07/04/22 [captioning made possible amy: from new york, this is democracy now! frederick douglass: [read by james earl jones] what, to the american slave, is your fourth of july? i answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is a constant victim. to him, your celebration is a sham. amy: "what to the slave is your fourth of july?" we'll hear frederick douglass' 1852 independence

day address, performed by james earl jones. then, as the supreme court overturns roe v. wade we will speak to kathryn "kitty" kolbert, who argued the landmark case of planned parenthood v. casey, the case that upheld roe. she is the co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." we'll also speak with law professor michele goodwin, author of "policing the womb: invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood." and have now rendered us to a country where there are free states, where individuals can be free in their bodies, and also those where it is non-free. and one n't help but understand this as being so consistent with the patterns of slavery and jim crow in the united states. amy: we will also talk to professor goodwin about her "new york times" op-ed "i was raped by my father.

an abortion saved my life." and we re-air amanda gorman's inaugural poem she finished just after the january 6 insurrection. she is the youngest inaugural poet in u.s. history. >> we will rebuild, reconcile and recover in every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country our people diverse and beautiful will emerge battered and beautiful. when day comes, we step out of the shade aflame and unafraid. the new dawn blooms as we free it. for there is always light. if only we're brave enough to see it. if only we're brave enough to be it. amy: all that and more, coming up. welcome to democracy now!, democracynow.org. i'm amy goodman. day, in th special broadcast,

we begin with the words of frederick douglass. born into slavery around 1818, douglass became a key leader of the abolitionist movement. on july 5, 1852, in rochester, new york, douglass gave one of his most famous speeches, "what to the slave is your fourth of july?" he was addressing the rochester ladies' anti-slavery society. this is james earl jones reading the historic address during a performance of voices of a people's history of the united states. it was co-edited by howard zinn. the late great historian introduced the address. >> frederick douglass, once a slave, became a brilliant and powerful leader of the anti-slavery movement. in 1852, he was asked to speak in celebration of the fourth of july. frederick douglass: [read by james earl jones] fellow-citizens, pardon me, and allow me to ask,

why am i called upon to speak here today? what have i, or those i represent, to do with your national independence? are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that declaration of independence, extended to us? and am i, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? i am not included within the pale of this glorious anniversary! your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. the blessings in which you this day rejoice are not enjoyed in common.

the rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity, and independence bequeathed by your fathers is shared by you, not by me. the sunlight that brought life and healing to you has brought stripes and death to me. this fourth of july is yours, not mine. you may rejoice, i must mourn. to drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak today? what, to the american slave, is your fourth of july?

i answer, a day that reveals to him, more than all other days of the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is a constant victim. to him, your celebration is a sham, your boasted liberty, an unholy license, your national greatness, swelling vanity, your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless, your denunciation of tyrants, brass fronted impudence, your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery, your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy --

a thin veil to cover up crimes that would disgrace a nation of savages. there is not a nation of the earth guilty of practices more shocking and bloody than are the people of these united states at this very hour. at a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. oh! had i the ability, and could reach the nation's ear, i would, today, pour forth a stream, a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke. for it is not light that is needed, but fire. it is not the gentle shower, but thunder. we need the storm, the whirlwind, the earthquake.

the feeling of the nation must be quickened, the conscience of the nation must be roused, the propriety of the nation must be startled, the hypocrisy of the nation must be exposed, and the crimes against god and man must be proclaimed and denounced. [applause] amy: james earl jones, reading the words of frederick douglass. we turn now to poet amanda gorman. she became the youngest inaugural poet in u.s. history when she spoke at the inauguration of president joe biden and vice president kamala harris. she was 22 years old when she read "the hill we climb," a poem she finished right after the january 6 insurrection. this is amanda gorman. >> mr. president, dr. biden,

madam vice president, mr. emhoff, americans, and the world. when day comes, we ask ourselves, where can we find light in this never-ending shade? the loss we carry, a sewe must wade. we've braved the belly of the beast. we've learned that quiet isn't always peace, and the norms and notions of what "just is" isn't always justice. and yet the dawn is ours before we knew it. somehow, we do it. somehow we've weathered and witnessed a nation that isn't broken, but simply unfinished. we, the successors of a country and a time where a skinny black girl, descended from slaves and raised by a single mother, can dream of becoming president,

only to find herself reciting for one. and yes, we are far from polished, far from pristine. but that doesn't mean we are striving to form a union that is perfect. we are striving to forge our union with purpose, to compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters, and conditions of man. and so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us, but what stands before us. we close the divide, because we know to put our future first, we must first put our differences aside. we lay down our arms so we can reach out our arms to one another. we seek harm to none, and harmony for all. let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true -- that even as we grieved, we grew,

that even as we hurt, we hoped, that even as we tired, we tried. that we'll forever be tied together. victorious, not because we will never again know defeat, but because we will never again sow division. scripture tells us to envision that -- "everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid." if we're to live up to our own time, then victory won't lie in the blade, but in all the bridges we've made. that is the promised glade, the hill we climb, if only we dare it -- because being american is more than a pride we inherit it's the past we step into, and how we repair it. we've seen a force that would shatter our nation rather than share it, would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy.

and this effort very nearly succeeded. but while democracy can be periodically delayed, it can never be permanently defeated. in this truth, in this faith, we trust. for while we have our eyes on the future, history has its eyes on us. this is the era of just redemption. we feared at its inception. we did not feel prepared to be the heirs of such a terrifng hour. but within it we've found the power to author a new chapter, to offer hope and laughter to ourselves. so while once we asked, how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe? now we assert, how could catastrophe possibly prevail over us? we will not march back to what was, but move to what shall be -- a country that is bruised but whole, benevolent but bold,

fierce and free. we will not be turned around, or interrupted by intimidation, because we know our inaction and inertia will be the inheritance of the next generation. our blunders become their burdens. but one thing is certain, if we merge mercy with might, and might with right, then love becomes our legacy, and change, our children's birthright. so let us leave behind a country better than the one we were left. with every breath from my bronze- pounded chest, we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one. we will rise from the gold-limned hills of the west! we will rise from the windswept northeast, where our forefathers first realized revolution! we will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the midwestern states! we will rise from the sunbaked south! we will rebuild, reconcile, and recover,

in every known nook of our nation, in every corner called our country, our people, diverse and dutiful. we'll emerge, battered and beautiful. when day comes, we step out of the shade, aflame and unafraid. the new dawn blooms as we free it, for there is always light, if only we're brave enough to see it, if only we're brave enough to be it. [applause] amy: poet amanda gorman, reading her poem "the hill we climb" at president biden's inauguration in january 2021. at 22, amanda gorman became the youngest inaugural poet. when we come back, we'll look at the supreme court overturning roe v. wade. we will speak to kathryn "kitty" kolbert, who argued the landmark case of planned parenthood v.

casey, the case that upheld roe. she is the co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." and we will speak with california law professor michele goodwin, author of "policing the womb: invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood." stay with us. ■■ [music break]

amy: today, a democracy now! special. i am amy goodman. ashe supreme court overturns roe v. wade, we spend the rest of the hour looking at the fight for reproductive rights. on june 24, the conservative court ruled 6-3 in the case dobbs v. jackson women's health organization to uphold a republican-backed mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy while voting 5-4 to overturn roe v. wade. as protests continue across the country, we turn now to my conversation with two leading legal scholars who i spoke to after the ruling came down. kathryn "kitty" kolbert is co-founder of the center for reproductive rights. she argued the landmark supreme court case planned parenthood v. casey, which upheld roe.

she is the co-author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." and michele goodwin is chancellor's professor at university of california-irvine school of law, host of the ms. magazine podcast "on the issues with michele goodwin," and author of "policing the womb: invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood." her new piece for "the new york times" is headlined "no, justice alito, reproductive justice is in the constitution." i began by asking professor goodwin for her response to the supreme court overturning roe. >> well, it's good to be back with you, amy, on this show. the decision itself, just as we saw with the leaked draft, has many errors, omissions. it has a selective, if not opportunistic, reading of american history. it does nocenter -- in all of its claimed originalism, in all of its claimed textualism interestingly enough, it avoids the 13th amendment.

it even avoids the first sentence of the 14th amendment. and here's what my "new york times" piece was about. it was that when congress abolished, through the ratification of the 13th amendment, abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, they were not abolisng that just for black men. they very well understood that involuntary servitude for black women in the united states meant involuary sexual assault rapes and then the reproduction after that, as black women were forced to labor not only in the fields, but also labor under the weig, a different kind of shackling of slavery, which was sexual subordination and reproduction. this was very well known. the abolitionist in congress who led e way for the 13th amendment spoke and wrote about this. maachusettsenator charles sumner

was nearly beaten to death in the halls of congress two days after giving a speech about the raping of blk women. sojourner truth spoke to it. i mean, it was clear. "the new york times," there were articles about it. so the very idea that there was no one thinking about involuntary servitude as being consistent with involuntary reproduction is just absurdist. it was written about everywhere. everyone knew this as being one of the devastating effects of american slavery. and it was abolished with the 1h amendment. and then later on, with the 14th endment, it was still recognized that black women were psychologically, physically, and reproductively still being harmed in southern states. their children were being denied citizenship. their children were being snatched and taken away from them. and the 14th amendment was therefore then ratified. the piece goes into depth in all of these tegories to give an education to the supreme court and to our country to remember this,

because otherwise, black women have been essentially erased from the constitution. and by erasing black women from the constitution, we ultimately erase all women from the constitution because the 13th amendment and 14th amendment not only freed black women from these bondages, but it also freed white women from these bondages. none of this is given any kind of reading by the originalists and textualists onhe supreme court who seem to ignore all of that and have now rendered us to a country where there are free state where individuals can be free in their bodies, and also those where it is non-free. and one can't help but undersnd this as being so consistent with the patterns of slavery and jim crow in the united states. amy: let's talk about the trajectory right through to now. people of color are most affected by the lack of healthcare that will be available

when abortion is outlawed in state after state. can you talk about the duke study, about black maternal mortality and how much higher it is than for white people who are pregnant? >> well, i'm glad that you mentioned that, because what is also alarming inhis opinion, and also in the draft opinion, is how it gives no regard to facts, concurrent facts. the united states ranks 55th in the wor in terms of maternal mortality. it is not in league with germany, france, its peer nations. instead, 's in peer compy with nations that still publicly lash and stone women. 2016, the supreme court's ow record showed that women were 14 times more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by having an abortion. once we flash what this looks like in terms of race,

then we really get a sense of the horror that's behind all of this, and again with the supreme court deciding that it would pay no attention to it. so in mississippi, we're looking at 118 times -- black women more likely to die 118 times byarrying pregnancy to term than bhaving an abortion. according to mississippi's own data from their department of health, a black woman -- 80% of the cardiac deaths in that state occur to black women. black women don't make up 80% of the female population in the state but are 80% of the cardiac deaths during pregnancy. and nationally, they're three-and-a-half times more likely than white counterparts to die due to maternal mortality. but, amy, that's not all. if you actually look at certain counties within these anti-abortion states, then you see that black women may be five or 10 or 15 times more likely to die by being forced to carry a pregnancy to term

than by being able to have the medical care of an abortion. and it's just that glaring and alarming. and what's so stunning about it is that the supreme court gives no consideration to this data. amy: kitty kolbert, you argued planned parenthood v. casey before the supreme court 30 years ago in 1992. roe was reaffirmed in thatase. this was about, what, spousal consent, men having to give women their consent for an abortion? >> it was that and a number of other restrictions in pennsylvania law that were upheld. but i think, strikingly, in 1992, we expected the court to do exactly what they did here. and they didn't because justice kennedy changed his vote at the last minute. but as a result of casey, while it preserved legal abortion in most -- in all states across the country, it meant that many women, particularly black and brown women,

women who are poor, women who lived in rural areas, women who were young had very, very difficult times obtaining abortions because of the restrictions that it permitted. now, unfortunately, today, as a result of this ruling, those same women will suffer much, much more, because their ability to obtain abortion will be totally circumscribed. it's a really devastating opinion, one in which all of us need to be as angry as we can be and to channel that anger to making a difference and changing what the court has done through the legislative process. amy: and how do you do that, i mean, through the legislative process? mike pence is calling for congress, the legislative process, to pass a nationwide abortion ban. >> and they could do that.

they could do that. if they take contr of the house of representatives and the senate with a republican president after 2024, they could easily do that. and mitch mcconnell has said it's on the table, it's something that they will consider, whicis just connell speak for "we're going to do that." our response has to be to take -- to keep control of the house, to win a majority in the senate that includes two additional senators who are willing to bypass the filibuster rule, and pass statutory protection for women. but the reality is that states are also a huge impediment on this sue. as you said earlier, 26 states are expected to ban abortion within the next couple of weeks or months. that means that 40% of women of childbearing age or more will be affected. we're talking about hundreds of thousands of women

who will be seeking abortions for their unintended pregnancies having to travel hundreds and hundreds of mis to safe states. and this is no way to provide healthcare. this is no way to live in a democracy. and it's because the ultraconservative justices have taken back the supreme court and, frankly, have imposed their own ideological biases against all the rest of us. it's a devastating ruling and one in which our anger is appropriate and certainly should be heeded to make sure that we can switch this around. amy: now, let's talk about this moving pregnant people from one state to another to have an abortion. the concerns of a number of, what, abortion funds like one in texas -- corporations who said they'll do this, they'll pay for this -- not clear that their workers would want to make it

known to the corporation that they were pregnant. but abortion funds, for example, inactive now, right at the time where they could get a lot of money, a lot of support all over the country because they're terrified that it means aiding and abetting. can you clarify this? or is the lack of clarity what will -- is the plan that people will be afraid to do this, organizations will be afraid to do this, but it's not actually codified in law, the ban, on that? >> depend state by state, because some states like texas prohibit aiding persons to self-manage their care. it's not clear whether it also would prohibit women from traveling and aiding the travel. but the point is, you're absolutely right, amy, is the vagueness really scares people from taking action. and let's remember there's like three things

that are likely to happen. first, it's women who could travel. and frankly, it is women with means who are most likely to travel, women who have the resources to be able to get on a plane or to drive 250 miles. other women will self-manage their abortion by taking abortion pills. and they will get them in a varie of ways, either thrgh the internet or through prescriptions from foreign countries and, you know, mailing them from india or other pharmacies, or going to mexico or going to canada or, frankly, going to their friend who lives in missouri and asking them -- or, i mean, not missouri, but going to california to their friend and asking for the pills there. i mean, there's all kinds ways to self-manage your care. but the problem -- and i think michele can talk about this even more graphically than i -- is that many of those women will subject themselves to the potential ofriminal prosecution,

either for self-managing their care and getting the drugs illegally, or the people who are aiding or helping her toet information and to get the appropriate care. you know, i think that we need to stand up and say this is not all right, make lots and lots of noise, a real -- you know, make sure that these prosecutors who are adamantly opposed to abortion are taken out of office and defeated at the next election. and, you know, all of this will take time and will take effort and will take many, many millions of americans standing up for our liberties. it's possible. we have to start now. amy: let me go to the tweet of alexandria ocasio-cortez, congresswoman from new york. this is a concise overview about the poible ways to respond:

- "restrain judicial review - expand the court - clinics on federal lands - expand education and access to plan c - repeal hyde - hold floor votes codifying griswold, obergefell, lawrence, loving, etc. - vote on escobar's bill protecting clinics "we can do it! we can at least try," she said. let me put this question to professor goodwin. one of the points she makes, and that senator warren has made, along with 25 other elected representatives, is this idea of opening -- of providing abortion on federal land, called what, federal enclaves, where there are often hospitals, on military bases, to pregnant people in red states. can you explain what this is about? >> sure. you know, it's an interesting point, because in her confirmation hearings, justice ruth bader ginsburg spoke about a client

that she represented. it was captain kathy struck. this was before roe v. wade. and captain struck was in the military and she was pregnant. she actually wanted to carry her egnancto term. the military required at the time that if you were in the military and a woman and pregnant, you must have an abortion or leave the military. captain ruck wanted to stay pregnant. ruth bader ginsburg thought that this would be a great case to challenge the laws that criminalized abortion, as in states, stay off, government, stay out of reproductive healthcare, let women decide on their own. instead, it was the case that was roe v. wade as wenderstanit that the supreme crt then ruled on 7 to 2 in 1973. but if you think about what justice ruth bader ginsburg was trying to do at that time and what captain kathy struck wanted, it was that on military bases,

abortions were already accessible, available, and, in fact, if you wer anmployee of the military, you had to have an abortio rather thakeeping ur pregnancy. and so this idea is actually a long-standing idea because it's already been in practice on military bases even before roe v. wade. women were able to get abortions if they were in the military. and so opening up these federal enclaves for this kind of reproductive healthcare is meaningful for not just a reaction to dobbs, but there are medical deserts, reproductive healthcare deserts all across the country. and there is a dire need for people to get the reproductive healthcare that they need. so even if we had not seen the result of this dobbs decision, that would have been a smart thing to do, particularly given the very high rates of maternal mortality and morbidity in the united states

that connects to a number of issues, but one of them being that there is not good reproductive healthcare that's accessible for so many vulnerable people who live in these areas where it is very hard to find a clinic or a hospital to provide basic healthcare, including reproductive healthcare. amy: finally, kitty kolbert, thomas' concurrence, justice thomas' concurrence, where he writes that we should move on from here to gay marriage, to contraception. can you talk about this? >> yeah, i think he's the only one on the court or in the majority thais willing to tell the truth. you know, justice alito seems to backpedal and say, well, heoesn't think -- the only rights that are affected are abortion rights. well, that's just bunk. i mean, the reality is is the rationale

that the court used overturn roe and casey is equally applicable to a whole range of what are called unenumerated rights, or rights that aren't specifically listed in the constitution but derive from our notions of liberty and equality. and that includes contraception. that includes gay rights. it includes trans rights. it includes end-of-life care. it includes the ability to make decisions about one's child's education. there's a host of liberties -- the right to travel isn't mentioned specifically in the constitution. so there's a host of interests that are at play here. interestingly enough, justice thomas didn't mention the right to marry a person of a different race, maybe because it affects him personally as opposed to all these others that are just, you know, people he doesn't care about. but the reality is is i do think that this ruling is extremely, extremely broad.

it is written in a way that can expand. and frankly, state legislators are already attacking us, attacking contraception, attacking trans people, attacking gay marriage in a host of ways. those attacks will make their way to the supreme court. and frankly, i think this court is likely to expand the ruling significantly. amy: and we just have 30 seconds, kitty kolbert, but the message that you have devoted your book to, that you are commenting after the overturning of roe, the subtitle of the book, "what we must do now to save reproductive freedom," the most important things people can do? >> yeah, three things -- one, help women, two, get active politically, that is, get involved in electoral politics -- you may not like it, but we have to do it, and, most importantly, make some noise because, of course, we can't let them continue to take away our rights

without saying defiantly that this is not ok. amy: that was "kitty" kolbert. she argued the landmark supreme court case planned parentho v. casey, which upheld roe. she is author of "controlling women: what we must do now to save reproductive freedom." when we come back, we will continue our conversation with law professor michele goodwin, chancellor's professor at university of california-irvine school of law. we will speak with her about her "new york mes" essay "i was raped by my father. an abortion saved my life." back in a minute. ■■ [music break]

amy: this is democracy now!, democracynow.org the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. we're continuing to look at the supreme court's overturning roe v. wade with law professor michele goodwin, chancellor's professor of law at the university of california, irvine. it was on the eve of the court's oral arguments in the case in november that michele goodwin

wrote a guest essay in "the new york times." it was headlined "i was raped by my father. an abortion saved my life." i interviewed michele goodwin in may after the court's opinion was leaked. i began by quoting from her article. a warning to our viewers and listeners, this segment includes descriptions of sexual violence. "on wednesday, the supreme court will hear oral arguments on the constitutionality of a 15-week abortion ban in mississippi that provides no exceptions in cases of rape or incest. what's at stake in this case matters to the countless girls and women who have been raped -- including those who, like me, were raped by a father, an uncle or another family member. "it was the early morning of my 10th birthday the first time that i was raped by my father. it would not be the last. the shock was so severe that i temporarily went blind before i began the fifth grade a few weeks later. by the time the school year began, my father had taken me to see a battery of doctors -- a medical explanation would paper over the fact

that the trauma caused by his sexual violence had caused my body to shut down. "the physiological suffering that i endured included severe migraines, hair loss and even gray hair -- at 10 years old. while other girls may have longed for puberty, i loathed the idea of it. my body became a vessel that was not mine. it had been taken from me. i lived in fear of the night, and the footsteps outside my bedroom door." those are the opening words of michele goodwin's new york times guest essay last november headlined "i was raped by my father. an abortion saved my life," again, written on the eve of the court's decision that could overturn the constitutional right to abortion. michele goodwin joins us now. she's chancellor's professor at university of california, irvine school of law, founding director of the center for biotechnology and global health policy, and has written the book "policing the womb: invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood."

professor goodwin, welcome back to democracnow! we appreciate you joining us again this week. can you start off by talking about why you chose to write that essay? >> amy, it's important that we all understand that the newspect of anti-abortion provisions includes an aspect that we would not have seen even five years ago. and that is that they make no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. now, these laws on their own are really qui chilling and horrific when we understand, just as a baseline, the importance of reproductive liberty and freedom and when we understand that a wom or girl is 14 times more likely to die by carrying a pregnancy to term than by an abortion in the united states. so that's just a baseline anyway.

but then when we add onto it that these laws have this kind of punitive aspect as well, such that if you have been raped or that you have somehow survived incest, that you, too, may no longer have an exception that would provide for the ability to terminate a pregnancy, then we really understand that these laws have nothing to do, and they never have had anything to do, with protecting, respecting the autonomy, the dignity, the privacy of women or girls. in fact, they're just simply cruel types of laws that are power plays that fit into a history of controlling women's bodies and a history, quite specifically, of controlling the bodies of black and brown women. i mean, it's been all women who have been subjected to the cruelties of such laws, but they have a particularly pernicious effect when we actually understand the historical implications, too.

as to rape and incest, i thought it was really important to legitimize that conversation and move us away from the taboo where we're not supposed to talk about those things and where, clearly, the supreme court is not talking about that at all, as it was not raised in oral arguments. and in the leaked draft opinion that was circulated this week, justice alito does not even bother to actually mention rape or incest in any part of the nearly 100-page draft opinion. amy: when you talk about the health of african american women, also the mortality rate, maternal mortali rate of african american women, talk more -- go more deeply into how these laws so deeply affect pregnant people all over the country, but particularly afric erican wom and low-income women. >> that's right. mean, as a general matter, we shoulall be horrified,

becae as a general matter, black womeare the canaries the coal mine. what happens to them eventually reaches everybody else, though not always to the same degree. and that's so been hiorically true, as well, as you look at states like mississippi, alabama, texas. you know, as a national matter, black women are nearly four timemore likely to die thanhite women by carrying pregnancies to term, three-and-a-halfimes more likely. but when you drill that number down and you actually peer under the ho and you look in states such as i've mentioned and you look even deeper within certain counties that have high populations of black women, and you see then, well, in those plas, black women are five, 10, 15, 17 times morlikely to die by carrying pregnancies to term than their white counterpart. and if you look at that national statistic that i gave you, at women generally are 14 times more likely to die

by carrying a pregnancy to term than aabortion, well, in mississippi, it's over 100 times more likely to die -- in fact, nearly 180 tis more likely to die -- if you're a black woman in mississippi and you're coeed into carrying a pregnancy to term. you're that muchore likelyo die than by having an abortion. and so these alarming, really alarming statistics that iany other catery of health ife heard that, the alarm bells woul be ringing and the government would be saying, you know, "don't choose the alternative at all. want to keep you alive." but what's very interesting wh it comes to pregnancy and pronatalism in this country, it's not about actually caring about the health of women, girls, people who can become pregnant. not at all. those alarm bells do not ring, even though the data that i've just shared with you comes from the cdc. it comes from the departments of health in these individual states. this is not data that's being made up by people

who are pro-choice. this is data that we're getting from the governments in florida, in texas. this is governor abbott's data that helps us to know that texas is one of the most dangerous places in the entire developed world for a person to be pregnant. amy: i wanted to ask you about the louisiana law -- well, it's not a law yet, it's been proposed -- that makes the dtruction of a fertilized human eg at any stage of its development an act of murder, punishable presumably by louisiana's death penalty. i mean, this is astounding. you're talking about -- what about a person who works in a fertility clinic, who is holding a test tube -- >> sure. amy: with a fertilized egg and drops that test tube? could they be charged with murder? >> well, this is where we're in a space that i call the new jane crow, theslaws that are not rational, they're quite illogical, and even more, they're punitive,

they're cruel, they're absolutely excessive you know, if youhink about the work of pai murray, she s in many ways the dmother of the civil rights movement. thurgood marshall said that the book that she wrote on race laws was the bible of the civil rights movement. and it's about 800 pages, single-spaced, all of the crazy, really crazy jim crow laws, such as, you kno blacpeople can't play checkers in the park. that ridiculous, that you think, "who in the world thought of that?" and would connect a fine and also criminal punishment if black people are caught playing checkers in the park. well, in the new jane crow, we see laws such as and propositions such as what you've just described. they make absolutely no sense, but they're absolutely cruel. and they're meant to cause fear and to chill behavior. and their reach is beyond what we could grasp or even imagine. and that's also really what "policing the womb" is about. it is a warning call,

because we've already seen, again, as black women in the canaries -- canaries in the coal mine, we've seen that kind of punitive punishment with black women being dragged out of hospitals in shackles and chains in the late 1980's and 1990's because they were imperfect in how they carried their pregnancies. no exact law saying that they could or should be dragged out of hospitals in such punitive ways or giving birth in prison and on toilets and concrete floors, but the specter of policing their pregnancies, this kinof specter that the state owns everything with regard to your reproductive capacities, leads us into a space where there's dramatic surveillance. and it's frightening for people. and that's what these laws are meanto do. yes, they'll criminally punish, and possibly even death sentce but they're meant to instill fear in people. amy: i mean, you look at a most recent case that got a good amount of attention.

it was the case of lelle herrera. she is the latinx woman in texas who was charged with murder for, quote-unquote, a "self-induced" abortion. now, because of groups like the frontera fund and women of color massively protesting, very much now that's the exception to the rule. and she was released, and the charges were dropped. but if the supreme court rules as we think it will, based on this leak, this will become the rule, the rule of law. >> yes. well, what we'll see is just like in j crow times or antebellum times, the are places where women can be fre and girls can be free and may not have to rry. and even there, i would put some caution around it because in california just a couple years ago in the valley, there was a prosecutor who attempteto prosecute --

in fact, was prosecuting a woman for murder in the case of her stillbirth. but, yes, what we will begin to see is that there will be states where people will not be free, where they will in fact be policed. and that kind of policing will also be connected to sex profiling, just like racial priling, right? this hyper-intensive look at wt are girls and women doing with their bodies. there will be a turn to and pressure on nurses, on doctors, on medical staff to breach millennia-old practices of confidentiality between themselves and their patients. and they will breach that and will share that information, just as we saw in at case, with law enforcement. d then the next step will be arrest. and this is not just simply anecdotal. as i record in my book, in the state of alabama, already there have been hundreds of women who have come under the inspection of the state,

charged and arrested under fetal endangerment -- or child endangerment, in that case -- laws, laws that would extend child, the definition of a child, to a fetus. and in alabama, as i've mentioned, black women, the canaries in the coal mine the, the majority of those won happen to be white. but th all are poor the vast jority of em are poor or working-class women, who have already come under the attention of the state this prurient kind of way. so what we have to understand is just what we've seen at theupreme court level, this attack that's finally reached its pinnacle up to the sueme court to dismantle roe v. wade, this work has had tentacles. and it's been working to criminalize women and also to impose civil nishments associated with pregnancy. amy: i wanted to ask y, professor goodwin, about the medication abortion, the pill. "the l.a. times" lead story "abortion pills:

a post-r game changer -- and the next battleground." the opening line, "the future of abortion in the u.s is moving to the mailbox." it's also the front-page story today of "the new york times," "in abortion fight, pills could be the next focus." and it might surprise some people to know that more than half of abortions in the united states are result of taking these pills. you just did a podcast on this. can you talk about this issue? >> that's right. that's right. so in europe, this has been liberalized for decades. and due to political machinations and with the food and drug administration, which at times can be captured by outside sources, it was stalled in the united states. but now, for more than a decade, just about a decade in the united states, we have a signifant numb of pregnancy terminations, abortions, being done through medication. they're incredibly safe.

the world health organization has compared an abortion to the safety of a penicillin shot. so these pills are very, very safe. it's worth noting that during the trump administration, of over 22,000 drugs that one could receive in the mail during theeight of covid, medication abortion, these pills, were the only ones where a person had to go to a clinic, to a hospital in order to receive them. so there is a way in which they've been selected out for a different kind of treatment than any other kind of prescription. that said, they are accessible. and for people who are wondering now, women who are wondering now what comes next? well, these pills are accessible, and find a source where you are able to get them. and there are underground sources, as well, that are online, where folks are told this is how you order them, and they can be sent to a friend, and they can get them to you. the are a myriadays ofetting that done.

but the attack will be exactly that. the attack will come to the mailbox in order tory to shut down access to ortion in every means possible, cluding not just shutting down the clinics where surgical abortions can take place, but so searching the mailbox in some form of a way. soe'll begin to see myriad laws being shaped that try to get at that, that makes it illegal to recei pills in the mail, that me it illegal to send pills in the mail, and any other -- i mean, it's amazing the kinds of innovations that these legislators can come up with to try to curb rigs and dismantle rights. and they're not very good and not commitd to actually saving the lives of people who actually end up pregnant, want to stay pregnant, or don't want to stay pregnant. amy: prossor goodwin, in yr book "policing the womb," you write, "arguably, abortion has become so fundamentally intertwined linguistically and conceptually with the terminology of 'reproductive privacy' and 'reproductive rights'

that little else fits within the taxonomy. this is a mistake," you write. why? >> well, it's been a mistake, when you think about the following. if you think about civil rights, that's a plural. it has an "s" on it. and as having an "s" on it, iteans tt we're not just talking about brown v. board of education, right? we're talking about education employment, housing, the ability to swim in theool in your neighborhood and walk through the park. we're talking about accoodations in allf those areas. and when we center jusone aspect within abortion rights within reprodtive rights, then we're talking just about abortion then we're missing sex education, access to contraception. we're missing conversations about erilizatio we're missing all of everything else. and that kind of blind spot then means a failure to payttention to many of the other areas

where there have already been encroacents on reproductive health rights and justice. and so this is why we've missed largel what's been happening to black and brown women the kind of most horrificreatment by government during their pregnancies. this ihow the agenda of personhood was missed in the 1980's and 1990's when it was being inflicted on black women. you know, when prosecutors are claiming thatour embryo or your fetus is a livinborn child -- and it is not, by any constitutional definitio-- then everybody should be alarmed. but in the 1980's and 1990's, it completely missed those in the reproductive rights movement who were only focusing on abortion. buhere's the otr thing, amy. given the histories of coercion ancoerciveeproduction in the united states that dates back to theorced kidnap and trafficking of black women, then we should all be concerned out the fact

that black women for centuries in this country have not been accorded dignity when they are carrying pregnancies toerm, and when they're carrying pregnancies to term that they want. and we should want it all. we shod want that men should be ableo survive and have dignity en they are pregnt and wa to be pregnant. and we should also care abt governnt coercively forcing women to carry pregnanci that they don't want, for the benefit of random state legislators that these women do not even know. y: professor goodwin, the end of your book, you write about a "reproductive justice new deal." can you explain what your recommendations are? >> yes. we have to understand that in these times nobody is really safe. this is really a backsliding democracy. this is really a trampling of the rule of law in many way and we had more time on it, we could talk abt just how justice robes fits into that.

but i wre about -- amy: please do. >> ok. i write about a reproductive new deal as the urgency of these times in recognizing that we're all vulnerable. people who are lgb, as we see in texas, have become vulnerable. in florida, the "don't say gay" legislation, which is now sweeping across the country, the attacks on parents and trans childr in texas. in this reproductive new deal, i outline that there should be constitutional protections associated with the reproductive spher and, in fact, with just simply the human sphere. and i delineate what all of that means step-by-step, much in relation to just the kind of arc that we've talked about on your show this morning. across all of these areas, we need to think about protecting people who can become pregnant, and seeing those as fundamental constitutional rights all along.

and we don't have an equal rights amendment. and this is a means of explicitly getting at these various areas in which legislators have sought to basically strip away any form of human dignity, privacy, autonomy and equality from anybody who has the potential to become pregnant. and we are largely talking about women and girls. amy: that's michele goodwin, chancellor's professor of law at the university of california, irvine, author of the book "policing the womb: invisible women and the criminalization of motherhood." we will link to her "n york times" essay "i was raped by my father. an abortion saved my life." and that does it for our show. democracy now! is looking for feedback from people who appreciate the closed captioning. e-mail your comments to outreach@democracynow.org

or mail them to democracy now! p.o. box 693 new york, new york 10013. [captioning made possible

úú■x■x■x ♪♪♪ new york, new york 10013. lisa millar: for years, it's been an open secret. vincent doyle: as long as you have priests, you will have children of catholic priests. lisa: catholic priests who've broken their vow of celibacy to become fathers. michael patrick: i knew he was a priest when i was a child, but i couldn't tell them that i knew because i was a big secret. lisa: we talk to the children who've been pressured to stay quiet and suffered in silence. sarah thomas: this is just the tip of the iceberg, what we know at the moment. i think priests' cldren as a group want to be acknowledged. they want to be on the map. they exist. they're not collateral damage. lisa: some are speaking out for the very first time.