you going to the hospital and whatever deductibles you pay and everything like that. But yeah, like you said, if you were able to, the moment that you were able to go into

your doctor, your OBG, they could go ahead and give you proof of heartbeat. C-C'd on that proof of heartbeat email is your life insurance policy for that, for that $500,000 life insurance policy? Yeah, I wonder with what even happened here. A lot of different things happening. A lot of different things. I don't want to go down the slippery slope because I don't think it's really good for anybody's mental health. No.

We have to know after seeing this ruling, which there were so many people that said, oh, this will never happen. They said it won't ever happen. Well, now we have cause for concern because Justice Thomas went ahead and put out in his opinion that because we've looked at this and we've overturned it, we're going to be looking back at the Griswold case for contraceptives. We're going to be looking back at gay marriage. He didn't know. Oh, gay marriage. He didn't mention loving, loving Virginia. It's odd how the justice in an interracial marriage suddenly forgot about loving versus Virginia happening, which would outlaw his marriage, which I got to say, had he had the balls to step forward.

say it. Is that not like the best out that you could have for wanting a divorce? Like if you wanted a divorce and you were in that situation, though. Like any same person after what his wife is alleged to have done? I don't even, she did. Yeah.

Yeah. But yeah, can you get that that's your out right there. Just get her divorce but and the fact that you could have had this out. Yeah. But the simple fact that they're wanting to attack the delivery. And you have a elected members of Congress coming out and saying we need to get rid of the separation between church and state that the church should like influence or the church should lead the government in the state. It's just fucking bad shit crazy. And honestly, I'm confused about where we go from here. I'm sorry to women and I'm just I'm sorry for everyone. Women mostly. But, you know, I know this affects you guys, you know,

99% of it. But you do have people in your life that are supportive of you, I hope. And I hope you also, if you think that this isn't a big deal, I hope you really take a look and kind of see how this can affect the people around you. I guess that's my biggest thing. And if you don't, if you're the black sheep, you don't have a lot of those people. Just listen to us more. We're on your side.

All right. Well, loved everyone out there. for the bummer episode, but we wanted to kind of tackle this and give everyone a little bit of the backstory on it. In the way that only we know how. Yeah. High as can be. All right. Later, guys.

Peace. All right, guys. Hey, thank you so much for making it through another episode and sticking with us. If you want to kind of follow up on the next upcoming episodes, get some teasers. Adam, can they get us on the Twitter? We can get us on the Twitter. Our Twitter handle is historically high. That's historically H-I.

Nice. And on the Instagram. Our Instagram is historically high pod. That's historically high P-O-D. And what happens if your social media in that? If you have any issues where you can't figure out social media, our email is historically high podcast at gmail.com. We set up a landline.

Just in case. You guys can go ahead and shoot us any questions. comments or even maybe suggestions for future episodes, something you guys want to hear. Yeah, high thoughts, questions, anything like that. We're always open. We'll always get back to you. Hell yeah, guys. See you on the next episode.

Peace.