IT WITH SUPERINTENDENT NIKOLAI VITTI ALL TODAY ON FLASHPOINT. MHM. ALRIGHT THIS WEEK. THE
COURT OF CLAIMS JUDGE ELIZABETH
GLACIER ISSUED A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION WHICH WOULD
TEMPORARILY HALT THE 1931
ABORTION BAN TO WHICH
MICHIGANNATIVE FAULT IF ROE
VERSUS WADE IS OVERTURNED A
RULING THAT INSPIRED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS AND IN FACT, THEY ARE
NOW BEING ASKED BY THE STATE
SUPREME COURT. SO LET’S TALK IT
OVER WITH DEBORAH LABELLE, WHO
IS THE ATTORNEY FOR PLANNED
PARENTHOOD IN THIS SUIT,
DEBORAH, I’M SO GLAD THAT YOU’VE
GOT TIME TO TALK TO ME TODAY. I
KNOW YOU’RE STILL DIGESTING THE
QUESTIONS ISSUED BY THE COURT,
BUT ONE OF THE CENTRAL QUESTIONS
IT SEEMS ONE OF THEIR PROHIBITED
QUESTIONS THAT I THINK A LOT OF
PEOPLE WOULD ASK. IS THERE
SAYING, LOOK, SHOULDN’T WE WAIT
UNTIL WE HAVE A RULING? FROM THE
U. S SUPREME COURT. OTHERWISE
THIS IS ALL SORT OF AN ACADEMIC
EXERCISE, RIGHT? WELL THEY DID
ASK THAT QUESTION, BUT WITHIN
THE REAL POINT HERE IN BOTH THE
PLANNED PARENTHOOD CASE AND IN
THE GOVERNOR’S CASE IS THAT WHAT
WE NEED IS A DECISION FROM THE
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT. ABOUT
WHAT OUR CONSTITUTION WITH THE
MICHIGAN COUNTS TO SHIN PROVIDES
FOR YOU KNOW IF IT PROTECTS
MICHIGANDERS, MICHIGAN WOMEN AND
GIRLS IN THEIR REPRODUCTIVE
CHOICES AND FREEDOMS AND
INDEPENDENT OF THE U. S. SUPREME
COURT. THAT’S THE QUESTION THAT
NEEDS TO BE ANSWERED. NO MATTER
WHAT HAPPENS WITH DABS BECAUSE
WE HAVE OUR OWN CONSTITUTION,
AND OUR CONSTITUTION PROVIDES
FOR RIGHTS SOMETIMES THAT ARE
GREATER THAN WHAT THE FEDERAL
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR.
SOMETIMES THE LANGUAGE IS
SIMILAR. BUT WE HAVE THE RIGHT
TO INTERPRET IT DIFFERENTLY, AND
SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. ONE
OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS THOSE
SORT OF SUGGESTED I’M WONDERING
IF YOU THINK THAT THIS DECISION
AND YOUR CASE THAT MOVED FORWARD
THE JUDGE GLACIER ISSUED HER
DECISION ON EARLIER THIS WEEK.
DID THAT NOW IN DANGER, THE
GOVERNOR’S ARGUMENT AND THE
BROADER QUESTION THAT SHE WAS
WANTING THE COURT TO TAKE UP HAS
ONE COLLIDED NOW WITH THE OTHER,
WHICH WOULD BE INTERESTING
BECAUSE I THINK YOU PROBABLY
WOULD BE A PARTY TO OR IN FAVOR
OF WHAT THE GOVERNOR’S PURSUING
AS WELL. I DON’T THINK THAT THEY
CONFLICT OR COLLIDING ANYWAY.
ALL OF US ARE TRYING TO GET TO
THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT FOR
THIS DECISION, WHETHER IT BE THE
GOVERNOR’S CASE. OR WHETHER IT
BE OUR CASE OR WHETHER IT BE
THEM JOINED TOGETHER WHERE THE
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT
DETERMINES WHAT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ARE ONE OF
THE FIRST CRITICISMS OF JUDGE
PUBLISHER’S DECISION THAT CAME
FROM THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST
ABORTION RIGHTS WAS THAT SHE
SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY RECUSED
HERSELF AS SOMEONE WHO HAS
CONTRIBUTED TO PLANNED
PARENTHOOD IN THE PAST. IT’S BAD
OPTICS. I THINK TOO MANY PEOPLE.
BUT SHOULDN’T SHE HAVE RECRUIT?
YOU’RE RECUSED YOURSELF. SO I
WOULD SAY ABSOLUTELY THAT WE
HAVE RULES AND WHAT JUDGES ARE
SUPPOSED TO DO AND WHEN THEY
HAVE CONFLICTS THAT REQUIRE THEM
TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, AND NONE
OF THOSE INVOLVED, UM YOU KNOW,
MINOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO ONE OF
THE PARTIES OVER THE YEARS. IF
JUDGES HAD TO RECUSE THEMSELVES
IN EVERY CASE IN WHICH THEY HAD
DONE A CONTRIBUTION TO A PARTY.
UM YOU KNOW IT WOULD BE, IT
WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC, AND THAT’S
SIMPLY NOT THE RULE. AND SO THE
FACT THAT A JUDGE SAYS YOU KNOW
, I APPRECIATE WHAT PLANNED
PARENTHOOD HAS DONE OVER THE
YEARS IN TERMS OF THEIR
COUNSELING, AND THEY’RE
PROVIDING A GREAT DEAL OF
SERVICES, WHICH THEY DO TO BOTH
MEN AND WOMEN. UM YOUNG PEOPLE,
OLDER PEOPLE AND ALL SORTS OF
AREAS. AND THE FACT THAT A COURT
APPRECIATES THAT DOES NOT MEAN
THAT THEY CAN’T SIT ON NEUTRALLY
AND A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN PROVIDES PROTECTIONS
FOR ABORTION INITIATIVE IF JUDGE
GLACIER HAD GIVEN MONEY IN THE
PAST TWO ANTI ABORTION CAUSES,
WOULDN’T YOU HAVE HAD A PROBLEM
WITH HER BEING THE ONE TO MAKE
THE DECISION ON THIS? I WOULD
NOT. I MEAN, I AM BEING HONEST
HERE. UM YOU KNOW, THAT IS NOT A
QUESTION. I WOULD HAVE ASKED, UM
, BECAUSE UNDER THE RULES, IT’S
NOT A BASIS FOR
DISQUALIFICATION. LET ME MOVE ON
INTO THE DECISION ITSELF. IF WE
IF WE DO GET IF WE GO BACK TO
THE 1931 LAW, WHICH WAS BASED ON
AN 18 46 LAW, I GUESS I I’M
STILL A LITTLE CONFUSED. IT’S
NOT AS CUT AND DRY AS TO SAY,
WELL, ABORTION IS ALLOWED OR IT
ISN’T THERE’S THIS HUGE SPAN IN
BETWEEN, YOU KNOW. POLLS SHOW
THAT MOST PEOPLE ARE IN FAVOR OF
ROE VERSUS WADE STANDING. BUT
POLLS ALSO SHOW US THAT MOST
PEOPLE AREN’T REALLY WILD ABOUT,
SAY THIRD TRIMESTER ABORTIONS.
TELL ME WHERE IF THIS IF WE GET
RID OF THE OF THE 1931 LAW,
WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US IN
MICHIGAN? WHAT REALLY IS ALLOWED
AND WHAT ISN’T WELL, THAT’S ONE
OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT
THE COURT TO ANSWER AND WHAT
WE’RE SAYING IS THAT THE STATE
CONSTITUTION PROVIDES FOR
PROTECTS INDIVIDUALS RIGHT TO
BODILY INTEGRITY. AND WHAT THAT
MEANS IS THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT
TO MAKE DECISIONS YOURSELF ABOUT
, UM, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF
CHOICES WITH REGARD TO
REPRODUCTIVE CHOICES IN THIS
STATE. AND THE. FOR 50 YEARS WE
HAVE HAD ROVI WADE, WHICH SAYS
UP TO LIABILITY, WOMEN CAN
CHOOSE TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY
UP TO VIABILITY, AND THAT’S WHAT
WE SAY THE CONSTITUTION PROTECTS
. BEYOND THAT. IT’S A QUESTION
BETWEEN THE DOCTOR AND THE WOMAN
IS TO WHETHER UM, IT’S NECESSARY
FOR THE HEALTH SAFETY AND LIFE
OF THE WOMAN. THE LAST QUESTION
I WANTED TO ASK YOU IS ABOUT
STANDING HERE. I’VE JUST GOT A
LITTLE BIT OF TIME LEFT
GENERALLY, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO
CHALLENGE THE STATE LAW, YOU
EXPECT THE STATE ATTORNEY
GENERAL TO BE THE ONE TO TAKE UP
FOR THAT LAW. THAT’S NOT
HAPPENING IN THIS CASE BECAUSE
DANA NESSEL HAS ALREADY MADE IT
CLEAR WHERE SHE STANDS ON THIS.
BUT ISN’T IT A LITTLE WONKY AND
WEIRD THAT THERE REALLY ISN’T A
PARTY ON THE OTHER SIDE TO TAKE
UP THE STATE’S POSITION? WELL, I
THINK THAT THE QUESTION HERE AND
IT’S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID
PERSONALLY, UM, I BELIEVE THAT
THERE SHOULD BE A CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO ABORTION AND WHAT THE
COURT SAID, IS THERE IS STANDING
HERE BECAUSE WE’RE CHALLENGING,
UM, A CANCER STATUTE THAT WE SAY
IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, AND COURTS
IN THE PAST IN MICHIGAN HAVE HAD
THESE SITUATIONS AND WHAT THE
COURT SAID IS. IT’S NOT A
QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU TWO
AGREE. I HAVE TO DO AN
INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS. OF THE
LAW. AND IN FACT, THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL AND MY CLIENTS DID NOT
AGREE ON EVERYTHING. UM THAT YOU
KNOW THERE WERE DISPUTES AND A
NUMBER OF ISSUES. THE FACT THAT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUPPORTS A
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION
DIDN’T MEAN THAT THE COURT
DIDN’T HAVE TO DO AN INDEPENDENT
REVIEW. IT’S THE COURT’S JOB.
IT’S A JUDICIARY TO INTERPRET
OUR CONSTITUTION AND THE COURT
DID A VERY SERIOUS DEEP, UM,
BOTH IN BREADTH AND DEPTH
ANSWERS TO THE RIGHTS AND I
WOULD SAY THIS, LET ME JUST ADD
ONE THING QUICKLY, EXCEPT FRUIT
PRESENTED THE OTHER SIDE. THERE
ARE MEKAS PRIUS FILED BY RIGHT
TO LIFE BY CATHOLIC CONFERENCE
AND BY SOME OF THE PROSECUTORS
AND THEY GAVE THE COURT THE
PERSPECTIVE OF THE DIFFERENT
POSITION. BUT I AM AFRAID I GOT
TO GET TO A BREAK. I KNOW IT’S