Bash wondered if the SCOTUS "is about to overturn" the decision. Klobuchar said she hoped not, but said the decision to let the law stand (for now, anyway) was "unbelievable." In the past, she said,
when they had cases that were so blatantly against Roe v Wade, they would stay those cases when such requests came up. They did it with another Texas law. They did it in 2015. They did it in 2019. And so here you have them, this year, this week, basically telling women in Texas that 85% of them seeking abortion services cannot exercise their constitutional rights... They did at midnight with just less than 72 hours of debate, in Justice Kagan's words, and basically green-lighted a law that is blatantly against Roe v Wade.
Klobuchar believes that a Congressional solution is an answer, and she's glad that the House is going to codify Roe. In the Senate, they can't get to 60 votes, though. So, the senator said,
I believe we should abolish the filibuster. I do not believe an archaic rule should be used to allow us... to use Justice Sotomayor's words, to put our heads in the sand, and not take action on the important issues, the challenges that are facing our country right now.... We just will get nowhere if we keep this filibuster in place.
Klobuchar s in favor of requiring a standing filibuster, so the Rs must at least work to fight things that are unpopular with most Americans. She's also in favor of carveouts for constitutional issues (e.g., abortion and voting). And,
I think, "what is the best way to get to a result that's the right policy, that's consistent with where the American people are, that will not wreak havoc in this country?" And, to me, the best thing is to get rid of the filibuster. But (expanding the Court) is an option, and President Biden has a commission in place right now that is considering it.
Finally, on the potential retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer, Bash wondered where Klobuchar stood.
I believe, if he is seriously considering retirement -- and he has said he would do it based on not only his own health, but also the future of the court -- if this decision doesn't cry out for that, I don't know what does.
In the Face the Nation classroom, guest host Weijia Jiang spoke with Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX), about the shenanigans. Jiang wondered what the Congresswoman heard from constituents; "shocked, horrified, outraged" were three words she used. She pointed to the two "very awful" consequences of the law: incentivizing "bounty hunters," noting it was "incredible that we live in a state that is willing to incentivize that." The other "real-life" and "deadly consequences" are worse.
...what this law and other laws like it will do is simply make it deadlier, more dangerous. Women are going to take their health into their own hands. It will impact young women, poor women, and women of color. And I am really afraid of the lives that will be lost as a result.
Jiang asked about the outsourcing of enforcement to private citizens. Escobar said she doesn't think we really understand the consequences, and gave an example.
If, for example, I had a young daughter who was the victim of a sexual assault, and I was taking my young daughter to a clinic. Her assault-- the person who perpetrated the assault could take me to court incentivized by that $10,000. And let's say that my young daughter was not pregnant. There was no abortion involved. But I still had to defend myself in court. I can't even recover legal fees. There are layers upon layers upon layers of injustices written into this law, intended to really send the most severe chilling effect on women and women's reproductive rights in the state of Texas.
As to Jiang's question on how she can find common ground with the 41% of Texans who oppose abortion rights. She said it's "very hard to find common ground." We need to "do more for young women and men" - sex education, access to contraceptives, legal protections for women and the like.
Instead, what we are seeing is an elimination of those things... It's a very backward way of addressing what is a concern. But that's why I say there's no law that you can create that will eliminate abortion. All that's happening is you're eliminating safe, legal abortion, causing women significant harm.
Down the hall, George Stephanopoulos talked with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Not a Fan of Planned Parenthood) in the This Week classroom. Cassidy said he's pro-life, and he made a point that the others did not about the SCOTUS ruling
It had nothing to do with the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. It was only on if the plaintiffs had standing. People are using it to gin up their base to distract from the disastrous policies in Afghanistan, and maybe for fundraising appeals. I wish we would focus on issues as opposed to -- as opposed to theater. It was about if they had standing, nothing to do with constitutionality. I think we should move on to other issues.
George wanted to stay on topic, particularly the part about how the law "actually tasks private citizens with enforcing this law,", which "conservatives should hate," according to the Wall Street Journal. He asked Cassidy what he thought about that.
I think the Supreme Court will swat it away once it comes to them in an appropriate manner. If it is as terrible as people say it is, it will be destroyed by the Supreme Court. But to act like this is an assault upon Roe v. Wade is, again, something the president is doing I think to distract from his other issues. And it is clearly not an assault upon the -- by the way, I'm pro-life. But just to say, the facts are this is about standing, about nothing else. And the Supreme Court will decide how to affect standing before all these other things play out.
And George then asked, "you don't think it signals the Court is prepared to undo Roe v. Wade now?"
You know, so, we can always talk about eventualities. We can always talk theoreticals. It makes good fodder. But I’m kind of a guy who’s in the middle of a state in which 700,000 people don't have electricity, in which we’ve got a disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the administration is pushing a $3.5 trillion bill which will be to inflation what the withdrawal was to Afghanistan. Now, if you -- you know, in my mind, I don’t think about theoreticals. I think about those things that are before me and that’s what I focused on.
I'm going to give the last word on this to former Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) who was on the panel today.
But what this has done is ignited a political debate for the first time because for generations after generations, since Roe v. Wade, women have accepted that this is settled law. For the first time we've seen an earthquake among the activists, among people who were concerned about reproductive rights saying this could happen. Now all of a sudden we are at a spot where this could happen. And I think the reason why you saw Senator Cassidy duck this issue it's politically very dangerous for the Republican Party to have to explain to a suburban mother why her daughter who was raped, you know, three months ago no longer has a choice. And so I think that politically the reason why you don't see the Republicans talking about this as a major pro-life victory is because politically it's extraordinarily dangerous and it has dominated the discussion in a week that should have been pretty good for the Republicans.
I hope that's not too theoretical for Cassidy and the rest of the GOP.
See you around campus.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for sharing your thoughts!