i just got a call saying that
it's been announced
that it is a real draft but it doesn't
represent who's going to vote for it yet
i hope there are not enough votes for it
it's the main reason why i worked so
hard to keep robert bork off the court
it just reflects his view almost
almost
anyway
look
the idea
that
it concerns me a great deal that we're
going to after 50 years decide a woman
does not have a right to choose the
mental limits of the supreme court
decision
number one
but even more equally as profound as the
rationale used
and it would mean that
every other decision
we made into the notion of privacy
is thrown into question
i i realize this goes back a long way
but one of the debates i have with
robert bork was whether
whether uh griswold versus connecticut
should stand as law
the state of connecticut said that the
privates in your bedroom you a husband
and wife or a couple could not choose to
use contraception to use the
contraceptive as a violation of the law
if the rationale of the decision as
released
were to be sustained
a whole range of rights are in question
a whole range of rights and the idea
we're letting the states make those
decisions localities make those
decisions would be a fundamental shift
in what we've done
so it goes far beyond in my view
if it becomes a law and if what is
written
is what remains
it goes far beyond the concern of
whether or not there is the right to
choose it goes to other basic rights
right to marry
the right to determine a whole range of
things
because
one of the issues that this court
many of the members of the court
a number of the members of court
have not acknowledged is that there is a
right to privacy in our constitution
i strongly believe there is i think the
decision his law
was correct over ruling i think the
decision
roe was correct because there's a right
to privacy it could be limitations on it
but it cannot be denied
do you think it's a presidential
reverently
[Music]
we've never seen this happen before well
you know if
this decision holds
it's really quite a radical decision
um and again
the underlying premise and again i've
not had a chance to thoroughly go into
the report
decision
but it basically says
all the decisions to be made to your
private life
who you marry
whether or not you decide to conceive a
child or not whether or not you can have
an abortion a range of other decisions
whether or not how you raise your child
what does this do
and does this mean that in florida they
can decide they're going to pass a law
saying that same-sex marriage is not
permissible it's against the law in
florida
so there's a whole it's a fundamental
shift in american jewish
i'm not prepared to
make those judgments now
about uh but you know uh i think the
codification in a row makes a lot of
sense look think what rose says
roe says what all
basically mainstream religions have
historically concluded
that
right that the existence of a human and
life and being
is the question
is it at the moment of conception is it
six months is it six weeks is it is it
quickening like aquinas argued i mean so
the idea that we're going to make a
judgment
that
is going to say that
no one can make the judgment to choose
to
abort a child
based on a decision by the supreme court
i think it goes way overboard
thank you thank you guys for the
midterms what does this mean for the
democrats argument in the midterm i
haven't taught that to you do changes
need to be made to support in light of
it that this decision holds
hard do changes need to be made to the
court in light of this if this no we
just have to choose i mean look one of
the reasons why
i voted against a number of the members
of the court they refused to acknowledge
that there's a ninth amendment that
refused to acknowledge the right to
privacy because i mean
there's so many fundamental rights that
are affected by that
and i'm not a lot i'm not prepared to
leave that to the
whims and the
uh of the public at the moment
in local areas thank you so much
[Music]
you