Tag: roe v. wade

Posted on

OA280: Abortion Rights Under Assault

Today’s episode takes an in-depth look at the recent abortion bans passed in Georgia and Alabama, breaking down exactly what these laws say (and don’t say!) to help you sort through the panic from the actual news. It’s not always a pleasant trip, but it’s a journey worth taking to figure out exactly what’s at stake.

We begin, however, with a listener question about abortion — and specifically, about whether the federal government can preemptively prevent the states from doing the kinds of things we talked about back in Episode 276. Find out why Andrew thinks the conservative Supreme Court isn’t likely to uphold the constitutionality of a federal law prohibiting states from recognizing abortion rights.

After that, it’s time for a deep dive in to the very confusing Georgia statute , HB 481. Exactly what does this bill do (and not do), and how scared should you be? Listen and find out.

And if that’s not enough, we also walk you through the more straightforward (but still terrifying) Alabama statute, HB 314. Is it true that the bill fails to exempt rape victims? (Yes.) Is there anything to mitigate how awful this bill is? (Sort of.)

After all that, it’s time to find out the answer to TTTBE #126 about a man who shoots a would-be assailant three times, including once after the assailant is lying on the ground and whimpering. What kind of crime could this be? Listen and find out!

Appearances

None! If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. We first discussed the rise of state-level constitutional protections to the right to choose back in Episode 276.
  2. You can check out Georgia HB 481 and Alabama HB 314 to read these bills for yourself.



Download Link
Posted on

OA276: Did Kansas Really Show Us The Way Forward on Abortion Rights?

Today’s episode features an in-depth analysis of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, a recent decision out of the Kansas Supreme Court holding that — whatever the U.S. Supreme Court does — the Kansas state constitution protects a woman’s right to choose. Join us to understand how this decision is important not only for Kansans but for all of us as we deal with the challenges created by the increasingly Trump-ified federal bench.

We begin, however, with a brief update as to the status of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal that’s been questioned by a recent ruling in Florida. We first covered this story in Episode 259.

After that, it’s time for fan-favorite “Are You A Cop?” combined with a listener question about whether (and how much) “corporations are people, my friend.”

Then, it’s time for the main breakdown of Hodes & Nauser v. Schmidt, with brief stopovers in Alabama (to discuss Bill 314), a prediction on the future of Roe v. Wade before this Supreme Court, and a full breakdown of the Kansas opinion and why it matters.

After all that, it’s time for yet another listener question, this time about the dissent in Hodes, what it means, and why the court spent so much time talking about the police power of the state, John Locke, and natural law. Confused? You won’t be, after listening to this segment.

And as if that wasn’t enough, after all that, it’s time for the answer to TTTBE #124 about Decomposing Snail Soda(TM) (“It’s Maddeningly Addictive”). Find out if Thomas got this question right!

-Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/law

-Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

-Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

-For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

-And finally, remember that you can email us at openarguments@gmail.com




Download Link

Posted on

OA249: Overturning Roe v. Wade Starts Today

Today’s episode sounds the alarm as to whether our activist right-wing Supreme Court is ready to effectively overturn Roe v. Wade and essentially permit the entire state of Louisiana to all but ban the right to an abortion in that state.  We’re NOT an alarmist podcast, but this is something you need to be watching.  We also follow up on the Trump Shutdown, answer a listener question regarding our discussion of the Hilton lawsuit from last episode, and (of course) take our weekly visit to Yodel Mountain, this time on the back of one Roger Stone.  Are these all just “process crimes?”  And what the hell does that mean, anyway?  Strap in and find out!

We begin, however, with a brief look at the end of the Trump Shutdown and what’s likely to come next.

After that, we tackle some questions and misperceptions regarding our story of the lawsuit against Hilton hotels from Episode 248.

Then, it’s time for the main segment, which takes a look at a pending Supreme Court motion and discusses what this means for the future of Roe v. Wade and the right to a legal abortion in this country.  Yes, it really is that significant.

Then, it’s time for a trip to Yodel Mountain to discuss “process crimes” rapid-fire round of questions about Trump’s shutdown.  Why is Congress still getting paid?  Who can sue, and why haven’t they?  Find out the answers to these questions and more!

We end, as always, with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #112 about murder most foul!  As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Appearances

None!  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

1. Ann Coulter was responsible for the shutdown and Trump’s approval ratings take a hit. (Thomas Was Right)
2. A series of bipartisan proposals show support for ending shutdowns.
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
4. Several years ago, Andrew wrote on reasonable religious accommodations at Disney when he was still working for The Man.
5. We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey in OA: Episode 27 and OA Episode: 28.
6. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt 136 S.Ct. 2292 (2016)
7. June Medical Services v. Gee, 905 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. 2018)
8. MOTION TO STAY filed by June.
9. Dershowitz – what the defenders are saying and why it’s Wrong . Followed by Seth Abramson’s Smackdown thread.
10. Stone Indictment
11. More on Randy Credico from his wiki entry and twitter.
12. Roger Stone will work the media
13. Concord Management & Consulting media discovery.
14. The joint motion in Roger Stone’s case and the “voluminous and complex” evidence against him.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

For show-related questions, check out the Opening Arguments Wiki, which now has its own Twitter feed!  @oawiki

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Download Link

Posted on

OA190: Good News, Everyone! (On Abortion Rights & More)

Today’s episode — at long last — brings us some good news from two rather unlikely sources:  first, from the state of Iowa (regarding abortion rights), and second, from the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.  You won’t believe your ears!

We begin, however, with a segment that’s good news for everyone except Andrew:  yes, it’s the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong.  This time, Andrew owns up to a serious mistake regarding the fingerprinting regulations at the border, and an almost-as-serious mistake regarding the bustling metropolis of Olathe, Kansas.

In the main segment, Andrew breaks down Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, a recent state supreme court opinion invalidating a 3-day waiting period (with other onerous restrictions on abortion) that provides optimism and a way forward for progressives as we prepare for decades of a right-wing federal judiciary.  Find out how states can protect reproductive freedom and abortion rights separate from the U.S. Supreme Court.

After that, it’s time for a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we check in on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s endorsement of the joint agency report from January 2017 concluding that the Russian government deliberately interfered in the US elections with a strong preference for Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.

Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 regarding the tort of assault and an unloaded firearm.  Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!

Recent Appearances

Andrew was just a guest co-host on Episode 75 of the Skepticrat podcast; go check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. Click here to read the Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds opinion.
  2. For future activism, click this link to determine whether your state has elected or appointed state supreme court judges.
  3. The Intelligence Community Assessment is here; you can also read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report validating that assessment here.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

Posted on

OA189: Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Today’s Rapid Response Friday gives you a sneak preview of what to expect from the person we predict will become Donald Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

We discuss:

  • Why it’s likely to be Kavanaugh and not any of the other rumored contenders, especially flavor-of-the-minute Amy Coney Barrett
  • Kavanaugh’s view of the First Amendment’s establishment clause and the future of Lemon v. Kurtzman
  • Kavanaugh’s views on abortion
  • How Kavanaugh differs (and how he doesn’t!) from Neil Gorsuch when it comes to Chevron deference
  • The weird conservative hit squad out to get Kavanaugh
  • And much, much more!

After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 involving assault with an unloaded gun.  If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag.  We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!

Recent Appearances

Thomas was just a guest on Episode 421 of the Cognitive Dissonance Podcast.  If you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.

Show Notes & Links

  1. If you want a head start on Tuesday’s show, check out the just-released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report.
  2. This is the Notre Dame speech/law review article in which Kavanaugh lays out his judicial philosophy and essentially auditions for the Supreme Court.
  3. We discussed the following cases:  Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U.S. 98 (2001), Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), Priests for Life v. Department of Health & Human Services, 808 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (en banc), Garza v. Hargan, 874 F.3d 735 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (en banc), United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC (D.C. Cir., 2017) (en banc), PHH v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 881 F.3d 75 (2018) (en banc), Seven-Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir 2011), and Heller v. D.C., 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011)!
  4. Right-wing weirdo roundups:  Here’s the National Review endorsement of Kavanaugh; this is the truly bizarre Jacobs piece in The Federalist; and here is the Federalist Society’s own rebuttal.
  5. Finally, a preemptive Andrew Was Wrong:  Here’s Raymond Kethledge’s University of Michigan address on how bad Chevron deference is.

Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law

Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs

Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/

Don’t forget the OA Facebook Community!

And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

 

Direct Download

Posted on

OA11: Abortion, Roe v. Wade, and the Constitution, Part 3

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

  1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
  2. 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.
  3. 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