Today’s episode takes a deep dive into two developments concerning the right to an abortion in the U.S., followed by our continuing discussion on plea bargaining with listener comments from prosecutors, public defenders, the U.S. judiciary, and even international listeners. You won’t want to miss it!
We begin with an in-depth examination of the so-called “gag rule” just proposed by Trump’s Department of Health and Human Services. Is it really a gag rule? (Yes.)
After that, we look into the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to grant certiorari in Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, allowing an 8th Circuit decision to stand that, in turn, denied a preliminary injunction blocking a restrictive Arkansas abortion law, HB1394. Is this a bad sign? (Yes.)
After that, we return to the subject of plea bargaining that’s been a hot topic in our inbox for weeks, capped off by the Iowa Supreme Court’s discussion of the issue in Schmidt v. Iowa.
Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #78 regarding whether the jury can read a treatise on mill grinding. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show Notes & Links
- For context on the Trump HHS gag rule, you can read Title X, 42 USC § 300 et seq.
- Planned Parenthood v. Jegley, 864 F.3d 953 (8th Cir. 2017), denied a preliminary injunction, allowing HB1394 to take effect. You can read the cert petition here.
- If you’re feeling good about Schmidt v. Iowa and need to be reminded that “actual innocence” is not a ground for federal habeas corpus relief, check out Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993).
Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law
Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs
Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!
And email us at email@example.com