The Daily Signal - Mississippi Attorney General Details Abortion Case That Could Undo Roe v. Wade

Episode Date: September 22, 2021

The Supreme Court will hear arguments Dec. 1 in what some are saying is the biggest abortion-related case of the past four decades.  Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization could result in the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the returning of power to the states to set their own abortion laws, as they did prior to the high court's 1973 ruling in Roe. “I feel very confident that we're going to win,” Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch says.  Fitch, a Republican, has filed briefs with the Supreme Court asking the justices to deliver “strong clarity” on the issue of abortion in their ruling.  The high-profile case goes back to a Mississippi law passed in 2018, which restricts abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Days after the bill passed, Jackson Women's Health Organization, the state's only abortion clinic, filed a lawsuit seeking to block the law, which was enjoined by a lower court and is currently in abeyance. Fitch joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain the significance of the case and what will happen to abortion laws across the country if the court upholds Mississippi’s law.  We also cover these stories: President Joe Biden addresses the U.N. General Assembly for the first time since taking office. Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas again claims the American border is closed. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., urges the Biden administration to stop deporting the growing number of Haitian migrants arriving on the southern border. 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 Wednesday, September 22nd. I'm Doug Blair. And I'm Virginia Allen. The biggest abortion case in four decades is headed to the Supreme Court. The High Court announced Monday that they will hear oral argument for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case on December 1st. On today's show, I sit down with Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch to discuss the significance of this case and how it could overturn Roe v. And don't forget, if you're enjoying this podcast, please be sure to leave a review or a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. And now on to today's top news.

President Joe Biden addressed the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday for the first time since taking office. During his 33-minute speech, Biden addressed topics such as the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging technologies, climate change, terrorism, and nuclear proliferation. During his remarks, Biden said the U.S. has ended 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan and is now opening an air of relentless diplomacy per CBS News. We are fixing our eyes on devoting our resources of the challenges that hold the keys to our collective future. Ending this pandemic, addressing the climate crisis, managing the shifts in global power dynamics, shaping the rules of the world on vital issues like trade, cyber, and emerging technologies, and facing the threat of terrorism as it stands today. We've ended 20 years of conflict in Afghanistan, and as we close this period of relentless war,

we're opening a new era of relentless diplomacy of using the power of our development aid to invest in new ways of lifting people up around the world, of renewing and defending democracy, of proving that no matter how challenging or how complex the problems we're going to face, government by and for the people is still the best way to deliver for all of our people. The Heritage Foundation's Nile Gardner joined Fox News

after Biden's speech, saying he believes the president's remarks fell flat. I think that, you know, President Trump was in many respects a far stronger leader on the international stage. He wasn't hugely popular, but I think that when Trump spoke, the world listened. I think with Joe Biden, there was so much empty rhetoric and hot air in his address today that a lot of, you know, international leaders were tuning out with regard to his remarks today. And I think that, you know, Joe Biden, of course, you know, he prided himself in his campaign on rebranding. building America's alliances, repairing America's alliances are far weaker today than they were just a year ago. And so I do think that Biden's foreign policy has been a

monumental disaster on the international stage. In response to questioning by Senator Ron Johnson, Republican from Wisconsin, during a Tuesday Senate hearing on immigration, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas claimed that the American border is closed. Here's the exchange between Senator Johnson and Secretary Mayorkas via Grabian Media. 8 to 11,100 known gotaways, which would equate somewhere over 300,000 godaways, known godaways for the year. If you annualized these figures, spend a couple hundred thousand people per month, we'll be up to about 2.1 million apprehensions, add the getaways,

three to 400,000 to 400,000. We're up to 2.5 million people. You have repeatedly stated that our borders are not open, they're closed. Do you honestly believe that our borders are closed? Senator, I do. And let me speak to that. Majorcas's statements fall against a backdrop of increased illegal crossings at the southern border. In response to growing calls by Republican lawmakers to deal with the border crisis, The Secretary visited Del Rio, Texas, a border town that recently made national news after a number of Haitian migrants crossed into the U.S. illegally and set up camp under a bridge.

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas says he was horrified by the images of Border Patrol agents on horseback, pushing migrants back from the southern border per CNN. One cannot weaponize a horse to aggressively attack a child. That is unacceptable. That is not what our policies and our training require. Please understand. Let me be quite clear that is not acceptable. We will not tolerate mistreatment. And we will address it with full force based on the facts that we learn.

Thousands of mainly Haitian immigrants have gathered at the U.S.-Mexico border and Del Rio, Texas seeking asylum. Earlier this week, pictures and video surfaced of Border Patrol agents on horses, trying to deter migrants from entering the large encampment under the bridge on the banks of the Rio Grande River. One image in particular caught the news media's attention. A border patrol agent appeared to be whipping a migrant, but this claim has now been proven false. Law enforcement have confirmed that the strap seen in the image are really, rains and were not being used to harm migrants. Still, Majorcas says there will be an investigation

into the situation. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer urged the Biden administration to stop deporting Haitian immigrants gathered on the southern border, claiming that the policy defied common sense. Here's a portion of Majority Leader Schumer's speech on the Senate floor via Forbes. So I urge President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas to immediately put a stop to these expulsions and to end this Title 42 policy at our southern border, that we cannot continue these hateful and xenophobic Trump policies that disregard our refugee laws. We must allow asylum seekers to present their claims at our ports of entry and be afforded due process. The Biden administration began deporting some of the Haitian migrants camped out under the

Bridge in Texas earlier this week. Per the Associated Press, three flights containing migrants arrived in Haiti's capital, Porta Prince, on Sunday, with six more flights in the works for later this week. Now stay tuned for my conversation with Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, as we discuss the Dobbs case and the likelihood of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Do you have an interest in public policy? Do you want to hear lectures from some of the biggest names in American politics? The Heritage Foundation hosts webinars called Heritage Events Live. These events are free and open to the public. To find the latest heritage events and to register, visit heritage.org slash events.

It is my honor to be joined by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch. Attorney General, thank you so much for being here. Thank you. It's such a pleasure to be here with you and the opportunity to have the discussion about the upcoming case and I appreciate you having me on. Well, this is such an important conversation to be having. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Mississippi case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. This case actually goes back to Mississippi law, which was passed in 2018.

So let's talk a little bit about that law for a moment. What did it do and why was it passed? So we had great insight from our elected leaders there into legislature and then signed. by our governor, Phil Bryant. And so they had insight to having a 15-week abortion ban. And they passed it, and it percolated along, and it was stayed, you know, all the way through. Unfortunately, so when we were able to get it to the United States Supreme Court, we were delighted that we, you know, filed for cert, and then it was when it was granted.

We were thrilled that they would look at the question, is this the state's interest, which it is, or, you know, how would they go along the lines and look at the question of viability? So this case was there prior to me getting there. And when we looked at it, we were like, absolutely, we're going to do everything we can to push this case along. And, again, couldn't be any more excited when the day that it came down and said, we're taking the Mississippi, the Dobbs case is moving forward. Now, I always say now this will no longer be the Roe v. Wade case. It will be the Dobbs, Mississippi case that will be taught from here,

forward. So we're very excited, very confident about the Supreme Court hearing. The case they just announced today that they will hear oral arguments on December the 1st. That's a big deal. I saw that news come out and I know everyone's been asking when are these arguments going to take place. So now we know December 1st. So obviously all over the country, people are weighing in. They have very strong opinions on this case. For the folks of Mississippi, what are their views? I mean, this was their policy first. What do they think about this? law. Mississippians are absolutely delighted that we've been able to move this case and to get

it to the United States Supreme Court because remember, this actually goes back to state's interests. So the elected officials, the governor, assigned it into law. That's the will of the people. So for the will of all Mississippians, again, an exciting time in history for us to be able to move forward on behalf of all Mississippi. So very positive, very well received. Of course, you always have, you know, the folks that are going to be.

pushing against, but they've just not understood, you know, my job is to protect with my team, you know, the sanctity of life, preserve the dignity of all, which includes this very important case. And I'll tell you, when it came down in May, we'd been sitting there on the list from the United States Supreme Court. And, you know, it was just thrill, delight, excitement, joy when they, on a Monday morning, decided they would hear the Dobbs case. Well, and how did that happen? How did this case make its way up to the Supreme Court? What was that process? So after we had been stayed numerous times, and then we filed for a petition for

cert to the United States Supreme Court when I got there, and we were thrilled when we made it to the list, because the United States Supreme Court will keep a list of cases that they are considering taking up. And so it sat there for a number of weeks, and normally they will, on Fridays at lunch, they will say, we're taking these cases up. And so every Friday we'd get excited and nothing. And so on a Monday morning in May, they opted to take this case. So, again, we have been so excited, been very strategic about how we've been moving forward with this case.

Partners have been awesome. Again, this is a case that it's not only going to be impactful, certainly in the state of Mississippi, but for people all across our country because we're about to touch a lot of different lives through this case. be it the mothers, be at those babies, and then again, how do we have the discussion to empower them all the way through the pregnancy and then as those precious children are born? Yeah. Talk a little bit more about that, if you would, the significance of this case, because this is really the biggest abortion case to go to the Supreme Court since 1992 when the court heard Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Why is this such a big deal that they are taking this case up? Well, you have to think this has been nearly 50 years since Roe v. Wade, and different times now, for sure. And this is not a constitutional right. If you just do a strict look at the law, this is a state's right.

But what was so different back in 1973? Well, back then, you had to really make some choices between whether you'd have children or whether you might be a professional female into the working scope. But look at the medicine has changed now. Oh, it's so different than it's a different. was 1973. Women have changed the opportunity to be in so many different areas and different jobs and different perspectives. And then the men have changed. The support from the men is totally different and then certainly protecting the integrity of the medical community. So that's why we looked at it from all those different facets and said, we need to have the conversation. I'm so honored and so humble to serve as the first female attorney general for the state of Mississippi. And so as a single mom of three, I am a believer in what we are doing, while we're doing it, and an example of how we can achieve

and still have three wonderful children and still maintain and act on behalf of the state of Mississippi. Yeah, yeah, well, that's powerful. I think when anytime when you have that personal buy-in and you recognize personally, this policy is so important. That is a wonderful, wonderful thing. So thank you for your leadership. In looking at the specific case and what exactly the Supreme Court is looking at here, the Supreme Court has said what we are considering is whether all pre-viability prohibitions on abortion are unconstitutional. If you would just explain exactly what is meant by pre-viability prohibitions on abortion. So if you just take that. the question of viability. And again, as things have changed in 50 years, you can see through

medical technology and advances, you know, these unborn babies can live. They're much more viable now earlier than they were at 50 years ago when Roe was decided. But the thing you have to take into consideration, too, those were very blurry lines. They just changed depending on which court was looking at them. So you never had any strong, firm lines. And so every time, you'd get a different court and that court was set the precedent and there's really no complete understanding of viability when did it come into play and so all you have are a bunch of different courts trying to come up with this very fuzzy line which they've never been able to achieve so again you've got a bunch of laws that are just all tangled and we don't have any clear direction and when you really look at it

this whole case is about the rule of law because this is about the rule of law in each state and You know, we elect legislators, we elect governors, and it's their job to protect the interests of the people that they represent. So they must come forward and enact laws that they think are to benefit of those that they represent. They're acting in the best interest. They're creating a variety of different laws that they believe are protecting the people within their state, and particularly for us in Mississippi. And so they are accountable to the people of Mississippi, and they enact the laws. And so we shouldn't have courts in so many different muffled and tangled up ways that decide who and what and when, how an abortion should be placed. And so for us, it's all about giving it back to the states.

That's where the real rights lie. And I think this is a true argument that they will return to the states. Again, it's not a constitutional issue. It's not strictly set through the Constitution to do that. it is actually a true rule of law. So then truly how much power would be returned to the states? Would a state be able to completely ban abortion, for example, if the Supreme Court rules in Mississippi's favor in this case, or for a state that is more to the left, would they be able to open abortion up even more broadly if they wanted within their own borders? What would be the limits

of that? Well, and that's a great question. So the way the parameters would probably come down will certainly signify how each state can move forward. But if they're true state's interest laws, then they are subject to making those laws that they fit to their respective states. I think you definitely will see a variety of laws. I think you'll see certainly very conservative states that will follow suit, that will want to be protective of the unborn, protective of the mothers, protective of the medical profession. But it will certainly give those rights back to those other states as well. Yeah. And for a state like Texas, that we've seen that's just, you know, they've just filed and they've just made law that

prohibits abortion after six weeks. And we've already seen major pushback on that. How would this case potentially affect Texas? Well, it's certainly, I've gotten a number of different issues that people thought the Texas case just overrode the Mississippi case, but when in fact it did not. And for us, we're actually asking that Roe v. Wade be overturned. That Texas case, case is a different angle. And, you know, if they've certainly allowed that to go forward from the United States Supreme Court, it certainly is their state's interests that they've chosen with the six weeks, the heartbeat, and they can proceed along those lines. So I think it gives a great value and it adds to the importance of each state to be able to signify which laws represent,

they think, in the best for their, you know, the different people that live across their states. Yeah. Now, we have recently seen from the Supreme Court. some what some people are calling sort of middle rulings where the court rules and it doesn't really address the larger issue at hand. So are you confident that we're going to see the Supreme Court give a really clear and direct ruling on this case? Well, I feel very confident they were going to win. Our brief was written in such a manner. We really wanted to be very forceful, be very bold on the issues, talk about the significance, how it affected, again, the women, the children, the children, our medical profession. That was very key to us to really talk about let's protect and have

the discussion on the sanctity of life. Well, in order to do that, you have to have a holistic view. You have to talk about women and you have to talk about where they go in the future. I feel like the court was ready because in selecting our case, this gives them the opportunity to have that very thorough discussion. So I feel very good, as is my team, that this is going to be a game changer for our country, which is very exciting. That is exciting. Now, I know, like you mentioned, you filed briefs in this case. Within those briefs, what are some of those things that you are specifically asking the courts

for and asking them to consider? And are there maybe previous rulings that you are expecting that the Supreme Court will bring up and kind of use as they weigh in on their decision? Well, you know, we hit the big cases head on, the Roe v. Way, the Casey v. Planned Parenthood, because those seem to be the ones that had the most discussion and the most reference to. And again, so you have a number of different precedents all about, and some may reference cases, some may reference Roe. So to really hit it very strong and make the argument that those cases just really confuse things.

They made the conflict much worse. They never gave any complete dialogue and had a real conversation about what are the rules regarding abortion. Instead, they set these very different rules for abortion and then couldn't adhere to those rules. And so you have just time and time again no clarity. So we're asking for complete clarity. We want some direction. So how can we operate within our state? Because, again, it should be returned back to the states.

And if the states don't like what their legislature passes, well, guess what? There's accountability. You change that dynamic by going to the ballot box and you can vote those individuals out if it's not what the will the people, we don't have that when we're waiting for a variety of different courts to interpret whatever they think abortion rules are at that point. So for us, it's really looking for some strong clarity, some strong return, and really adhere to the rule of law. So let's say the Supreme Court, they hear the arguments, they make their ruling, and they rule in Mississippi's favor, and essentially Roe v. Wade is overturned. What happens the very next day?

I think some of the narrative from the left is we're going to see back alley abortions again. And it's this really kind of a grimace narrative that we hear from the left. What's the reality there? Well, I think the reality is you're going to have a lot of celebration. I think there's a great voice across our country that's really been rising up. And you see that with all the people that have been certainly providing amicus briefs on a number of different groups. I mean, 76 for our case.

that people out there were looking for a platform, looking for the opportunity to really voice support of changing Roe v. Wade and overturning it. And this is the first time we've ever gotten to that point, which is hard to believe it's been 50 years and we've really not had the discussion. So I think in the big scheme of things, the majority you'll see people are excited,

people are happy. Again, the number of lives that will be saved, the women's lives that will be changed forever in a positive way. The protection and the integrity of the medical profession will be intact. I think there's some, again, some leeway, some platforms, some opportunities that don't allow the narrative that the other side is trying to talk about, in the backroom and, you know, unhealthy, unsanitary situations. I don't think it really goes along those lines because if those are the very states that are upset about it, they can certainly be sure they put it.

great tape guards if they choose to do. So my expectation is that we're going to have some very positive celebration that goes on and it will change lives forever. Well, the U.S., we are one of only seven countries that actually permits elective abortions past 20 weeks. Yet, like we say, we're kind of hearing this narrative that sounds like it's extreme for Mississippi to ban abortions after 15 weeks. We just saw this week that nearly 900 Democrat lawmakers from 45 states sent an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, asking the court to uphold Roe. What do you make of this opposition largely from the left to really put these parameters on abortion that they're so advocating for and saying, you know, abortion should be allowed far, far beyond 15 weeks? Well, you know, they truly didn't have a basis in their argument.

There was no real grounding of what their platform is, why they think it should stay intact. There's as more of a frantic, chaotic response that basically, you know, everything will come to an end. And that's not true. And the unfortunate part is they miss the real key critical factor, children, the mothers, that things are much different. than they were 50 years ago and pull back and look, you don't have to choose from going forward with your career.

You don't have to choose an abortion over what you would like to do in your life and you can have your children and serve in whatever capacity that you want to. They never talked about women from the overall perspective. And for us, we do. We really want to talk about the empowerment of women. We want to talk about how we lift up. their children. If they're living in poverty, let's change those dynamics.

Let's change the upskilling. Let's go for the education. Because, again, you have to look at the overall comprehensive facts for these individuals as they move forward in their next step and their journey in life. And I don't feel like that the other side has taken that into account. It's very distinguishable. Their brief and ours, because we do look at all that's involved, including the medical profession.

That's excellent. Now, we've heard that the arguments are going to be heard on December 1st. How quickly could we expect a ruling then from the Supreme Court? Well, I wish I could say it would be very quickly. This is, as we said, such a change opinion that will come down. It's going to be one that will be remarkable and it will change the path forward. So I know the United States Supreme Court justice is going to put a lot of thought. There's going to be a lot of information.

that goes into this opinion. I think the earliest we might get an opinion, maybe spring or certainly by the end of June when their term ends. Now, it's obviously it's impossible to know how each individual justice will rule. Do you have any insight, there were any thoughts on maybe what we might see from the nine justices? Well, I feel very confident that we're going to get a ruling in our favor,

and I think we've got a number of justices that are just going to do the right thing, you know, that they believe in doing the right thing, that they believe in protecting children, they believe in protecting women, and they certainly believe in protecting the medical community. And they're going to look very hard at the advances in technology, the viability of these unborn children now. And they're really going to take a hard look at the sanctity of life. Yeah.

Because, again, they've not been given that opportunity. You know, even going back to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I mean, she even talked about there was just so much controversy going and so much conflict. We never got a resolution on abortion. And she even, you know, said that in many of her filings. So I think this is a great opportunity for them to all step up and really want to do the right thing and really want to preserve life. Attorney General Fitch, thank you so much for your time today. We really appreciate you being here and coming on the show. Well, thank you. It's an honor.

Thank you for having me. Such a pleasure. Thank you. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to the Daily Signal podcast. You can find the Daily Signal podcast on Google Play, Apple Podcast, Spotify, and IHeart Radio. Please be sure to leave us a review and a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and encourage others to subscribe. Thanks again for listening and we'll be back with you all tomorrow.

The Daily Signal podcast is brought to you by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation. It is executive produced by Virginia Allen and Kate Trinko, sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. For more information, please visitdailysignal.com.