In this week’s hour-length episode, we finally conclude our three-part discussion of abortion and defending the jurisprudence behind the Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Roe v. Wade… only to leave you with another cliffhanger and a topic for a future show. (Bingo!)
Also, given our Patreon support, we’ll now be answering a viewer question every episode! In this episode, we go back to frequent supporter Eric Brewer, who asks “Is a lawyer obligated to tell his clients the hard truths?” Andrew, true to form, answers without really answering the question. Don’t you just hate lawyers??
Finally, in our closing segment, we crank up Judas Priest for Breakin’ (Down) the Law and answer the question “How does one amend the Constitution, anyway?” Of course, no answer is ever simple here on OA, and in so doing, Andrew takes us through the very strange history of the 27th Amendment, which took more than 200 years to become ratified by the states. Seriously!
Show Notes & Links
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
- The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, starting with the preamble, set forth the baseline of ethical rules that lawyers must follow in most jurisdictions. Read all about “zealous advocacy” if you enjoy reading model ethics rules.
- The American Prospect has a fun article that tells the story of the passage of the 27th Amendment; give it a read.
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/
And email us at openarguments@gmail.com
5 Replies to “OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3”