The Daily Signal - #463: Will Alabama Take Down Roe v. Wade?

Episode Date: May 15, 2019

Alabama is set for a legal showdown after passing a law that bans abortion. In this episode, Thomas Jipping unpacks what could come next and analyzes the prospects of overturning Roe v. Wade. Plus: Rachel talks to Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood clinic director, about how abortion workers are leaving the industry because of the movie "Unplanned."We also cover these stories:--Missouri and Louisiana race to follow Alabama by advancing similar restrictions on abortion.--President Trump unveils his new immigration plan, which emphasizes skills over family ties.--President Trump rebuffs claims that his White House is heading for war with Iran.-The SAT will start giving students an "adversity score," raising concerns about how merit is measured in standardized testing.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, May 17th. I'm Rachel Del Judas in for Kate Trinko. And I'm Daniel Davis. Alabama is setting up for a legal showdown after passing a law that bans abortion. We'll talk to Tom Jipping of the Heritage Foundation to unpack what comes next and to assess the prospects of overturning Roe versus Wade. Plus, Rachel talks to Abby Johnson, a former Planned Parenthood director who is now a pro-life activist about the success of the movie unplanned. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news.

Well, other states are following Alabama's lead in passing stricter abortion laws. Just hours after Alabama's governor signed a law banning abortion almost completely, the Missouri Senate passed a bill to ban abortions after eight weeks. Republicans hold both chambers in the Missouri legislature, and Governor Mike Parsons, also a Republican, has voiced support. for the bill. Meanwhile, in Louisiana, state lawmakers advanced a heartbeat bill, which would ban abortion as soon as a heartbeat is detected, which is as early as six weeks. And in Louisiana, it's actually a bipartisan effort. The state's Democratic governor, John Bell Edwards, said he'd signed the bill if it reaches his desk. The bill is being sponsored by Democratic State Senator John Milkovich, who said, we believe children are a gift from God. Once a heartbeat is detected, the baby can't be killed.

Well, President Trump's new immigration plan is hot off the press as released Thursday, and his plan seeks to reform the U.S. immigration system from a family-based immigration system to an employment and skill-based system. We want to change the composition of who's coming through, a senior administration official said. CNBC reported. The newly unveiled immigration plan, according to CNBC, includes two parts. Border wall construction to be paid for by new fees placed on trade crossing the border and reform point system for those applying for U.S. citizenship.

Well, media coverage might suggest that the U.S. and Iran are headed for an armed conflict, but President Trump is disputing that notion. The president suggested that he wants talks with Iran and that there's no infighting on the issue within the White House. On Wednesday, he tweeted, quote, The fake news Washington Post and even more fake news New York Times are writing stories that there is infighting with respect to my strong policy in the Middle East. There's no infighting whatsoever. different opinions are expressed, and I make a decisive and final decision.

It is a very simple process. All sides, views, and policies are covered. I'm sure that Iran will want to talk soon, end quote. The president's comments come days after the U.S. sent a task force of bombers and navy ships to the Persian Gulf region after intelligence reports showed an imminent Iranian threat to U.S. interests. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the intelligence came in the form of photographs of missiles on small boats in the Persian Gulf, which Iranian paramilitary forces had loaded.

That report cited three unnamed U.S. officials. The U.S. Commerce Department is cracking down on Chinese technology companies announcing Wednesday, according to Reuters, that it is adding Huawei technologies and 70 of its affiliates to its so-called entity list, a move that bans the telecom giant from buying parts and components from U.S. companies without U.S. government approval. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said President Donald Trump supports the decision and that it will, quote, prevent American technology from being used by foreign-owned entities in ways that could potentially undermine U.S. national security or foreign policy interests. Huawei is a state-sponsored corporation in China so the Chinese government can legally gain access to all of its data.

That makes Huawei's activity abroad a national security threat. Well, the SATs have long measured academic merit alone, but a new plan to add a, quote, adversity score could muddy the waters. According to the Wall Street Journal, the college board, which administers the SAT, will now assign an adversity score to each student who takes the test, measuring the student's socioeconomic background as a factor for colleges to consider. The score will be calculated using 15 factors from the student's high school and neighborhood, including the crime rate and poverty levels. Students won't be told their own scores, but the colleges will. Critics, though, are expressing concern that this could be a Trojan

horse for identity politics to obscure merit. Well, up next we'll top to Tom Jipping of the Heritage Foundation about Alabama's law banning abortion. Do you own an Amazon Echo? You can now get the Daily Signal podcast every day as part of your daily Alexa Flash briefing. It's easy to do. Just open your Amazon Alexa app, go to settings, and select Flash Briefing. From there, you can search for the Daily Signal podcast and add it to your Flash briefing so you can stay up to date with the top news of the day that the liberal media isn't covering. All right, we have Tom Jipping now back in the studio. He's the deputy director of the Edwin Meese, the Third Center,

for legal and judicial studies here at the Heritage Foundation. Tom, thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me back. So we've all seen these news reports of a big bill passed in Alabama. It virtually bans all abortions with the exception to save the life of the mother. It's getting a lot of press. Can you unpack what the bill does and how it differs from some other similar legislation like the heartbeat bills that we've seen in other states.

Well, it looks like state laws restricting abortion are getting bolder than they used to be in terms of just banning abortion at different points or for different reasons. Heartbeat bills, like in Georgia, that would ban abortion after a heartbeat is detectable. That's something like six, seven, eight weeks. You've heard of the pain-capable kind of bans,

which are when an unborn child can feel pain. That's about 20 weeks. The Alabama law bans abortion period with only a couple of very narrow exceptions. And those exceptions do not include rape or incest. And they would impose very high prison terms on abortionists. So this particular law, I think, is just a flat out almost total ban and is for one reason only from the legislator's point of view. and that is to hopefully get a case challenging that law to the Supreme Court

and give the Supreme Court an opportunity to reconsider its previous abortion decision in Roe v. Wade. So how likely is it? Do you think we're going to see this come up at the Supreme Court? Well, the strategies to try to overturn Roe versus Wade have been going on literally since it was decided 46 years ago. and there are very smart litigators in the pro-life movement who think continually about, you know, what kind of strategy to use. I think people need to understand what the road from here to the Supreme Court looks like. Yes. Because, you know, you get the impression from the media or from abortion advocates that, you know, tomorrow morning the Supreme Court could decide, well, we want to ban abortion today. So we'll just look at that Alabama case.

The fact is, so Alabama passed this law, it will certainly be challenged in the United States District Court. That decision will be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. That decision will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court does not have to take any case. They get 8,000 appeals a year. They decide 75 cases. So, you know, right there you've got several different, it's like planets that have to line up in exactly the right way. that process takes a couple of years under any circumstances, and the chances of any case getting to the Supreme Court are very, very slim.

You add to that whether this is the kind of abortion case that is likely to get to the Supreme Court and present the court with the kind of issue that we're talking about, and it gets even dicier. I want to get to that in a second, but we saw a similar case in Mississippi. They passed a very strict per-life law, and that got struck down. pretty soon. Should we expect this one to be struck down by a federal judge? And if so, at what point? In the near future? The Alabama law, as I understand it, doesn't even go into effect for six months. And it's almost as if the legislators anticipated that it would be at least put on hold. The ACLU is already have a challenge prepared. That law will be at least enjoined,

demeaning put on hold or struck down very quickly. There's no doubt about that. As far as strategy goes for people who are pro-life and are very involved in the movement, we've been talking, we were talking before the show how the Supreme Court, that's just one avenue to go about this. What are some other ways that you see is just as efficacious? Well, in addition to, as we were talking about a minute ago, understanding what the road to the Supreme Court actually looks like, not what the fiction tells you. We got to remember, too, let's not put too many eggs in the Supreme Court's basket. Whether we have a culture and a society that respects human life is not going to be determined by the Supreme Court.

Roe v. Wade didn't create a culture of death, so to speak, and overturning Roe v. Wade is not going to create a culture of life. So while the lawyers are splitting hairs and charting strategy and trying to think, you know, it's like you're playing chess. and you want to think 15 moves ahead of yourself or something. While they're doing that, pro-life people can do many other things. There are other state laws, for example, that have very widespread consensus that can limit abortion. But I'll tell you something, after 46 years of being told that abortion is a constitutional right, you would think that more and more of the country would be in favor of abortion and would be against abortion restrictions.

But they're not. The amazing thing is that after almost half a century of relentless propaganda, more people today consider themselves pro-life than when Roe v. Wade was decided. And, you know, the vast majority of Americans oppose the vast majority of abortions. That didn't happen because of litigation or the Supreme Court or, you know, brainiac legal arguments or anything like that. So all of those things that contributed to that, that's what we've got to keep on doing. Well, obviously, abortion was a major issue in both of the Supreme Court nominations, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. I mean, we saw that in the protests.

Just your thoughts, I know you don't want to, you know, prognosticate too much, but if this case were to eventually make it to the Supreme Court, given the current composition of it, what do you think the chances are of Roe v. Wade being overturned? Well, you know, first of all, one of the most misleading parts of both of those confirmation processes in the last couple of years have been about how the Supreme Court goes about doing its work. You know, most people were led to believe that, you know, A, the Supreme Court just decides itself what issues it wants to act on. And second, that all judges decide cases on the basis of their personal views instead of the law. Neither one of those things is true.

So we've got to first, hopefully learn from the debates on the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh nominations to understand better how the Supreme Court actually does its work. Should a case, it's not just any abortion case getting to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's had a couple of dozen abortion cases over these last 46 years. They've covered a lot of ground in this abortion area. and so it's got to be the kind of case that not only presents the court with an opportunity to reconsider whether Roe v. Wade is a good precedent, but it's almost got to make it impossible for the Supreme Court to avoid that issue, right? And boy, I don't know. That's a tough call as to what that case might be and how to start it with a state statute so that two, three years down the road it ends up in the lap of the Supreme Court. So what are your thoughts on whether Gorsuch-Cavanaugh Roberts would go for overturning Ruby Wade? I do think it's hazardous to predict a specific outcome in an individual case.

I do think that there are five justices on the Supreme Court that take a traditional view of the Constitution and how to interpret it. And therefore, they would be open to the idea that a decision that was so. manifestly wrong that so badly and misinterpreted the Constitution doesn't belong in the precedence of the court. I mean, it distorted the Constitution, and we ought to want to move closer to being true to the Constitution. So I do think there's five justices who are open to that, but there's so many variables as to when you have a decision like Rovers's way that's been around for so long.

that's where things start to divide as to whether you can just toss out a precedent because you don't think it was correct. The Supreme Court does have several criteria that it uses. In fact, it used it just a few days ago. It used those criteria to overturn a precedent. And it applies those kind of criteria to see whether a decision, which was wrongly decided should stay or go. It's not automatic. It's not a foregone conclusion. But I do think, as I say, I do think we do have five justices who are open to considering that because they do take a proper traditional approach to interpreting the Constitution. But isn't it interesting, though, that it's really the five conservatives who have that respect for precedent, right? Because, I mean, really the liberal justices, whenever they really care about an issue, it's sort of to heck with the precedent.

That's where Rudy Wade was. In a way, but I think that's another issue that I think was kind of misrepresented during the last couple of confirmation hearings. Every judge on every federal court respects precedent. They all do. They all understand every single one. They all understand that prior decisions on similar issues matter. That a judge is not free to just do it over again on a blank slate.

every single day he goes to work. But of course, then there are nuances. There are differences on some of the finer issues. But there's no justice anywhere, not Justice Scalia, not Justice Thomas, who is just, you know, ready to toss every precedent that they criticize out the window. So it's not every precedent, but there are certain select issues like marriage, like abortion, where it seems, I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but to me it seems that maybe in general they respect precedent, but on these particular issues, they just kind of go with their gut.

Well, as I said, it's a combination of both the criteria that the Supreme Court does use. And I should say, when it comes to constitutional cases, that is cases that involve an interpretation of the Constitution, the Supreme Court traditionally is more open to reconsidering its past decisions for a very practical reason. There's no other way to correct mistakes. If the court misinterprets a statute, Congress can pass a new statute. But if the Supreme Court misinterprets the Constitution, either the court has to change its mind or there's got to be a constitutional amendment. I mean, there's no other options. So traditionally, the court is more open to reconsidering past decisions that involve constitutional issues. So, you know, that's,

the traditional way that the court looks at these issues. Unfortunately, politics does enter the mix in a couple of ways. I mean, number one, the kind of cases that get to the Supreme Court. And also, I think more on the liberal side than the conservative side, but, you know, there's some personal politics going on, too. They don't want to see a precedent go because they like it, you know, and they don't want to get rid of it for that reason. But we really have to hope that that a majority of the Supreme Court embraces the integrity of the Constitution more than any specific decision and any specific issue. The Supreme Court is not supposed to mess with the Constitution and make things up the way they did in Roe v. Wade no matter what the issue is. And that is more important than any specific issue in any particular case.

Well, Tom Jiving, we always appreciate your expertise. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having me. Well, up next, Rachel talks to Abby Johnson about how abortion workers are leaving the industry because of the movie unplanned. Are you looking for quick conservative policy solutions to current issues? Sign up for Heritage's weekly newsletter, The Agenda. In the agenda, you will learn what issues Heritage Scholars on Capitol Hill are working on, what position conservatives are taking, and links to our in-depth research.

The agenda also provides information on important events happening here at Heritage that you can watch online, as well as media interviews from our experts. Sign up for the agenda on heritage.org today. We're joined on the Daily Signal podcast today by Abby Johnson. She's a former Planned Parenthood employee who had a change of heart and is now a pro-life advocate. Abby, thank you so much for joining us today. Yeah, of course. Thanks for having me. So your story was recently made into a film called Unplanned, which has seen incredibly successful results at the box office, exceeded expectations. how would you characterize the success of the film? I mean, honestly, it's been a little, I guess it was even surprising to me because, I mean, you just don't know.

You know, you put out something like this. You don't know how successful it's going to be. Are people going to go watch it? Are they going to tell their friends about it, especially a film that's, you know, specifically about abortion? But it's done so well, exceedingly well. And people have really been moved by it. They've been touched by it. We've seen lives saved because of it and lots of conversions taking place.

So it's been pretty amazing. You mentioned the live saved and the conversions. And I remember seeing you posted, I think, on your Facebook page that at one point, and I'm not sure if this is still the case, but you said that there were one and two people leaving clinic workers leaving their clinics per day after seeing this film. Is that still the case? And how has that been attributed to unplanned? Yeah, for a while we were really experiencing just an overwhelming amount of workers contacting us.

Since the film is out of theaters now, that slowed down a little bit. But, yeah, I mean, we're now over 500 workers who have come through, and then there were none. So many have come through after viewing the film, watching the film. And a lot of them going in, you know, as a critic to see, you know, what this is. was all about and and then finding truth in it and saying, you know, I don't want to do this anymore either. So it's been amazing

just to see the fruit and to see all these people's lives change for the better. That's incredible. You mentioned that some of them are going in as critics. Have any of them mentioned to you other than wanting to go in as a critic? Like anything that intrigued them to the film? Like

why they were kind of, I'm sure, in some cases definitely going against their own beliefs to step out and see this film. Yeah, I mean, some of them went, they have told us that some of them went in as groups, like a group of workers from the clinic that went together. Some of them went individually, didn't want anyone to know who they were, didn't want anyone to know that they were going to see the film that sort of went in secretly. So it's been sort of different, I mean, different stories there.

But yeah, they definitely were instructed not to see the film by Planned Parenthood. And I think that that, it's just sort of like that do not push like that big red button. You know, and you're like, why don't you want me to see this? What's in it that you don't want me to see? And so I think that was enough to intrigue a lot of people to go and watch it. Well, that's bizarre. So Planned Parenthood essentially like almost encouraged indirectly their people to see this movie. That's amazing.

Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Wow. Have any of them mentioned, was there a particular scene that they say impacted them to the point of eventually precipitating their choice to leave? Or, I mean, something, a discussion they had afterwards or a scene in the film, was there anything? or is there a common theme that clinic workers have said really was the turning point for them in the film? I mean, definitely the ultrasound guided abortion. You know, a lot of them have seen that themselves.

And so, you know, it's sort of different to remove yourself from what you do every day and to look at it sort of as an outsider. And I think that's what they were forced to do. And then to see, then to hear how everyone else in the theater is impacted by. that scene. One of the gals that contacted said, I just, I heard everyone gasping. And I thought to myself, oh, my gosh, this really isn't normal.

And, you know, what I'm doing every day, this isn't normal. I've been trained to believe that it is, but it's not. And so I think, I think the reactions of other people really, it was very powerful for them to hear that. And I think definitely the, we've heard that the RU46 abortion scene, my abortion scene with the medication abortion was very impactful for them because a lot of them, you know, they're hearing stories of women who are coming back and saying, this is not what you told me, what happened. This was terrible. So for them to actually see what these women are going through and how they haven't been honest with them. and they've just sort of been spouting the company talking points,

but not really hearing what these women are going through. Those two scenes, I think, were some of the most impactful for them. Wow, that's incredible. Is there a, I don't know, a favorite story you've heard so far of maybe one or two clinic workers that have left that you could even share anonymously, you know, someone who's come forward and saw the film and has just been completely changed? any particular story that stands out among the hundreds that have left? There was a man that contacted us.

He went to go see the film. He was driving a truck for stair cycle. And there's a scene at the end of the film where the guy from the, you know, biohazard medical waste company comes out with these barrels of aborted babies. He had just started working there. And there was a Planned Parenthood clinic on his route. And he said, I just, I never realized what I was actually picking up. I thought I was just picking up needles and things like that.

But I went and looked up and they actually are an abortion clinic. And so inside of these bags that I'm toting out, I'm realizing that there are aborted babies in these bags. And I'm driving around with them. And he was like, how can I participate in this? I have to get out of it. And he really took just, I mean, he had just gotten this job. been unemployed for months. And he said, I can't do this anymore. I cannot, I can't be complicit. I have to walk away. And he took this huge leaf of faith, trusted our ministry,

left. And, you know, I love that story because it just shows how abortion affects so many people, not even people that are just in the clinic, but, you know, this stair cycle driver, you know, abortion affects so many and it's so far reaching. But I just love the faith that he had that, you know, We were going to help him. We were going to take care of him. We were going to help him find another job. And he took that big step. And now he's on to something so much better that he can actually feel good about.

Wow. That is absolutely beautiful. For listeners who aren't familiar, can you just share briefly about what and then the word none does and the outreach that you guys do to so many people across the country? We help doctors, nurses, ancillary staff, anyone who's involved in the abortion industry. we help them transition out of their jobs and into different lines of work, life-affirming work. We do provide transitional financial help for them because we don't want them to stay.

We don't want them to feel like they have to stay until they've found another job. You know, once they realize I want out of here, we want them to go ahead and leave. We have HR professionals that will write resumes for them, help them with interviewing techniques. We have headhunters who work with us that can help them find new jobs. We have licensed professional therapists that work with us that help them, you know, manage the trauma or any healing that they might need after they leave. So it's really, well, and we also have attorneys. We have over 3,000 attorneys that are located in every state that are willing to work with our employees.

And so what has happened is a lot of times the workers leave, and they will say, well, I know something that was going on, that was illegal. We get them in contact with an attorney. And because of that, we've helped to close down 21 abortion facilities because of the work of these pro-life attorneys coupled with the stories and the experiences that these workers have whenever they leave. That's incredible. If listeners want to get involved by supporting you guys or if a clinic worker is listening or know someone who might want to reach out for support. where would you ask them to go to? Yep, they can go to abortion worker.com.

Awesome. Abby, thank you so much for joining us today. Of course. Thank you. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratching your head? If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. And that's going to do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast,

brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. Robin Virginia will see you on Monday. You've been listening to the Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.