since the Dobbs decision,
where the Supreme Court overturd
Roe V Wade and sent the questiof
abortion rights back to the sta.
Since then, laws restricting and
protecting abortion rights have
popped up all across the countr.
Joining us today is our legal
analyst Whitney trailer.
When it goes back to the state,
some states said no abortion stricter.
Some states like Colorado,
we became an island with more
protections for abortion rights.
What a strange patchwork
landscape we're living in.
It is a patchwork indeed,
and it's interesting because a number
of states had trigger laws and. Place.
So that means because they theyd
outlawed abortion well before R.
So these were someone dating
back to the 1800s.
So they had these trigger laws
that as soon as Dobbs was passed
that abortion would be unlawful
30 days after the decision,
all these other things.
And what when you say a patchwo,
it's really confusing because there's
criminal statutes involved and o
there's criminal statutes when people
try and go from one state to another.
So we're still figuring this
out because this is how sort of
our common law system works,
is that once the law is decided,
then there has to be challenges on it.
So this fact pattern in this fact pattern.
So there's a lot we still don't know,
but I think the biggest ambiguity is,
is legally just that criminalizg
and things like that,
but then from the medical.
Professionals,
they have some real issues becae
sometimes it's the life of the
mother is the only standard and
that you can always get medical
folks to disagree on that.
Well,
seems like oftentimes in a casee
this as well, the High Court was
it to be handled legislatively.
Yeah, figure it out.
And then you get into the chaos
of states versus federal law.
And that's where we stand now with this.
So as far as each state
deciding it's its own way to go,
where does that leave the federal picture?
Well, and that's really
what the decision was about.
It said if this is not a federal issue,
this is not a constitutional is.
the Fed shouldn't have even been involved.
And so they sent it back to the states.
And so now you have 14 states tt
have almost complete abortion ban and
in even including rape and ince.
And so now you have some of them
are very restrictive and they
say only the life of the mother.
And this is putting doctors in a
situation where they don't wanto
perform certain procedures beca.
Don't want to have to make the
split second decision to make te
wrong decision and some of these
criminal penalties,
there's some that are life in prison,
which I don't think if
somebody was charged with that,
that would not be appalled as constitutional.
As far as the medical providers legal risk,
so some state Colorado passed a shield
law saying if you come to Colorado or
you treat someone who comes to Colorado,
we're not going to cooperate wih
Outofstate investigation right.
But doctors have been put in ths
position where a patient you kn,
whether it's here elsewhere.
I'm sure their licensure might
be a question how would they,
how do you figure that out what
kind of risks do they take on
in this Again patchwork lands
right Well they talked to their lawyers
and a lot of folks docs just said I'm
not going to perform the procedure I'm
getting out of that area of practice so.
There's it's it's very ambiguou.
And then because we're talking t
these almost sanctuary states if you will,
then there's a question about extradition.
If you can have criminal because
it's crossing state lines,
how you enforce it.
I mean it's it's a real challene
and and all the pundits who were
sort of supportive of the decisn
said yeah this is how it should.
Every state is different.
New York is different than Wyomg
and everything else.
But it's created a lot of issues
especially as it relates to.
Medical abortions and FDA approd
medicines and that being shipped
from state to state.
So we're just we're just
having more litigation
and never before has it been
so on in public discussion.
How politicized the Supreme Cout
feels to Americans whether it
is or isn't but it feels like
it is that the court is this or
it is this depending on on the
justices that are appointed.
That's going to be a problem
for the court going forward.
It's it's a major problem and ia
problem for society because I've said
that many times on our segments that,
look, the judges are the
arbiters were very polarized,
but as long as we have somebodyt
we can trust making the decisio,
then we can move forward.
But now you hear all the time,
Trump appointed judge,
Obama appointed judge.
That creates a real problem.
And then when you had our
confirmation hearings being
completely contentious and you e
to just look back when it was.
There was liberal justices.
I'm. I'm going Blake now who?
Anyway, that that in the 80s thy
were getting confirmed unanimou,
regardless of how far to the le.
Scalia got confirmed almost
unanimously as an example.
And now folks are completely vog
down party lines and so that's y
folks are suggesting term limit.
And all of that is problematic
because if the court starts to
become political or feels polit,
then we don't have any arbiter.
We don't have somebody that we all trust.
Well,
it'll be, you know, with the decisions
this week and then more to comed
more evolution through the cour,
it'll, it'll be watched.
But it seems like the lens
is different than it's been.
Whitney, we appreciate you coming in.
All right.