Judging Freedom - Dems Abortion Fight

Episode Date: May 16, 2022

Bernie Sanders insists 'this process is NOT dead' and calls for vote on the bill 'again and again' until it sticks https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10818411/We-won-Roe-v-Wade-long-time-ago-Pelosi-says-Sanders-insists-process-NOT-dead.htm #abortion #democrats #Righttochoose #prochoiceSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. With courses available online 24-7 and monthly start dates, WGU offers maximum flexibility so you can focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu. Hi, everyone. Judge Andrew Napolitano here for Judging Freedom. Today is Monday, May 16, 2022. It's about five minutes after one on the east coast of the United States. Yesterday on the

talk shows, well, not on all of them, but on most of them, the Democrats made the round pounding, the rounds pounding the table against the draft opinion pilfered and leaked, but written by Justice Samuel Alito, which purports to represent the majority of justices on the Roe v. Wade case. You all know by now what this is all about. Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's 1973 opinion, said that the right to an abortion is protected by the privacy aspects of the Constitution because the decision to abort is a private conversation made between the mother and her physician. And therefore, the government, the states, which theretofore, up to the moment of that opinion, had regulated abortion, different regulations in, the states, which theretofore, up to the moment of that opinion,

had regulated abortion, different regulations in all 50 states, could not interfere with the abortion in the first six months of pregnancy, could only interfere in the last three months. And there were a variety of other rules imposed. None of these rules was based on science, none was based on law, none was based on history. They were made up out of thin air by Justice Harry Blackmun. That's not me. That's what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent abortion supporter, would say about Roe versus Wade years later. When Roe versus Wade was challenged in December by the state of Mississippi, the court took up the challenge. And Justice Alito, after the court took a vote and decided

to repeal Roe versus Wade, was assigned to write the opinion. And the opinion, if the final opinion is the same as the draft, basically says there is no more Roe versus Wade. It was wrong when it was decided. It's wrong today. It's up to the states. The states regulated it in 1776 when they were colonies. The states regulated it in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified. The states regulated it in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was added. the states regulated it. And in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was added, the states regulated it in 1973, when Roe versus Wade came down. Incidentally, in 1973, abortion was unlawful in 30 states, was lawful under some circumstances, rape and incest, in 16 states, and was totally lawful but with regulations for the medical procedures in four states. So the Supreme Court ruled

health care and criminal behavior have been regulated by the states and should go back to the states. Okay, that's the setup now. Here is first Speaker Nancy Pelosi and then Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. They're not happy with this draft opinion one bit. This is the first time the court has taken back a freedom that was defined by precedent and respect for privacy. This court, which is dangerous to the freedoms of a country, beware in terms of marriage equality, beware in terms of other aspects. This is a dangerous court. Nobody should think that this process is dead. We should bring those bills up again and again and again.

I mean, people cannot believe that you have a Supreme Court and Republicans who are prepared to overturn 50 years of precedence. It's strange to hear these folks complain about allowing something to be decided by a popularly elected legislature. Look, if you're like me and you believe that the fetus in the womb is a person, then all abortion is homicide, and the state cannot allow homicide under the 14th Amendment, which requires equal protection for all persons. But there probably is not enough of a consensus on the Supreme Court to come to that decision. So if you're like me and you're pro-life, then this is a step in the right direction. But for Mrs. Pelosi and her constituents and for Senator Sanders and his constituents, it's up to individual states. Mrs. Pelosi represents San Francisco. California allows abortion up to the moment of birth. Senator Sanders represents

Vermont, which will soon allow abortion up to the moment of birth. So their radical histrionics are not well taken. But to Mrs. Pelosi's point about same-sex marriage, and she was probably hinting about contraception as well, the leading privacy case in Supreme Court history, Griswold v. Connecticut, invalidates a Connecticut statute that made it a crime for pharmacists to prescribe or sell, actually, any instrument of contraception. It wasn't a crime to use because that would be impossible to enforce, but it was a crime to sell. Dr. Griswold, who was a physician at Yale Medical School, gave them away. He was prosecuted. He was convicted. The conviction was upheld. The Supreme Court overturned it and said this is absurd. The decision about using contraceptives is an intimate personal private decision beyond

the reach of the government. Somehow Mrs. Pelosi fears that by returning abortion to the states, the Supreme Court might return privacy to the states. Well, privacy is articulated not in that word, but in words that mean privacy in the Fourth Amendment. The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. I'm quoting the Fourth Amendment. Justice Brandeis characterized that as the right most valued by civilized men, the right to be let alone, the right to privacy. So I think Mrs. Pelosi and a lot of the people on the left are overblowing their objections to this opinion because they don't like it and they want to try and get the five people on the court who preliminarily signed onto it to change their minds. We'll see where it goes. This decision is not going to come down until the

very, very end of June. And I can't imagine the court changing its mind from what initially came out. Judge Napolitano for judging freedom. Resolve to earn your degree in the new year in the Bay with WGU. WGU is an online accredited university that specializes in personalized learning. With courses available 24-7 and monthly start dates, you can earn your degree on your schedule. You may even be able to graduate sooner than you think by demonstrating mastery of the material you know. Make 2025 the year you focus on your future. Learn more at wgu.edu.