>> joining us that is morning that i corresponded with the nation magazine here to talk about the supreme court and those issues percolating so beginning with the supreme court and the decision they made to hear and the texas abortion case what did they decide and what are they ruling on quick. >> the court decided to allow an unconstitutional taking of women's rights to go forward until they can get around to make a decision on the merits. the court decided at the

challenge on november 1st that's just oral argument and reverting the alarm what it required it to be while they waited for those arguments they did a lot of bounty hunting scheme. but on december 1st hearing a whole different challenge to roe v w wade coming out of mississippi. i don't know what they will do but there is a chance they will put those cases together sometime in june and the texas law will be the goal and tell them. on —- untold that but it is very likely they will do texas and mississippi at the same time next year. host: what are they deciding? how do they decide those

quick. >> there are two different kinds of problems one is the frontal attack on roe v wade and women's right to choose those that the supreme court overturning roe v wade and then more r traditional with the bounty hunters and mississippi but ire believe the court is trying to do this and over the past 30 years to overturn roe the v way. however i don't think they will say we overturn roe v wade because thatth would make people angry but that would just express the 15 week abortion ban as mumbo-jumbo to reimagine of planned parenthood with abortion rights. the same thing goes on and

texas that they will eventually get around to stopping is the bounty hunter business you cannot violate the constitution by deputizing private citizens to do the workso for you. we just can't have a society that's what they will do and it's in terms of violating the constitution. so ill the dad eventually weather at some point in the near future eventually scotus will get around to stop the bounty hunter system because of that can go forward then it's hard to have a system of laws. host: why? is it is written in your opinion what could private citizens do? >> just take it to a logical

enconclusion. look, i like the second amendment very much. if i am a blue state and as a state i cannot do anything but any private citizens that just wants to sue anybody that has a firearm for $10000 go ahead any private citizen that wants tory sue every time there is a school shooting go ahead. you couldn't do that that would violate a constitutional standard specifically to subvert those standards so with those second amendment cases are the fourth amendment the state is not researching that dog the bounty hunter but you cannot have a society that way soas eventually deputizing

private citizens has an constitutional rule eventually that has to go away even if overall in the mississippi case and then does overturn roe v wade or weekend abortion rights that they are basically nonexistent. >> with the texas law they quote timberline shorts and said she is happy the lawn remains in place and with the pro-life movement it will continue to save an estimated 100 babies per day and the justices discussed in the first place so far things that are victims of race and incest forcing them against their will that isn't saving babies

that is barbaric if you ask me i don't agree with how she is framing the debate but we have a lot on the books we have constitutional standards on the books to try to address this the way roe v wade just to be clear that it draws the line on viability that the only great place it makes sense to draw the line at the point where the fetus can live without the another's generosity at that point you have a legitimate interest in the health safety and future. but before hand when the fetus is attached to the mother and cannot survive without the mothers nutrients or

bloodstream or whatever and that has to be an internal choice for the woman and anything less is nonsensical as a legal proposition if we start with the premise that women are people then it has to be one of the very most fundamental rights. >> what are the other key cases from the supreme court? >> by june we're in a situation where you will have more rights if you own a gun then if you own a womb. the other thing it is doing is looking again rights. currently the case that basically they tried to make it so it is new unconstitutional violation

that they t made up so now to protect the right to bear arms for a militia also for self-defense and i you have the right to bear arms for gun licensing and permits and that is also unconstitutional. and i think they have five or six votes on the supreme court to do it so that is coming down and those cases that are big this term if you remember the end of trumps term he went on a killing spree the supreme court has had a couple of opportunities to look at those issues were the biden administration, even a though allegedly the anti- death penalty the justice department

is killing various people that those on the supreme court and then after the election had already started. and then to put these justices on the court. we are living in a time of consequences. and then to control the supreme court more deaths and more gun rights in fewer women's rights. >> the supreme court commission created this to look at changes to the supreme court can you say it's about

to come out and the commission is designed to fail. why quick. >> it's a complete waste of time that the conservatives yes that is what we want to what we voted for democrats a no. that is not what i voted for. the only way to stop that is to reform the court everything that i just said to engage in the supreme court reform and then instead of taking that i —- that energy and ideas to roll with that saying send it off to a commission to die and then killed any momentum with the hope of changing the way the state works while biden is the president the commission was stacked with law professor and advocates i know some of the people they are really smart people that now to the supreme court every day a person that has to go argue in

front of john roberts on thursday on monday wanted to stay should have so much power so the commission had no performance bidens commission and young core performance and what that you commission was all about. and that commission believes this is not designed to advocate and make the recommendations. think of it this way the supreme court is the only court in the country that operates without ethics rules there is no code of ethics that they are required to follow it is low hanging fruit to have the fx requirement i

don't know maybe with sexual assault and then excuse themselves when women's rights come before them? but looking at fx reform the supreme court commission did not even study it so theot commission was designed to do nothing to give cover for doing nothing and had done their job very well. >> that can mental - - on executive order 180 days to study the merits and proposal such as term limits to expand the number of justices 36 legalld scholars and judges and more than 17 hours of discussion in the final report is due next month that morning. go ahead.

>> ith want to make one comment. i had an abortion and my twenties when i hit my twenties i am 67 now and i pray every day of the lord to forgive me for what i have done. so when they passed in 1973 i believe my government but they beat it and stomped it and crammed into the constitution so i have pencil in hand right now so tell me where and the constitution that gives the woman a right to kill an unborn human beings i will write it down and look it up. >> we are talking about women having rights know the first thing ever look for is the amendment that says the government cannot look search

and seizure your stuff i would say your will is your stuff. the government should not be able to seize your womb to use it for their own benefit i would also look at the 14th amendment that says equal protection clause men and women have too be treated equally. now if they have complete control of the reproductive control over the system of the entire nine a month period why can't the woman? also look at the right to privacy. the constitution specifically says there is a right to privacy? know. but we can infer from all of the others that don't make sense without a privacy right then you have the ninth amendment that not all of the amendments listed are the only rates that we have and those specifically contemplate so with all of those arguments

for the right to choose but a file of those don't work we offer the 13th amendment which says very clearly it cannot be forced by the government if a person who is pregnant can be forced against her will to do that labor for free i will tell you that is a point and click violation of the 13th amendment. fourteen, nine, 13. host: in roe v wade but was hedecided quick. >> theat justices pointed to the right to privacy. they said the right to privacy which was first articulated with the right to birth control, never forget the attack on abortion rights and birth control rights are the same attack. they are coming up to the same constitutional underpinning. the right to privacy was first articulated and that is the contraception case.

and it must be a right to privacy and then again the state still has a legitimate interest in the health of the fetus but it is not attached in town the fetus is vital at 24 weeks. there is not abortion on demand. that is not the legal landscape that we deall with. so with that viability we treat the woman as a full person. and so how that fetus that can be extractedki from another to have a chance for survival than we have an interest.

so to anytime before that and six weeks in texas you are obliterating role the way but you are even if you don't say it you are obliterating the line we have drawn a fetal viability and then just say your moral say that. so if c the law is a context of foods morality wins and we can never have peace but with that fetal viability then. >> >>caller: good morning. i am a long time follower so i

agree on a lot of social justice issues but i have to part company on the abortion issue. roe v wade wasn't decided on human life the justices admitteded like all medical schools in the united states and i spent 40 years looking at this but human life begins at conception. what they said was that fetus was not a person. the mother was required to observe. so really if a fetus is not a person until separated from therether then shouldn't be any limitations on abortion the states interest is keeping enough so the supreme court did not recognize the fetus as a person at that point.

so my sister worked in a neonatal hospital for 30 years and all professors told her that human life begins at conception. but the supreme court says person her does not attach but roe v wade says any time congress chose to change that that the fetus was a person who knows that those rights would attach at conception. >> first of all i would encourage you not toam have an abortion if you don't believe that abortion is normal then don't have one. that would solve his problem number one. number two now let's talk fetal is not considered a person so he wants to change that viability to conception

so think that through the fetus is a person at conception are they a citizen and not conception does everybody conceive in the arunited states are they in the census do they have a right to healthcare what rights are they are we giving them at conception because those who scream the loudest that fetal perception those that paradoxically do not want to give rights to born alive children that we have in this country these are the same people they call them the anchor baby when a migrant person has a child in the united states. so then we should have to tear or multitier citizenship if you believe that person at

conception and then surely you must believe in some type of universal healthcare has the best chance of starting life surely you believe in mandatory paid maternal leave for all d alignments and then doing all the hard work of making this person you believe it became real at conception. once you go down the person had thought process there are entitled suites of rights we give that fetus that conception with the social security card? think it through and so when i found is the people that are most willing to make the argument are the least willing to extend compassion to actual children who are alive in this country.

>> bloomington indiana. hello c-span. i totally agree i think the's people that are going after women's rights don't realize the is women that are going to have abortions are going to have abortions and in texas they are running to georgia so people need to realize that we need this in our country and around the world because women have the right to do with their body that they need to do and i also want to comment on how the laws are not being put toward the former president. why not?

what is goingin on in our country? and our voting rights are being tortured. so to be stepped on every day. i don't know what to do anymore. so i called my senators and and the other people and they write you letters and support the people and as the insurrectionist. >> so just to clarify so yes the women that are going to georgia or louisiana to get reproductive services and if they outlaw abortion then they go to california and new york or canada or sweden or someplace rational women will always have an opportunity to access their rights and that

is a huge part of what's going on. one of thegoe. reasons why they get away with such a restrictive human rights because they understand most women who are the most likely to vote republican know that they can access reproductive rights they can go somewhere else it is for women and predominantly black and brown and so inab terms of what to do so then at some point with the department of justice has to be involved it will do and incredible job so far for the most part and the actual people who reach the capital. thso prostituting the person on

—- prosecuting that person is easy. that is the easy part prosecuting the people who helps those people and those people that is the hard part. that is where you have to talk a on —- talk a hard truth to power so far mary garland has nothing for those people. he will bring down the foot mr. i got into the capital but the guy who funded that guy, the congressperson mary garland ain't got nothing for him and that is my problem how the justice department has been prosecuting or lack thereof the insurrection. yes looking into january 6 and that is great but that is political. i don't mean in a dirty word

but that is the political process to understand what happened but there is also the legal process where the department of justice is supposed to be in there protecting ust from terrorism but those who funded and helped our may be too big for america garland and that is problematic. >> my in houston texas. permitted. on twitter and such. sir, i want to ask. where do our rights come from? i wanted to start with that. i think people -- in talking about rights for a long time and i'd like to know. would you agree with me that our rights come from god? guest: no. caller: o ok. they don't come from god. if i understand correctly what you're telling me when you say know with your certified teud when it's self-evident that all

men are created equal, so forth, our founding documents indicate that our rights are self-evident and that we are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights, life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness. you may frown, you may disagree. it is irrefutable that's what it is. it is incontrovertible. our private property rights come from government. it is not based on what you want to do with my money. when you want to create a health care system and reach for my wallet, that's when your rights end, sir. you don't own me. the government doesn't own me. we loan our power to government. government doesn't own our power. we loan it to the politicians. they are servants to us. you are not going to create rights. we have -- guest: you give alls to the poor not in my back beyond a reasonable doubt. you are claiming that your rights and your understanding of government comes from god. which preaches nothing but charity. 2340g but charity did you did

you nothing but charity in every book that allegedly written by god. they preach nothing but charity. now you're saying how dare the government take my money and give it to people who need health care. what are you doing, man? no, i don't believe rights come from god. i believe rights come from a human experience and rationality. that's called the enlightenment. we went through this phase where we believed everything came from god. we called those the dark ages. and people applied rational thought again and that's how we got things like the written constitution of the united states government. of course i don't believe the rights come from god. in part whose god are we talking about? are we talking about a christian god? yawway, allah, sheeba? whose god? once you get into those places, it becomes a much harder thing. i want to have a society. and the entirety of human experience that the easiest way to have society is to take god out of your laws and put thought

in where it should be. that is what our constitution tries to do. is it perfect? absolutely no not. do i think everything the founding fathers wrote down was wrong? no. the founding fathers were slavers and colonists, don't think they were wrong about lots of things. the idea we should have a nation based on secularism and that would allow all the people to believe whatever they wanted is still fundamentally a good idea and fundamentally the idea we should be still working towards today as opposed to throwing it out of the window for some kind of thee og kracy. thee ok acy. the people who want that the most always think their deity is going to win. history says, oftentimes they are wrong. host: morgan, nashville, tennessee, independent caller. caller: yes. i wanted to say that this is about idolization of the flesh.

and these people who are willing to deny the spirit, because that's what they are doing, you could kill the holy spirit. the fetus is formed in the spirit. it's delivered in the flesh. but it's the -- if the flesh is gone, that spirit lives. and it never goes away. it's infinite. it will have its course no matter what. guest: ok. cool story. that's a fine thing to morally believe. that's not a legal argument. and that cannot be a legal argument to force somebody to give birth against her will. i don't know what else to tell you. we can all believe what we believe. i believe some things. you all believe some things. we can all believe what we believe. but at the point where you're

going to use your belief to force a raped victim to carry her assailant's seed to term against her will, we have now crossed the barrier between what we can believe in a secular, normal society and crossed into the barbarism of thee ok acy. host: we have to leave it there. justins correspondent with the nation. follow him on the nation.com, twitter@the nation. and elienyc.