Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (19-1392)

argument 19-1392

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 53m 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the Supreme Court’s opening stance on Roe v. Wade, Casey, and the Mississippi 15‑week abortion ban?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We will hear argument this morning in Case 19-1392, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. General Stewart.

Jeffrey B. Wall 0:09

Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution. They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise. For 50 years, they've kept this Court at the center of a political battle, that it can never resolve. And 50 years on, they stand alone. Nowhere else does this Court recognize a right to end a human life. Consider this case. The Mississippi law here prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The law includes robust exceptions for a woman's life and health. It leaves months to obtain an abortion. Yet the courts below struck the law down.

Jeffrey B. Wall 0:52

It didn't matter that the law applies when an unborn child is undeniably human, when risks to women surge, and when the common abortion procedure is brutal. The lower courts held that because the law prohibits abortions before viability, it is unconstitutional no matter what. Roe and Casey's core holding, according to those courts, is that the people can protect an unborn girl's life when she just barely can survive outside the womb, but not any earlier when she needs a little more help. That is the world under Roe and Casey. That is not the world the Constitution promises. The Constitution places its trust in the people. On hard issue after hard issue, the people make this country work. Abortion is a hard issue.

Jeffrey B. Wall 1:36

It demands the best from all of us, not a judgment by just a few of us. When an issue affects everyone, and when the Constitution does not take sides on it, it belongs to the people. Roe and Casey have failed, but the people, if given the chance, will succeed. This Court should overrule Roe and Casey and uphold the State's law. I welcome the Court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 1:59

General Stewart, you focus on the right to abortion, but our jurisprudence seems to focus on Casey, autonomy, and Roe, privacy. Does it make a difference? that we focus on privacy or autonomy or, more specifically, on abortion?

Jeffrey B. Wall 2:29

I think whichever one of those you're focusing on, Your Honor, particularly if you're focusing on the right to abortion, each of those starts to become a step removed for what's provided in the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution does protect certain aspects of privacy, of autonomy, and the like. But as this Court said, in Glucksburg, going directly from general concepts of autonomy, of privacy, of bodily integrity to a right is not how we traditionally, this Court traditionally does due process analysis. So I think it just confirms, whichever one of those you look at, Your Honor, a right to abortion is not grounded in the text, and it's grounded on abstract concepts that this Court has rejected historically.

Jeffrey B. Wall 3:10

in other contexts as supplying a substantive

Clarence Thomas 3:12

right. You say that this is the only constitutional right that involves the taking of a life. What difference does that make in your analysis?

Jeffrey B. Wall 3:22

Sure, Your Honor. I think it makes a number of differences. One, I mentioned two in particular. One is it really does mark out the — unbelievably profound ramifications of this area, which in many other areas assisted suicide, a whole host of important areas that are important to dignity, autonomy, freedom, and important to matters of conscience. It marks it out as one of the unique areas where this Court has taken that important issue to the people. And it's something that implicates life. And it just, I think, marks off, Justice Thomas, how problematic and unusual and how much of a break the Court's abortion jurisprudence is from those other cases.

Clarence Thomas 4:03

If we don't overrule Casey or Roe, do you have a standard that you propose other than the viability standard?

Jeffrey B. Wall 4:11

It would be, Your Honor, a clarified version of the undue burden standard. I would emphasize, I think, as Your Honor is alluding to, that no standard other than the rational basis review that applies to all laws will promote an administrable, workable, practicable, consistent jurisprudence that puts matters back with the people.