Source: Politics<\/p>\n
1 00:00:00,180 –> 00:00:06,000 >> Roe versus Wade and Planned Parenthood versus Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution 2 00:00:06,000 –> 00:00:11,430 . They have no home in our history or traditions. They’ve damaged the democratic process. They poison the 3 00:00:11,430 –> 00:00:16,530 law. They’ve choked off compromise for 50 years they’ve kept this court at the center of a 4 00:00:16,530 –> 00:00:21,960 political battle that it can never resolve. And 50 years on they stand alone. 5 00:00:21,960 –> 00:00:27,270 >> Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life. This court should overrule Rowan 6 00:00:27,270 –> 00:00:33,000 Casey and uphold the state’s law. I would say if the court were not inclined to to overrule Casey 7 00:00:33,000 –> 00:00:38,550 that the choice would be undue burden standard untethered from any bright line viability rule 8 00:00:38,550 –> 00:00:44,100 . But hasn’t to that issue in the last 30 years is the line. 9 00:00:44,910 –> 00:00:50,760 >> That Casey drew a viability. There has been some difference 10 00:00:50,760 –> 00:00:56,670 of opinion with respect to undue burden but 11 00:00:56,670 –> 00:01:02,400 the right of a woman to choose the 12 00:01:02,400 –> 00:01:09,210 right to control her own body has been clearly set for. Since 13 00:01:09,210 –> 00:01:16,170 Casey and never challenged. Will this institution survive 14 00:01:16,170 –> 00:01:22,320 the stench. That this creates. In the public perception 15 00:01:22,320 –> 00:01:27,840 . That. The Constitution. And its 16 00:01:27,840 –> 00:01:31,720 reading. Are just political acts. 17 00:01:31,920 –> 00:01:36,580 >> If people actually believe that it’s all political. How will we survive. 18 00:01:36,600 –> 00:01:42,210 >> How will the courts survive both Rowland Casey emphasized the burdens of parenting forced parenting 19 00:01:42,210 –> 00:01:47,550 forced motherhood would hinder women’s access to the workplace and to equal opportunities. It’s 20 00:01:47,550 –> 00:01:53,310 also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why 21 00:01:53,310 –> 00:01:55,770 don’t the safe haven laws take care of that problem. 22 00:01:55,770 –> 00:02:00,900 >> It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is without question an 23 00:02:00,900 –> 00:02:05,850 infringement on bodily autonomy which we have another context like vaccines. 24 00:02:05,850 –> 00:02:11,070 >> History tells a somewhat different story I think that is sometimes assumed. Think about some of 25 00:02:11,070 –> 00:02:16,740 the most important cases the most consequential cases in this court’s history. 26 00:02:16,740 –> 00:02:22,220 There is a string of them. Where the cases overruled precedent. 27 00:02:22,220 –> 00:02:27,330 And if the court had done that in those cases in 28 00:02:27,330 –> 00:02:33,300 this country would be a much different place. If we think that 29 00:02:33,300 –> 00:02:38,100 the prior precedents are seriously wrong if that. 30 00:02:39,030 –> 00:02:44,330 >> Y then doesn’t the history of this Court’s practice with respect to those cases tell 31 00:02:44,330 –> 00:02:49,770 us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality and 32 00:02:49,770 –> 00:02:55,260 and not stick with those precedents in the same way that all those other cases 33 00:02:55,260 –> 00:02:55,650 didn’t.\n <\/p>\n