Skip to main content

tv   Landmark Cases Landmark Cases - Roe v. Wade  CSPAN  August 7, 2018 8:15pm-9:51pm EDT

8:15 pm
don't. some states are in between. they never executed anyone. that abortion could go the same way. the court could step back and say this was a mistake, we will leave it up to states to decide this question. some states would restrict abortion, some would ban abortion, others would -- many states would allow exactly what we have now, women can have a right to abortion and there is no restrictions at all. >> for those who want to read your reporting, they can find your work at l.a. times.com. david savage, thank you very much. >> all persons having business before the honorable, the
8:16 pm
supreme court of the united states, are admonished to give their attention. announcer: "landmark cases," exploring the constitutional dramas between several supreme court decisions. >> number 759. chief justice burger: we will hear arguments for number 18, roe v. wade. >> quite often in many of our most famous decisions, the court took quite unpopular cases. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in this society of 310 million different people who help stick together because they believe in the rule of law.
8:17 pm
host: good evening, and welcome to c-span's "landmark cases." tonight, the 12th and final in our history series, the 1973 roe v. wade decision, a decision that continues to rock the american political landscape. we will learn more about that in the next 90 minutes, but, first, we are going to start with a "cbs evening news" report on the night of the decision was announced. thus, the antiabortion laws of 46 states were rendered unconstitutional. >> to raise the dignity of woman and give her the freedom of choice is an extraordinary event. >> i think that the judgment of the court will do a great deal to tear down the respect previously accorded human life in our culture.
8:18 pm
host: the debate which began that day continues. we are going to learn more about the history of this case, what led to the court making the decision, and some of its effects on this society. melissa murray teaches law at the university of california at berkeley. she is faculty director and berkeley law school research center on reproductive rights. welcome to our series. clarke forsythe wrote the book on roe v. wade. his day job is as senior counsel for americans united for life. thanks for being with us. let's start with a very brief overview on why this is a landmark case and what the constitutional issues were. ms. murray: obviously, it's a very controversial decision. the decision decriminalized abortions throughout the united states. heretofore, most of the states in the united states made abortion and crime, meaning that any woman wishing to terminate her pregnancy would have to go
8:19 pm
to a state that permitted it or leave the country entirely. the fact that the court made a sweeping decision was an amazing thing in 1973. it was sweeping in its scope and sweeping in its view of the democratic process and what was happening on the ground, the court feeling it needed to intervene. mr. forsythe: it was a sweeping decision insofar that it swept away all laws on abortion and created a public health vacuum. there were no abortion laws left on the books. it also suggested finality. "the new york times" came out and said the court has settled the issue, and the irony is it did nothing like settle the issue. for 42 years, it's been an engine of controversy, as a number of scholars have said. it was a sweeping decision. it isolated the u.s. as one of
8:20 pm
only four nations of 195 across the globe that allowed abortion for any reason after fetal viability, and it has not settled the issue at all. host: these programs have been interesting because of your participation. if you are new to the series, we have a twitter feed. if you are wanting to join us on twitter, use #landmarkcases. there is a robust discussion underway on our facebook page. you will see the video there, and you can join that commentary. finally, we have two phone lines divided geographically, and we will put the phone numbers up for the next 15 minutes or so. let's do the historical context of the 1960's and 1970's and what was happening in this country societally with regard to abortion legislation, the women's rights movement, and the backdrop for the court taking this on. ms. murray: it was kind of a perfect storm of different
8:21 pm
events. you had the women's rights movement gathering steam, the idea of women taking a more public role in society. there was also a strong movement within the criminal law to decriminalize areas of intimate life that individuals felt the government had no business intruding into. the american law institute got involved with their penal code project, which prohibited consensual sex, prohibited adultery, and abortion was one of the topics it took on. there was an effort to liberalize abortion laws. host: i'm going to put this map on screen to show states where it was legal, the limited number, four states where it was legal. can you talk about the state legislatures and their approaches to this question?
8:22 pm
mr. forsythe: up until 1967 or so, virtually every state except for two or three or four prohibited abortion except in the life of the mother. in some ways, they limited it. no state allowed abortion to the extent the supreme court allowed it in 1973. in 1967, four about four years, there were four years of state legislative session in which the states started to enact exceptions to the traditional prohibition. in 1970, that legislative reform seemingly comes to an end. in 1971 and 1972, no state legalized abortion by legislation, so the reform effort seemed to come to an end after the four years. host: why was that?
8:23 pm
mr. forsythe: well, i think it was because opposition in public opinion and in social reform movements had grown between 1967 and 1970, and in 1971 and 1972, abortion activists recognized they didn't win anything in the state legislatures. host: our producers put together a video that tries to capture the women's rights movement of that time. we are going to look at that, just over a minute long, and we will come back and talk about what is happening in society. [video clip] >> join us now! >> the majority of women are working at low-paying job,
8:24 pm
almost in a dead and professionally. [indiscernible] >> very happy housewife and happy mother, and i feel i have so many things to do with my daughter. >> a concern for all women. all women face the problem. it's a problem for childbearing, sterilization, and limited access to contraception. >> we are sisters. free ourselves! host: for the young people in our audience who have been watching this series, high school and college -- we tried to capture what was happening. ms. murray: what's interesting is the scope of it. you see a generational shift, women who for years have taken on a traditional feminine role,
8:25 pm
wife, mother. betty friedan who rallied against the traditional role. then younger women were clamoring for more options, more options in employment, more options in education, and understood reproductive control as central to their opportunities. host: what can you add to our knowledge about the time period? mr. forsythe: the history of the feminist movement and the leaders came late to the push for abortion. the push for abortion started in the 1950's from doctors and the population control movement organizations that wanted abortion for population control. rockefeller was a big funder of population control in the 1950's and 1960's. the feminist leaders did not come on board until 1968, 1969. they were late to the so-called abortion reform movement, but of course, when they came on, they
8:26 pm
certainly pushed the issue very hard in the early 1970's. host: what was happening in congress at this time regarding these issues? mr. forsythe: population control was a big national issue. even richard nixon, who was elected president in 1968, six months after he became president in july of 1969, gives a speech about population control, and he appoints a national commission, which happens to come out with a report endorsing population -- abortion for population control. in march of 1972, justice blackman is writing the first draft of his opinion in roe v. wade. host: we are going to move to the woman who brought this case to the supreme court. you were talking about the 50 states. this was a texas law.
8:27 pm
would you explain the texas law that was contested? mr. forsythe: the texas law was one of the 30 or 40 that had prohibited abortion. although there had been debate in the texas legislature, texas retained its traditional prohibition up until the time the case was filed. host: the case has the name roe v. wade, but roe is a pseudonym. ms. murray: jane roe was norma jean mccorvey. she was a young woman married to a man who was some years older. she was already a mother of two children when she found herself pregnant. the marriage was troubled, often abusive, and she sought to terminate her pregnancy. she wasn't able to in texas. she passed the point of viability, and she tried to say she had been the victim of a rape. there was no police report
8:28 pm
documenting that. she wasn't able to take advantage of the loophole in the texas law that permitted abortion in limited cases. she found herself going to henry mccluskey, an adoption lawyer in texas, to make arrangements for an adoption. mccluskey was friends with a woman who was thinking of filing a case that was in need of a dallas-based plaintiff. mccluskey informed norma jean, and the rest is history. host: norma mccorvey is described as a dallas carnival worker. she herself, it was said years later that she had no understanding of the legal system and thought this case could be settled in time for her to get permission to have the abortion. of course, courts don't work that quickly. how did she proceed in the legal system, and would you walk us through the process?
8:29 pm
mr. forsythe: this case was actually one of 20 that were in the courts, but in this case, she got pregnant in the summer of 1969. she gave birth at about the time her case was in federal court, sometime in january or march of 1970. she was connected with her co-counsel. the two of them filed a case in march of 1970, and as quickly as a couple months later, i think it was june of 1970, they had an oral argument before the three-judge district court in dallas. by october, they were heading off to the supreme court. there was no intermediate appellate review because three-judge district courts could go straight to the supreme court.
8:30 pm
this is one of the points, one of the ironies about roe vs. wade. there was no factual record. all of the details we might play out about norma mccorvey's life were not in the opinion. there was no trial. there were no expert witnesses. there was no presentation of evidence. so in the decision written by justice blackmun, you get only the bare bones that she was a single woman who was not married and got pregnant and sought an abortion. then the decision is so sweeping that her particular factual circumstances are not really significant to the outcome of the decision. that is part of how roe vs. wade is different from all of the other cases you have discussed. when you think of maranda or marbury, those are very factual-laden decisions, and the courts go through the facts in a great deal of detail.
8:31 pm
there was no fact or trial in this case. that isolates it and highlights it as an unusual decision. host: who was wade? ms. murray: henry wade was the prosecutor, interestingly one of -- interestingly vying for one of the judges on the three-judge panel, and sarah hughes was famously the woman aboard air force one in 1963. he was the prosecutor, and by all accounts, a fair-minded man, a good prosecutor who found himself in the middle of a maelstrom. host: would you talk about the ruling by the three-judge federal panel? on what grounds did they rule in the case? ms. murray: the district court ruling is actually quite interesting. there's a lot of discussion of
8:32 pm
privacy, but also quite a lot of discussion about the ninth amendment, which is known in legal circles as the forgotten ninth amendment. the idea is that not all rights in the constitution are enumerated. the job was not to be exhaustive. there are other rights that might be divined, and the ninth amendment speaks to that. that panel talked about the ninth amendment being a source of rights for rights like this one, the right to have an abortion, and there was discussion about the right to privacy that would be defined through judicial interpretation in 1965. host: was it at all significant in the federal review that she claimed she had been raped? mr. forsythe: it was not. the allegation of rape was not in the federal district court opinion. it was not in the supreme court's decision. so the fact that she later recounted is really not relevant
8:33 pm
to the decision or the future of the decision, because the courts themselves did not rely upon the allegation in making their decision. that is what is problematic about roe vs. wade, that it was decided on a motion to dismiss. there was no trial, no expert. it wasn't decided through the normal course of the adversary process. that lays the foundation for the problems that i think we've seen over the last four decades. host: on twitter, in response to snow leopard, when they ask the question, when a case is determine on testimony -- on facts that were not true, in this case, it's not a valid allegation. can you answer that question for the viewer? ms. murray: i think it is omitting the fact that she claimed she had been raped in order to gain access to abortion suggests how difficult it was for women to get this kind of reproductive care at the time.
8:34 pm
so i'm sure she was not alone in claiming that she had dire circumstances, whether it was rape or her life was in peril, in order to gain access to that kind of procedure. lots of women were doing it at the time. host: what more can you tell us about sarah weddington? how old was she, first of all? mr. forsythe: she had then a couple of years out of law school. this was her first contested case. certainly, you have to hand it to her to jump into a major federal court case like this, or one that becomes a major federal court case, and to take that to the supreme court, argue it twice, and win. it's an amazing first effort by a law student or young lawyer coming out of law school. this is one of 20 or 22 cases that were in the courts.
8:35 pm
you might have had an amy smith or mary jones who got up to the supreme court, but the court happened to take these two cases instead of the 18 or 20 others. host: we have to talk about the second case, which is a bit confusing. you have something you want to say about sarah weddington. ms. murray: the issue of abortion is actually quite personal. while a law student, she found herself unexpectedly pregnant. she and her future husband went to mexico to get an abortion, because she couldn't secure one in texas. she felt these issues in a personal way. i think that informed her decision to take on this case, even though she was only a few years out of the university of texas. host: would you talk about the second case, which is a georgia case called doe. mr. forsythe: doe vs. bolton, an unmarried woman who was using a pseudonym revealed her identity years later as sandra cano.
8:36 pm
similarly, they were challenging the georgia statute. the georgia statute was different because the georgia statute was a recently enacted law called a reform law that had enacted various exceptions into the georgia law, so it allowed abortion to save the life of the mother, but it also allowed abortion for rape, for indications of "fetal deformity," for "mental health reasons," and those three exceptions were enacted into the georgia law in 1968. it was a very recent law, and it hadn't been in effect long enough to tell what happened, but in doe vs. bolton, that case was decided without any trial, any expert testimony, and was also decided on motions to dismiss, and again, went straight to the supreme court without appellate review. host: we will learn that the
8:37 pm
supreme court heard arguments in tandem, roe and doe, and they meant for the decisions to be read as a conjoined decision, correct? ms. murray: correct. host: the case bears the name of roe. ms. murray: roe became the lead decision. it is also worth noting that the law at issue in doe was one of those reforms, as clarke said, a reform inspired by a penal code. it marks the tension. by the time the statute in doe was promulgated, there was an idea that this was only making a modest impact for women who wanted to terminate their pregnancies, and that a repeal was needed. host: our last case was chief justice earl warren, in this case involves a new court. we are going to learn a little bit more about the dynamics on
8:38 pm
that court in a couple minutes, but i want to take some telephone calls and get in this question from courtney on twitter, who says, what do you think would've been different if there were experts? mr. forsythe: well, it would've provided the opportunity for them to explore what data existed with respect to abortion, what had perhaps happened, what had been the medical experience, the sociological experience, the impact on women and unborn children under texas' law or under the georgia law. the court in the doe vs. bolton case had no data or information about how the reform law, georgia law with the exceptions have been implemented, the impact of the hospitalization requirement in georgia, for example. so all of the assertions of sociology and history and
8:39 pm
psychology in the roe vs. wade and doe vs. bolton opinions are based on assumptions, not derived from the adversary process we normally expect of courts in making good decisions. host: do you think there would've been a difference if there had been testimony? ms. murray: i think there would've been a difference. you would've had more of the social context at the time. there would have been discussion of the german measles crisis, which prompted many women to try to seek abortions to prevent birth defects. there was a drug that came around in the 1960's that caused birth defects. there would've been more discussion about women who were locked out of abortions. i think that would've been part of the record and could've made for a more fulsome discussion. host: let's take our first phone call. hi, josh. what is your question?
8:40 pm
>> i've got two quick questions. does the trimester framework still apply in abortion restrictions today, or was that overturned when justice o'connor talked about the point of viability? my second question is, do you think that the justices believed that this was a good compromise, considering that warren burger joined the majority opinion? host: thanks. we are going to save the second question, because we are about to talk about warren burger. does the trimester standard still law? mr. forsythe: in planned parenthood vs. casey in 1992, the court completely overhauled roe vs. wade. they abandoned the original rationale for roe. they adopted a new rationale and kind of abandoned the trimester and turned it into a bimester, meaning that before viability, there are certain standards, and
8:41 pm
after viability. but there is no trimester. it is now bimester with viability a dividing line. host: next is a call from terry in palo alto, california. welcome. >> thank you. i am really interested. the first clip showed the context as being feminist and civil rights introduction to the abortion-rights discussion, and i'm wondering, if going forward, if the case would be more fairly considered on civil rights terms rather than where it seems to be going in terms of trap laws and so forth if the woman and her doctor being asserted as the people with just standing, might be compared to a man and his
8:42 pm
doctor, having the right to make equally momentous decisions, if the guest might comment? host: thank you very much. ms. murray: i think you have presaged a line of argument that justice ruth bader ginsburg offered in the 1980's. she famously criticized roe vs. wade reliance on the privacy doctrine and said the decision would've been better housed as a sex discrimination decision, we should have thought about abortion and access to abortion as equal to women's equal citizenship, rather than cloaking it in the guise of privacy and that would've addressed at the core issues at the heart of it, which were in eclipse by the privacy framework. host: but that route would fairly admit that roe vs. wade was wrongly decided, and the original rationale was wrong,
8:43 pm
and it would simply ignore a major state interest that the court has said exists. that is the states have an interest in maternal health, but they also have an interest in the life of the unborn child. so that would simply ignore one major state interest that the court has recognized since 1973, admit that roe was wrongly decided. host: tom larkin makes this comment, the fact they have to use pseudonyms showed how difficult society treated them, comment any comments for him on that? was the doe case a pseudonym? >> yes. host: next up is dave in tallahasse. -- tulsa. >> thank you for another great series. my question is, did the court at any point discuss when does life begin? i would like to know with both of your guests, when do they believe that life begins?
8:44 pm
mr. forsythe: well, the court did address it in roe vs. wade, but they did it in a rather dismissive way. there were no facts, no trial, no evidence. they didn't have evidence about fetal development in the record, but the attorneys who argued in roe and doe did address that, but not for the record. the court basically dismisses it and says, we, in the majority opinion, we are very familiar with the facts of fetal development, but then, as they decide the unborn child is not a person under the constitution and not entitled to constitutional protection. host: any more on that answer? richard in st. petersburg, florida? >> yes, they said person who did not exist prenatally. at 8 1/2 months, you're not a person. we've had lots of bigotry through our society.
8:45 pm
do native americans have souls? hopefully, one day, we will outgrow such stuff. if anyone were to submit a paper to a science journal claiming there was doubt that a fertilized egg of a gorilla, whether or not it represented a new individual gorilla, they would be laughed to scorn around the block. i would like to ask our gentleman about his important point about the lack of factual record in the case. in the case before congress a few years ago -- at least there was the opportunity to have a factual record. one of the things thrown out by the anti-life side, you do not have to worry, because the anastasia has already killed
8:46 pm
the baby. the president of the american college of the theology said you -- anesthesiologists said you are endangering women and babies in the country for doing necessary other things the anesthesia procedures telling them that that would kill the baby. these lies have long tentacles. host: response? mr. forsythe: it brings up a lot of points. certainly, we have learned a lot more about fetal development. one of the interesting things about the original decision and the arguments, you can hear the arguments on oea.org, and read transcripts of the original decisions. the word ultrasound never appeared in the original opinions or arguments, or
8:47 pm
briefs, because it only came on the commercial market in the u.s. a few years after the decisions. that has changed public opinion. is thatnd observation in the court's most recent decision, which we eventually majority opinion does recognize perhaps more specifically than in previous decisions that pregnancy involves a living human organism. that is perhaps the most expressive the court has been in 42 years. >> the opinions acknowledge the fact that medical knowledge was at a certain state and continued to evolve. >> well-versed, and various medical procedures. in between the different arguments, he went back to
8:48 pm
minnesota for the summer and spent much of the summer in the library researching abortion, researching the history and procedures. has a time, his opinion very long decision of medical history. medical technology was not nearly as advanced as it is today. the fetal monitoring, the procedures were unheard of. the idea that we would have robust knowledge of feet taller g and neonatology wasn't something and -- at the time. dynamics of the burger court? >> a very different chief justice than warren. he had been a d.c. circuit judge before being appointed to the court. he was a lifelong friend of harry blackmun. he was his best man.
8:49 pm
it was burger who suggested harry blackmun as a nominee for the circuit when a vacancy appeared. he was a champion of harry black and. when black enjoined the court -- one blackmun joined the court, he expressed they would be of single mind. they called them the minnesota twins. over time, there was a fisher in their relationship. there'd judicial policies -- lives, their their friendship was really in tatters. strainrt itself felt the of that tension on burger was famously idiosyncratic, in terms of his love of celebration, pomp and circumstance. that often wore on some of the members. >> when the court was prepared to hear this case the first time, it didn't have its full membership? can you talk about why? >> the court takes the case in
8:50 pm
april of 1971. that originally took the cases not to decide the abortion issue. it was to decide younger versus harris, and its application. there was the question of whether civil rights attorneys could take cases from state court pending state criminal prosecutions from state court into federal court. that general scenario applied in roe and doe. they took these cases to decide whether it applied and knocked them out of court. a decisive moment comes in september of 1971 when justice black and justice harlan retire within the space of a week due to health. black guys the next week, harlan does at the end of 1971. that reduces the number of justices from nine to seven. if flips the balance of the court, it empowers a temporary majority of four justices to decide the cases.
8:51 pm
any temporary majority can decide cases. for 15 weeks, between september of 1971 and january of 1972, there are 15 weeks there when the four wanted to side is many cases as they want, as they can, and they wanted to side roe v. wade. they saw these two cases and the decide that it is an opportunity to use them to declare a right to abortion with abortion laws. they want to do it before vacancies can be filled. although they are not able to do it on that timeframe, they created such momentum that by the time pal and rehnquist came, it is primus decided and the -- the cases are pretty much decided, and the question is how they will be written. melissa: even if they have seven, chief justice burger has a small committee. it will screen the cases that
8:52 pm
are available to the argument. to basically pick up the ones that will be easy cases that they can decide with seven justices. to take out the controversial cases and only focus on the ones that will be uncontroversial. blackmun writes that they misjudged roe v. wade. they thought it would be a straightforward application. in fact, it is a much more controversial issue and harry blackmun says we really bubbled that. host: the court considered roe v. wade, abortion laws would criminalize all abortions except those required a medical advice to save the life of the mother violates the constitution. second, does the 14th amendment due process clause, including the right to obtain an abortion? third, are there any circumstances where a state may enact laws prohibiting abortion? did the fact that pregnancy was
8:53 pm
her by the supreme court render her lawsuit moot? we will listen to some of the first oral arguments with 26-year-old sarah redington and texas assistant attorney from december 13, 1971. >> regardless of the circumstances of conception, whether she was extremely immature, she has no relief. so a pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. it disrupts her body, it disrupts her education, it disrupts her employment and disrupts her entire family line. we feel that, because of the impacts on the woman, or any rights that are fundamental, it is a matter which is of such fundamental and basic concern to the woman involved that she should be allowed to make the choice as to whether to continue
8:54 pm
or to terminate her pregnancy. >> there is nothing in the united states constitution concerning birth, contraception , or abortion. the appellee does not disagree with the appellate's, that the woman has a choice. as we have previously mentioned, we feel that this choice is the woman's, prior to the time that she becomes pregnant. host: some of our goals here is to understand the people involved in these cases. i have written a number of descriptions of the case and how it was presented. peter irons suggest that the justices were frustrated by the end of this argument because the attorneys did not give them constitutional reasoning for their arguments. can you add more to our understanding of what happened in the courtroom in that day? clark: because they took these cases to decide younger versus
8:55 pm
harris, the first arguments -- and again, listeners can hear the arguments and hear the transcripts, it is best to listen to the arguments and read the transcripts so you don't miss anything. the first arguments are mostly consumed with questions about jurisdiction and procedure. questions like, who has standing, is it moot, who should've brought these cases, should they have gone to the court of appeals first? there are very few substantive questions and answers until the very end. i think at the end of the first argument, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs sums it up. we appeal to the privacy of the ninth and 14th amendments. it kind of ends in a rush like that. the first arguments are consumed with procedure.
8:56 pm
host: or marketing you tell us about these two attorneys as they argue before the court? melissa: part of what is going on here is a question of constitutional avenues. one of the things the parties focused on was whether the texas law was they are at there is was vague. there is for a little discussion about it. there is some misogynistic moments when jake lloyd, who is arguing for the state of texas notes that these two pretty young ladies are sure to get the last word. he plays this for a laugh and it failed miserably. he is greeted with stony silence. it looks like to justice hornberger is about to come down and discipline lloyd himself. clark: i understand that attorney general actually play
8:57 pm
that tape for the classes and students as to how not to argue a supreme court justice. melissa: never do this. host: john on twitter said how could an attorney. a sexist joke -- attorney possibly have thought a sexist joke was a good way to start an oral argument, was he the best they had? clark: obviously not, they replaced him with another attorney for the second argument. he starts out with a bad joke and argument goes down from there. host: from what we know about the conference process, a lot of frustration developed among the justice. tell us the story of what you know about what happened there. melissa: one big question was, which case would actually lead? blackmun thought doe was the one that had less consensus. there was broad consensus that the statute in roe was
8:58 pm
unconstitutional, but mostly for reasons of unconstitutional vagueness. william o douglas, who was the most senior justice in the liberal wing of the court felt that, because there was no consensus on doe that there was a obligation to assign that the opinion should've been hit. -- should have been his. warm burger did not see it that way. he assigned harry blackmun to write this opinion. blackmun went off to write. what he wrote was quite fair. only 17 pages, most of it dealing with the judicial ability issues. only three pages dealing with the actual merit. that was met like a lead balloon with the other members who felt it unsatisfying. host: he exploded with rage over the assigning of the opinion,
8:59 pm
and also the thought of rehearing the case, what can you add to our knowledge of these justices and what happens behind closed doors? clark: i think it is important to understand that when berger replaced girl -- earl warren, the liberals on the court cannot -- could not stand berger. nixon had campaigned against the war in court, he appoints berger and sell berger is received with a great deal of trepidation and skepticism at the supreme court. this is only his second or third term on the court. and they are very skeptical of him. so his assignment of opinions was viewed with skepticism. douglas did doubt his integrity. after, in january, when
9:00 pm
powell and rehnquist joined the court, burger makes a motion is reallye case argued -- reargued. and douglas and brennan are very skeptical about this because they think it will slip the balance a result instead of a 4-3 decision, a 5-4 decision against abortion rights. and then, that crisis renews in may and june when justice blackmun distributes his first draft. to again, the motion is made argue the case is again in the fall. and the justices explode, especially justice douglas. he writes a scathing dissent that he wants to issue, before to issue before the end of the to issue before the end of the term condemning berger , for allowing the manipulation of the court. he holds that dissent, but its links into the press and is on
9:01 pm
the front page of "the washington post" on the fourth of july weekend. it gets him a front page of the "new york times" the next day. it raises tension within the court. they agree to reargue and it is re-argued in october of 1972. host: there was a presidential election going on. as we try to teach people about the court, the court always positioned itself as being distant from the political process. but in case after case in this series, we have learned that there are influences about politics that really do underway -- that really do find their way into the court in its , proceedings. melissa: in this case, the election dominates the landscape and the backdrop in which the court is doing all of this. nixon is an interesting figure because he actually is in favor of liberalizing abortion access at one point during his career. but then as he takes on the much , more liberal mcgovern, he begins to play up his own antiabortion leanings and elaborates those, and his stance
9:02 pm
on crime also becomes more articulated. it was anti-mcgovern and, it works. he defeats mcgovern and a landslide. the court speculated, and i think there is strong evidence for, burger delays releasing be opinion in roe versus wade until after the election, and indeed after nixon is inaugurated. so this is released on generally on january 20 2, 1973, -- on january 22 just after the nixon , 1973, inauguration. host: there was a decision delayed because of a presidential inauguration. we will listen to more of the second oral argument. there is a new attorney representing the state of texas. attorney general robert flowers. you know anything about him that is important for people to know? clark: he was assistant attorney general who did a better job.
9:03 pm
but still the arguments are , horrible and limited by the fact that there is no trial, there is no record, there are no evidentiary proceedings. so the justices asked the attorneys about substance and about history, and about abortion. they have no basis for answering. in the jay floyd argument and so robert flowers argument, there are lots of when the -- lots of times when the attorneys say, i don't know. it is because they have no factual record of their answer. host: let's listen. it is october 11, 1972. >> under the federal constitution, the person for the purpose of protection of due -process clause. >> all of the cases, the prior history of the statue, the common-law history would indicate it is not. >> would you lose your case if the fetus was a person? >> then you would have a balancing of interests.
9:04 pm
>> you will be balancing the rights of the mother against the rights of the fetus. >> it seems to me that you do not balance constitutional rights of one person against the mayor statutory rights of another. >> but it is the position of the state of texas that upon consent we have a human being, a present -- human being, a person within the concept of the constitution of the united states. is it not true, or is it true that the medical profession is not an agreement as to when life begins? >> i think that is true, sir. but from the layman standpoint, medically speaking, we would say that at the moment of conception from the chromosome, every potential that anybody in this room has is present from the moment of conception. >> and you speaking of potential of life. >> yes sir. >> with which everyone can agree, perhaps?
9:05 pm
on the seventh day, i think the heart starts beating. host: what is different about the second time around? melissa: the judicial ability issues. also, more of these lower court cases about abortion i have trickled up. one of the things weddington speaks about at the beginning and it -- at the beginning of her argument was a connecticut case. a connecticut district court judge had stepped down antiabortion statutes on the ground that it violates the right to privacy. fundamental constitutional rights are discussed as well as the ninth amendment. there is more constitutional grist for the mail as opposed to , the one that happened in 1971. host: we will hear next from harry blackmun himself from being an conference and what it was like to be assigned the opinion in this case. let's listen to a comment from herbert in chicago. caller: i have a couple of questions, or points. any of the decisions by any of the judges talk about when life begins in the decision?
9:06 pm
also, where there any friends of the court briefs filed on behalf of the unborn child? i will hang up and listen to your response. thank you. we did take the first one before, but would you answer it for him again? clark: the justices, only in passing, talk about their familiarity with fetal development. briefsre were amicus that represented pictures of fetal development and prenatal life. in fact, the attorneys argued it. sarah weddington and the texas attorneys in roe versus wade, but there are the arguments of transcripts in doe v. bolton. dorothy, who was the assistant general for georgia, argued old -- argued both rounds of
9:07 pm
arguments. she is regularly touted to be t of all thelis attorneys in both cases, in both rounds of arguments. to the hear and listen argument online. she made arguments about the constitutionality, but also about fetal development and a very strong element in support of the georgia statute. up is marvin in los angeles. hello, marvin. caller: i want to ask the question, is roe v. wade established law, or is there any case that comes through the lower court system that could overturn roe v. wade? one of the issues in the current presidential campaign is, if you vote for candidate x, or candidate y, the supreme court might be changed by voting for that particular person who might appoint certain justices. so is it established, is it safe, or is there a case coming might overturn it?
9:08 pm
melissa: is it safe is a different question. it is established law. you could have a decision that completely overrules roe v. wade, and we have certainly seen the court overruled cases they believe were incorrectly decided in recent years. i think the more likely thing to happen that my in danger roe's legacy would be a sort of intermittent chipping away, which we have seen over time. the idea of a complete overruling my be remote with the idea that there might be incremental restrictions on the force of the decision. it might be something to think about. >> would there be a legislative response? clark: the states are often regulating to protect maternal health and fetal life. that creates the cases that come and into the courts. isould add that roe
9:09 pm
in kc.led the original opinion in roe v. wade has been superseded by the opinion for planned parenthood versus casey in 1992. a completely new rationale. roe is completely unsettled. the justice could revisit roe v. wade. they will not do so in the short term, in any case. perhaps the caller was also eluting to the fact that, by the time of the next presidential enough duration, for justices will be on the verge. the next president may affect the future of the supreme court for justices will be 18 years old or on the verge of 80. so the next president may affect or80 years old
9:10 pm
on the verge of 80. the next president may affect the future of the supreme court for the next quarter century. melissa: it is an overstatement to say roe is to prompt. it affirmed the essence. the basic core of roe survive kc, even as other aspects of abortion come out. host: the court ruled 7-2. i want to ask you how we got to that vote, but let's listen to keith in minnesota. hello, keith. caller: there has been talks in all the discussions about the rights of the unborn and the rights of the mother. has there ever been discussion about paternal rights? host: you're shaking your head yes. ,elissa: not necessarily in roe but in other cases. there is a question of a missouri law that requires women to get the consent of her husband. both of those provisions are invalidated by the court in those cases. other supreme court cases deal with paternal rights.
9:11 pm
isthe same time that roe percolating in the court, there is a 1970 case called family versus illinois, which considered the rights of unmarried fathers. those decisions interact that are not necessarily understood. host: let's listen to justice harry blackmun about writing this opinion. then we will come back to our guests to talk about how he got six other justices to sign on. justice blackmun: i think at the conference, after the first argument, the chief justice sent sensed thestice sensitiveness of the argument, and the issue, and i think probably preferred not to assign it to himself as he could have. there were personal reasons
9:12 pm
also, for family reasons i think. you go to douglas, i think you wanted the case, but i don't think he misunderstood this comment on my part. he was in the waning years of his service. he was not writing as well as he did in prior years and would have treated the case rather peremptorily. was the only roman catholic at the court. i think it resulted in his sustaining a lot of abuse, and indeed he got a lot of it, even though he didn't write it. i think he was firm in his view. and one could go down the same way with thurgood marshall. he was the only black on the the , only african-american at the
9:13 pm
time on the court. i think it would be hard in a -- hard and a little unfair. host: interesting backstage dynamics explained by the justice at the heart of all of this. what did you learn there? melissa: i think it is great to think about the different personalities and how that affected the way the decision was assigned. i think justice blackmun really wanted to write his opinion. he deeply invested after the first oral argument he spent writing an initial draft when there was a motion for reargument. he worried that after all of that investment, he would not be the one to actually write the opinion, that it would be given to another justice who had just adjoined the court, maybe powell or rehnquist. i think he protested little too much. there were reasons for the others not to write it, but there were reasons he wanted to write it. host: i would like to flip the bill with the four questions and go through them.
9:14 pm
now that we know the outcome, the 7-2 decision, and see how they were decided by the court. i would like to pull up the bill with the four questions and go through them. what would you like to say about the dynamics? clark it was an unusual time at : the court. and it was a unique time at the end. there were the two vacancies at the time. there was a lot of turmoil within the court that created a crisis within the court at a number of points. what is interesting is that, when justice powell and justice rehnquist joined the court, a think they had created something momentum that they could not have reverse the momentum if they wanted to. but at the end of the day, justice powell joined, and then at the very end chief justice iturger joint, and switched from a 6-3 decision to a
9:15 pm
seven-two decision. host: here are the questions. abortion laws that criminalize all abortions except those requiring medical advice to save the life of the mother. the court said yes. the 14th amendment due process doesthe 14th amendment due process law protects a right to privacy, including the right to obtain an abortion? yes. did the fact that roe's did the fact that roe's pregnancy was our determining a naturally in the court said no. naturally, and the court said no. how many pages long in total? melissa: 50. host: the right to privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th amendment -- a woman's toision whether or not
9:16 pm
terminate her pregnancy. the detriment the state would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying the choice is altogether apparent. i find nothing in the language or history -- a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and invests that right with sufficient substance to overturn most existing state abortion statutes. the court that day, we learned that justice blackmun invited his wife to the court. : it was not completely out of the ordinary. host: what do we know about the dynamics in the courtroom that day.
9:17 pm
melissa: we know that justice powell sent a note to dottie blackmun saying that should be very saying that she should be very proud of her husband. powell was one of the newest justices. he joined with william rehnquist. he was kind of a wildcard. blackmun was very glad when he endorsed roe and actually pushed back on designating when life came into being. he wanted to expand it to viability. host: in terms of history of the country, we learned that it was after the richard nixon inauguration, but the day became historically notable for another reason. lyndon baines johnson died that as you mentionedlyndon baines johnson died that day, and that , really dominated the headlines. how long did it take the media to catch up with the importance of this story? clarke: it was on the front page of "the new york times," below the fold.
9:18 pm
johnson's death is the leading headline on january 23. but it was announced by walter cronkite. what is significant, i think, about the earlier media announcements is that the media almost consistently says that the right to abortion is limited to the first three months and we know that is inaccurate. but that was the initial message the public got about roe v. wade and doe v. bolton. we know that when you look at roe and doe together and you look at the viability rule in doe versus, but bolton looks at all factors, that unlimited health definition requires the states to perform abortion even after fetal viability. so the press got it wrong and has continued to get it wrong.
9:19 pm
host: we always talk about the impact of the decision on the court and on society. we begin with harry blackmun once again talking about what public reaction was in his mailbag after this decision. justice blackmun: there were the expected comments to the effect, your mother should have aborted you, or i have been praying for your immediate death. much of the correspondence is and abusive. i suspect i have been called every possible apathetic on name, hitler's, pontius pilate, murderer, herod, madman, and the like. out run chief justice robert tony.
9:20 pm
host: reaction? melissa: he certainly got blowback for this. just as there there had been calls to impeach earl warren, there were even more vociferous calls to get rid of harry blackmun. this was a defining moment in his life as a justice, and he would go on to do many great things on the court but he was , defined by roe vs. wade. clarke: the justices completely underestimated the public opposition that there would be. there was discussion in various memos and deliberations in the two years leading up to roe about how this would be criticized by the media, but of course, the public opposition and public anger has been more significant. it has resulted in hundreds of state laws attempting to eliminate the right to abortion as well as constitutional , amendments presented to
9:21 pm
during hearings from 1973-1983. the justices completely so underestimated where the public was. host: let's go back to phone calls. next up is nathan in bishop, texas. caller: i have a question. hold on really quick. the supreme court decision be handed down to the states under the 10th amendment, as abortion is not found in the constitution? clarke: or why has the 10th amendment not been a relevant consideration? the court has never considered the 10th amendment to be a blockage to its decision in roe versus wade.
9:22 pm
host: what does the 10th amendment do? clarke: the 10th amendment reserves power for the states, but the court, in effect, said the 14th amendment supersedes anything the 10th amendment might say. melissa: although there have been cases in recent years that apply a more robust view of the 10th amendment. clarke: but the court has not applied that in the area of abortion. host: david is in tracy, california. hello, david. you are on. caller: what do you think could have or should have happened that would have settled this issue once and for all? melissa: that's a tough question. what could have been done to settle this issue once and for all? i do agree with clarke that a more robust factual record would have made clear what the stakes were for the many women seeking abortions who were unable to get them. i think it would have also made
9:23 pm
clear what the stakes were for the states that were seeking to regulate, whether it was in the case of maternal health or the case of immorality, which some of the states are quite forthright about. so what of the difficulties of roe vs. wade is that you don't have that factual record, so you don't get the voices of the many constituencies affected by this decision. clarke: some issues in a democracy are simply not finally settled, and may take decades to settle such issues, especially issues with such strong cultural current. but i think it's clear that roe vs. wade has unsettled this issue more, and if the court had not stepped in and left to the -- and left it to the people, it would have provided the opportunity for public opinion to effect public policy and be more in line with public policy. and the fact that public opinion
9:24 pm
is so out of sync with roe vs. wade has kept this issue simmering for the last 40 years. melissa: we could say that about a lot issues over the last century. segregation is certainly an issue that, if left to public opinion, would have come out very differently. so there is a role for the court to play in protecting constitutional rights regardless of public opinion. that is certainly true in roe vs. wade. there may have been backlash, but it wasn't clear that the democratic process would work in a way that would vindicate rights, constitutional or the views of the women who were clamoring for this kind of medical care. host: is it fair to say that the criticism of this case does not fall neatly into a liberal-conservative divide? melissa: i think it's fair. i think it spans a lot of different constituencies. reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this question, and do. i think the larger question is what is the court's role in this
9:25 pm
democratic process, and when should the court intervene when the political process breaks down? we let -- we talked a lot about the reform effort. the reform effort had essentially stagnated at the time these cases went to the court. and that is the reason why there were so many cases in the pipeline at the time it was decided. the political process had sort of broken down. clarke: a big difference is that brown versus the board of education was based on reconstruction, based on the 14th amendment, particularly designed to detect the rights of freemen. in roe vs. wade, there is no whereas history in , anglo-american history of an abortion right. so the court was not relying and text of the constitution. it was creating something wholly new. the justices, in implementing the reconstruction
9:26 pm
amendments, is something that's part of its judicial character and judicial function, but the court became the ex officio medical board with the power to approve and disprove medical practices through the united states. that is not a role that judges can do. they cannot be the national abortion control board, and the 42 years has shown that very clearly. making thisy were up out of whole cloth. griswold55 decision, versus connecticut, that speaks to the right of privacy and constitutional guarantees, and roe vs. wade is rooted in griswold. it also speaks of the ninth amendment. not as clearly, but again, this idea that not all constitutional rights are enumerated in the constitution doesn't necessarily exhaust all the rights that people might retain. clarke: but again, i think the distinctions are stark.
9:27 pm
because in griswold, the court acted like a court of judges and simply invalidated the statute, whereas in roe vs. wade, the just invalidate a texas statute, it rewrote a national statute of considerable detail that it has been forced to administer as a national abortion control board. that is completely different, and it has completely reinvested this court in the issue year-to-year. and the only way the court can really settle the issue is, to some extent, by relinquishing its role here. host: robert in dallas, you are on the air. caller: i want to confirm my understanding that sarah weddington was judge syracuse's former law clerk, and when the case was filed in dallas, it may be more than a coincidence that
9:28 pm
it ended up in front of judge hughes. weddington was not her clerk, but her cocounsel. and when they were initially thinking of filing suit, there were thinking of filing in austin, they decided they would have a better shot near dallas because judge hughes was likely to be part of the panel. but i don't think it was necessarily angling, but it was certainly a degree of shopping. host: you said earlier that you didn't think that the personalities in this case were quite as large as some of the earlier cases we did. but norma mccorvey does have an interesting life story. we have some video to show our audience of how she has been involved in this issue, but she has changed camps. let's watch. solet's watch. [applause]
9:29 pm
-- so let's watch. [applause] >> i would like to apologize to each and everyone of you here today. i am sorry. i have asked jesus into my heart. what can i say? i love jesus and i love all of you. thank you. what a journey this has been, right, guys? how many of us love jesus? [applause] how many of us want to see roe versus wade overturned? [applause] this is the day i have been waiting for. [applause] when we filed the affidavit, when we had our news conference on the 18th, the actual filing was on the 14th of this month, so we are looking forward to having abortion, the covenant of death overturned like our great , president george w just said. [applause]
9:30 pm
and god is good and jesus is. host: every year on there is a january 22, large margin washington, d.c. and norma mccorvey has been a speaker for many years at that rally. what happened? clarke: suffice to say, she completely changed her visa news and she became basically a pro-life activist. but she went beyond that, because she testified before congress more than once in support of overturning the decision. she, as well as mary doe in doe both filed to cases in twoe dozen five and 2006, seeking to overturn the decisions. but their motions were denied
9:31 pm
and the supreme court in 2005 or 2006 refused to hear those cases, refused to reopen them. melissa: which is not to say that the supreme court has turned a deaf ear to them. justice kennedy cites sandra cano's brief in upholding the partial-birth abortion ban. they do receive an audience. sothey do receive an audience. host: do you happen to know any of the details involving norma mccrory's story and what changed her mind on this issue? melissa: she became a born-again christian and her faith is what caused a shift in her views. host: let's take a call from john. caller: thank you very much for the fairness of this. it was my understanding in bolton versus the georgia case , where sandra cano never wanted an abortion. she went in to file for a
9:32 pm
divorce, but her attorney tricked her by putting in the papers that she wanted an abortion. the second thing is, talking to most gynecologist-obstetricians, they feel the life of the mother is really not at stake because which have a c-section can protect both the mother and the baby. ,nd if this case, roe v. wade is rooted in griswold, griswold said the right to privacy pertains to things like contraceptives. isn't it a tremendous stretch to go from i have the right to buy contraceptives to i have the right to kill an innocent, defenseless child? now the question for melissa, and the gentleman, with all due respect, yes or no, do you consider the baby in the mother's womb a human being? aunt the reason why that is so
9:33 pm
important is because justice blackmun said, if we know that life begins at conception or before birth, we have to revisit this. host: i'm going to let you go because we have a little time and lots of questions on the line. melissa: just to make clear the bridge between griswold and roe, 1972, therein another case went before the -- there was another case went before the court dealing with contraception. they're the court is considering whether the law that prohibits selling contraception to unmarried people is constitutional. the court writes that the right and of the individual to decide whether or not to bear or beget a child is the right of the individual, not necessarily a married couple contemplated in griswold. and it goes on to say, what is a couple but a collection of two individuals?
9:34 pm
that language speaks of a fundamental right to determine whether or not to bear or beget a child. that furnishes the underpinnings of roe vs. wade. clarke: eisenstadt wasn't a privacy case, it was an equal-protection case. and as the history shows and the papers of the justices show, justice brennan was writing eisenstadt at the time of these andand doe decisions, envisioning addressing the abortion question, he puts this paragraph about privacy that was complete dictum into the equal protection decision for the very reason that they could pluck the dictum out and use it in roe vs. wade. maybe to address the second part of the caller's question, i do believe that science shows that the life of the human being
9:35 pm
begins at conception, but what is more important for our discussion tonight is that the states have progressively strengthened their prenatal injury law, wrongful death laws and fetal homicide laws, to the that we have 50 states with prenatal injury laws that protect the unborn child. we have wrongful death laws in 36 states that protect the unborn child. we have got fetal homicide laws in 39 states protect the unborn -- states that protect the unborn child. that is a very significant show andthat is a very significant show of public opinion support for fetal protection. host: many cases before the court over the past 42 years have considered some aspect of abortion. ,y our camp -- by our count there were as many as 40.
9:36 pm
we are going to put some of the names on the screen. you have heard references to them. the last one was before the roberts court, whole woman's whole woman's health versus cole, which is not yet on the schedule. marianne, your comment. caller: i am a physician in philadelphia and i have two things to say. i find it so painfully inconsistent that the child in the womb has no rights, but when scott peterson killed his wife lacy, and killed and their unborn child he was accused of , killing two people. a law made a woman wait 24 hours and if under the age of 18 have parental consent. consent. i would like to hear what your attorneys have to say about that. kc, this is the case
9:37 pm
you were referring to at the end, a 1992 case, planned parenthood of southeastern pennsylvania versus casey. the court is considering pennsylvania's abortion control act that has a number of provisions. one requires parental notification. the other requires a 24-hour waiting period. another one requires power -- requires spousal notification. in casey the court affirms the , essence of roe vs. wade but scales back and dismantles the trimester framework and the standard of review required for abortion cases. so after row -- after roe v. wade, the idea here is that abortion regulation will not be considered constitutional if it imposes a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking the abortion. the waiting period is not held to have a substantial effect, or -- substantial obstacle of fact, but spousal notification is struck down under the standard that it renders women subordinate to their husbands.
9:38 pm
husbands should not have necessarily the authority to kind ofally invoke this detail over the wife. and more importantly, the court is worried about domestic -- domesticsion violence or color version in these relationships. clarke: roe vs. wade focused only on abortion. it did not address fetal homicide law, wrongful death law. it also left it to the states to enhance fetal protections in those areas, and the states have done so. so we now have, in fact, half of the states with fetal homicide laws that extend protection from conception. but you have a supreme court edict across all 50 states allowing virtually abortion on demand at any time for any reason. and that has created, because there is such a tension here,
9:39 pm
that has kept to the issue simmering for 40 years. host: the issue is certainly simmering in the presidential campaign this year. as we heard, the court is hearing another case. the congress itself, over the issue of planned parenthood funding, up until very recently, the threat of a government shutdown hinged on funding for planned parenthood. as our guests have made the case this continues to really be , debated in american society. clip, two senators on the floor of the senate on the anniversary of roe vs. wade in january of this year. >> even before america's founding, the law was on a steady toward protecting human march beings before birth. through the 19th century, medical professionals and civil led a movements that succeeded in prohibiting abortion in every state except to save the mother's life.
9:40 pm
america had reached a consensus on protecting the most vulnerable. unfortunately, the supreme court swept all of that aside, imposing upon the country of -- upon the country a permissive regime that the american people to this day have never chosen or excepted. >> it is hard to believe that here i stand in this century arguing that women should be respected, that families should be respected, that everyone's religion should be respected. i support a woman's right to choose, and that means if your religion says you will never end and unwanted pregnancy, i support you. i believe this decision should be between a woman, her doctor, and her god, and her family. and i don't think any united states senator should get in the middle of a woman's private life.
9:41 pm
host: as our program is quickly coming to an end, i am going to move from two united states senators on the floor of the senate talking about roe v. wade , to give you the view of two justices talking about the decision. justices ruth bader ginsburg and antonin scalia. justice ginsburg: take the worst-case scenario, roe vs. wade is overruled by the supreme court. there will be states, a sizable number, that will not go back to the way it was. at the time of roe vs. wade, there were four states that gave women access to abortion without any questions asked in the first trimester. so those states are not going to change. what it means is a woman who can afford a plane ticket, a bus ticket, will be able to decide for herself whether to have an
9:42 pm
abortion. but the women who won't have that choice are poor women. justice scalia: these are political questions for the american people to decide. that is what democracy is about. do you think abortion should not be prohibited? fine. persuade your fellow citizens. pass a law. you think the opposite? persuade them the other way. but don't tell me the constitution has taken that issue out of democratic choice. it simply hasn't. host: there we have two members of the current court, and also united states senators, laying out the continued divisive arguments. -- arguments over roe v. wade. i want to get on the record the effect on the court itself. because in appointments from roe
9:43 pm
on, this became a litmus test for justices on the supreme court. can you talk about the impact of this case on the selection of justices for the court? clarke: it has been a litmus test ever since probably 1976. justice stevens nomination was probably the last in which it wasn't an issue or much of an issue. so much evidence has skewed judicial appointments to the court. it has become a disproportionately emphasized issue. when you take into consideration and all of the other serious, constitutional and policy issues that are addressed on the court, and yet it has skewed consideration and i think that has been to the detriment of the country and the court. melissa: one of the interesting stories about wrist bader ginsburg's confirmation was that president clinton worried about appointing her because she had this law review article about
9:44 pm
roe vs. wade and he worried that she was against it. it turned out she was just against the reasoning. it is a litmus test and it plays out in different ways. -- different ways, depending on who the president is. host: how should people think about this case and its impact on our society and on the court? and i guess the next question is, where does this country go from here, given the heat that continues around this issue? melissa: this is an issue where very reasonable people can disagree. some people on one side of the issue think that this is a rights tobout women's participate equally in society. others focus on the life of the unborn child in question our democratic process. those are hard things to reconcile. but the court intervenes in
9:45 pm
-- intervenes and either takes us in one direction or another. clarke: i think it was a tragedy for the court to step into this issue prematurely and to take over the issue for the last 42 years, and to try to be the national abortion control board. it has failed in that task, and the best thing the court can do is return the issue to the american people, where public opinion and public policy would be allowed to be more in sync, and that would, i think, alleviate a lot of the tension on the issue, and restore public opinion to its rightful place in determining the outcome of this issue. host: we are at the final moments of our landmark cases series. thank you so much for being with us throughout these 12 cases. the series is archived on our website, c-span.org. you can find it easily under the series. we have all of the video from each of the 12 programs there for you, including the other
9:46 pm
videos that did not make it into the television production, visits to historic sites and oral histories from people involved in these cases. you can also read opinions and hear audio on our website. and finally, if you would like to have landmark cases on your -- the landmark cases book on your bookshelf, that's also available and we can get it out to you very quickly. thanks to our two guests tonight for being with us as we learned more about the background and the importance of the roe vs. wade case in 1973. thank you for your expertise. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] ♪
9:47 pm
>> you have been watching the c-span series "landmark cases." the entire series about supreme court arguments is available on our website, c-span.org. former clerks to supreme court justice nominee bret kavanaugh discussed their experience working with him on the washington dc court of appeals. we have live coverage from the heritage foundation at 12:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. 12:00 p.m. eastern thursday, here on c-span. >> washington journal, live
9:48 pm
every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, the result of tuesday's primaries in states, and the special election in ohio's 12th district, and what the results mean for the upcoming elections. we talk about progressive candidates in the upcoming midterms. then, the president and ceo of the national business group on health talks about health care costs for large employers. discussion on the trump administration's decision to expand short-term health plans. watch c-span's washington journal live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning. join the discussion. -- wednesday morning. join the discussion. when stated :00 p.m. eastern, a barack obama delivers a
9:49 pm
lecture in johannesburg, south africa. to abandon ourve unique at that national and religious identities. nelson mandela did not stop being proud of his tribal heritage. he did not stopping proud of being a black man, or south african. but he believed as i believe that you can be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage. [applause] on thursday added a :00 p.m., activists address the u.s. conference of mayors. i can't explain the feelings you have during a school shooting. one thing i can relate it to, a feeling of anxiety, uselessness, and not being able to do anything. there is only one other place where i felt that. the united states congress.
9:50 pm
a funny sound like remark but it is no joke. i have spoken from legislators across the board, senators, representatives, mayors. person is notngle confident that one thing can be done about the 17 people who died in my school, and the many others who have died since. c-span.org c-span, and listen on the free c-span radio app. from britishrks defense secretary gavin williamson on the nato alliance and the u.k.'s role in the world. he addressed military aggressiveness and military modernization. hosted by the atlantic council, this is one hour. host: good morning, e

84 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on