>> Ted: Next on Arizona horizon, extended coverage of the leaked draft of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Showing that the hue court has voted to overturn of Roe versus Wade and the political fall-out of this edition of Arizona horizon.

Good evening and welcome to this special hour-long edition of Arizona horizon.

Tonight, we look at a major Supreme Court decision that was leaked and the U.S. Supreme Court usually releases it's blockbuster decision in June, but a draft opinion indicating that the court has overturned Roe v. Wade was leaked yesterday and John Roberts today confirmed its validity.

We look at the legal aspects and Johning us is Sandra day O'Connor, and Paul bender Stephen Montoya and thank you for kicking this off with us and a lot to talk about.

Paul, how rare is it that a majority opinion is leaked?

>> Extremely rare and I do not know of another time that something like this has happened.

You may leak information about what it will say, but I've never seen -- I don't remember a time -- I don't think there has been a time when a whole majority opinion that's been circulated to the justices for them to sign onto it has been leaked.

So you can read it.

>> Ted: Any indication of who may have done this and why?

>> The why is a mystery and the who would have been one of the justices the law clerks and employees or I'm out of date on this.

When I was at the court, everything was on paper and you could tell who had the paper and now, everything is on computer and who knows who could get ahold of that.

And only law clerks and justices and secretaries are supposed to see that.

>> Ted: Steve, what do you make of this?

>> I did research and it's never happened before.

So it's unprecedented.

It's unique and it's indicative, I would say, of our times.

Also, this is a unique circumstance, though, because I was also thinking when has the court reversed an opinion of 50 years standing, 49 years, that expanded rights?

It has reversed long-standing opinions that were restricting rights.

Plessy versus Ferguson, and I don't think this has happened in the court's history.

>> They reversed cases, but I can't think where they took away a right where they previously had given.

>> Ted: How does the process work.

It sounds like they voted on this awhile back.

>> It's not over and maybe I'm being too optimistic.

After the argument, they have a conference and at the conference, they vote and there's a majority, if there's a majority for one outcome and then the chief justice, if he's a part of the majority or not the senior justice who's in there and in this case one don't know that because apparently Roberts is not joining and it would be assigned by Thomas.

but why Thomas wouldn't do it, I don't know.

Then the opinion is a signed and somebody assigned it and either Roberts or Thomas.

And then supposed to prepare a draft, and the draft is an opinion that proposes to issue.

And he sends it around to the court and a little slip that shows it distributed.

If he gets four votes saying I agree, that's the opinion of the court and that has either not happened earth or it may have happened.

And the court won't release the opinion until the centers have had a chance to circulate their opinions and if this is the opinion, it will be long and vigorous.

So they could be holding the thing back or they could be thinking about whether five people joined this.

Somebody may be on the fence.

I think probably not.

I think the delay is because they're waiting and the majority will have a chance to respond and so the opinion won't come down, wouldn't have come down until the end of June but who knows what they'll do now.

With this out there, what will they do?

>> Ted: Talk about the opinion itself and sounds like he wrote the draft.

>> I don't think all of justices will have such an aggressive opinion under these circumstances.

>> So it's important.

This opinion may change more precipitiously and he might lose his majority and I'm not saying he'll loose it about the result in the case because he has Roberts going the same way but somebody on there and I hope there's somebody who will say I can't agree with that and what you say about Roe v. Wade without support and it's really strong language in there.

People they know.

>> Ted: Roe is a deeply flawed decision mentioned nowhere in the constitution and makes no specific mention of this right.

>> Desegregation is a right not mentioned in the constitution and many rights are not mentioned in the constitution and that's one of the strength of the constitution, it's flexibility.

Honestly, that's not a criticism of all.

I think this opinion -- I'm not surprised Alito wrote it.

A lot of Alito's opinions are strident.

I can't imagine the chief justice would have assigned an opinion to justice Alito given his stridency and intemporate lack of moderation.

>> I agree with you and that suggests the chief justice did not assign this opinion and it would have been assigned by Thomas and then I say why did he assign it to Alito and not write it himself, but Thomas loves to write opinions like that.

>> Ted: As we mentioned, the constitution makes no specific opinion and, quote, from the opinion, the draft and time to return the issue of abortion to the representatives.

>> Which is what the court did when the court refused to enjoin the Texas law that completely abolished abortion in the state of Texas just months earlier.

>> And that should have been a signal this was coming because the refusal to enjoin the Texas law clearly unconstitutional under existing law only makes sense if the court was getting ready to do this.

>> Ted: Referring to this earlier, Roe v. Wade, five votes coming from republican appointed justices and the constitutional right as you mentioned would be removed and the precedence for something like this?

>> We're removing the constitutional right, zero.

As Steve says, there are rights that are not in the constitution and there's precedent and married people to use contraceptives and you can't find that in the constitution and is this court willing to say that's not a constitutional right because it's not in the constitution?

The right to go to desegregated schools and the constitution doesn't say anything about that.

>> The right to marry a purple person or a striped person or a black person, that's not in the constitution.

>> That's just a small list of things not in the constitution.

So that is not something that's pervasive to me.

You can think Roe was wrong and when Roe was decided I read the opinion and wow, can't he do better than this.

This is not a pervasive opinion, but it's been there for 40 years and the court has said -- there's a previous case where the argument is made that Roe should be over and the court said no and the justices said that including Sandra O'Connor and Kennedy and suiter who is republican and I mean, so this is a remarkable -- >> Burger.

>> No liberal was he.

>> Ted: All of this is based on the Mississippi bid to overturn, to revive their ban and how did that case lead all the way to this?

>> Intentionally, solicitor generals in the various states have long been plotting to find a case to overrule Wade and they passed outrageous statutes that fallouted Roe v. Wade with the intent of taking it all the way to the Supreme Court and it worked.

But the most troubling thing I read in Alito's draft opinion is the reasoning employed in his opinion could be used to dis-mantle desegregation and to dis-mantle gay marriage or other equal rights for gay people.

They're not written in the constitution and they used to be criminally sanctioned for hundreds of years before the court realized that the logic of equal protection mandated that result.

This is a very, very explosive and potentially corrosive opinion of other controversial rights that I think are the logical result of the concept of the equal protection.

When the equal protection clause, when it was passed, people had a good idea what it meant, but they also understood that it was a developing idea and it has developed and I think this threatens that development in a way that is very, very un-American.

>> That development was illigetimate if you believe Alito.

Equal schools are unconstitutional because they're created by race and the practice at the time of the 14th amendment was to do that segregation, so if you're originalist and believe you ought to determine these things according to what the thought at the time they were adopted -- >> Ted: It sounds like we're going back to the Borka hearings and this is a great conversation and we could go over forever with this.

But I'm hearing the legitimacy of the court is being jeopardized by what the opinion said and does that hold water for you?

>> The leak of the opinion does harm the legitimacy.

It starts in the newspapers as it's deciding cases.

They lose what's special about them and that's real dangerous to me.

And also the overruling, you read this opinion and there is not a word in there about the effective of poor women in states that will outlaw abortion and what are they supposed to do?

Wealthy women can do to another state and get an abortion and poor women can't do that and what will they do?

Have a back abortion?

That the majority of the court has lost contact with human values.

>> Ted: Legitimacy of the court?

>> I think it's in jeopardy and this court illustrates what everyone knew but was afraid to say, the rulings of the court are contingent upon personnel and something it hasn't meant for the past 49 years.

I hope it's used there has to be an upside and I hope the upside is that people realize that we need to impose term limits on the court and I believe that the number of justices should be expanded to 13 because the way it is situated now and the way it's constituted now, each one of these justices has way too much power.

We need to dilute their power and we need to limit their terms.

>> Ted: Gentlemen, thank you for the conversation and good to have you both here.

We appreciate it.

And up next, reaction to the Supreme Court draft opinion from the former head of planned parenthood.

[ ♪♪ ] >> Ted: Gloria Feldt is now the cofounder of take the lead, a group seeking for leadership role for women and we welcome Gloria Feldt to Arizona horizon and if you for joining us.

Did you realistically think this day would come?

>> Yes, I did.

I'm delighted to be here with you, but I'm sorry for the occasion.

I did.

I wrote a book in 2004 called the war on choice and I laid out exactly how it could happen and I also laid out exactly how we could prevent it from happening.

But here we are.

Here we are today.

I want to just say a quick thank you to Paul bender for having said in the middle of this discussion about the legal aspects of this.

As Paul raised concerns about women and this is ultimately about human beings and ultimately about the women affected.

It is, in my view, abortion has never been about abortion and whether women would have an equal place at the table and equal ability to actually make our ownresponsible choices about our lives and child bearing and I think this day would come.

There might be -- I'll agree with Steve, there might be an upside and that is finally, people will believe that Roe can be overturned and we must rise up.

People who have been silent about it, the business community -- I mean, there is not a female executive in the business world who could be there had she could not space her own children.

It upside is there will be a massive interest in the engagement we have not seen in a long time.

>> Ted: That said, how does this on a day-to-day basis change women's lives?

>> The country is -- when you look at the map of what will happen immediately, what you can see is that in about half of the country, women will be back to the -- before the 1970's, be back into the 1950's and before that and they will not have access to this care and honestly, the solution is ultimately not about saving role or healthcare.

It's about codifying the human and sufficiently rights to make our own child-bearing decisions free of government interference and that's why 70% to 80% support that right.

The day-to-day lives of women, it's affecting them.

The women in states where abortion has been effectively outlawed are already traveling to other states and sometimes hundreds of miles and sometimes thousand of miles.

The women who can least afford it are the ones most likely to have to do that.

>> Ted: Those who can afford to would be able to travel out of the state and research shows that's happening now and would happen if Roe v. Wade goes away and what has to the other women who don't have those means?

>> There are many initiatives to try to help them and that's not the point.

That's not the point.

One of the most troubling aspects that I have read so far is the comments it should go back to the states, a decision to go back to the states.

Listen, you know, if somebody is a right, it's a right for everybody.

If it is not a right, it's not a right for anybody.

I can guarantee you, and I've seen news reports, there are efforts afoot to get federal laws passed to outlaw abortion in the entire country.

So don't think it will stop in just some of the states.

It won't.

There will be attempts to pass laws that will outlaw abortion nationwide and as the lawyers have rightly pointed out, when Roe goes, so goes the right to birth control and so goes all of the rights that the gay, lesbian and transgender community have been able to get by virtue of the same juris prudence and the same way that decided Roe.

There goes so many of the things we have come to just take for granted.

Why would they be right in one state and wrong in another state?

That should not happen.

>> Ted: Respond to some of the things in the opinion here.

Among the statements by justice Alito,, out of wedlock pregnancies have changed drastically since the 1970s.

Increase adoptions have made abortion less necessary and safe haven laws have to take care of pregnancy problems and for example listed that things are not the same as they were in 1973.

And your response?

>> Well, of course, things aren't the same as they were in 1973, fortunately.

There's better birth control and access to birth control.

I spent 30 years of my life trying to make sure everyone had access to birth control, to prevents unintended pregnancies and wanted ones when they were ready and, of course, many things have changed since then and that doesn't change the fundamental issue, which is that our bodies, they should belong to us.

And my body should belong to me, not you, to make decisions about whether and when I have children.

Why should you be able to make that decision for me?

Why should nine justices or five justices on the Supreme Court be able to make decision for me?

That's outrageous.

>> Ted: The societal and the business impacts of Roe v. Wade being overturned want do you see?

>> Well, you know, the societal impacts are phenomenal and I was thinking to myself this morning, I used to tell a story about how the phrase barefoot and pregnant came into parliance and a state legislature and if a woman got too uppety, they would keep her barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and that seems to be ancient history, but you are seeing ancient history repeat itself.

Those who don't learn the history are doomed to repeat them and that's what could happen here and we put not happen.

The solution really requires a long overdue leadership from business, from politicians, from civic leaders to rise up and be unafraid to speak up for justice and equality and to mobilize literally crushing victories in November, to show that the majority of Americans want to be able to make their own child-bearing decisions for themselves.

>> Ted: It's not deeply rooted in the nation's history and traditions.

That is in the opinion and in the draft.

How do you respond to that?

Especially after what you were saying and the legal experts, that this is overturning legal precedence.

>> If you had another 30 minutes, I could give you a whole history of abortion and contraception in America.

It was only with the advent of physicians who took medical practice away from the midwives that there began to be laws that were limiting the ability to get this over the counter and here we are now again, 60% of the abortions that occur are medical abortions, in other words the women use medications, pills in their pregnancies and the history of abortion is that women have been having abortions when they did not want to have pregnancies since the beginning of time.

And women who want to have children should be able to have children when they choose to, when they want to and we should provide every support for them.

And I want to see those same people who oppose abortions caring enough about children once they're born and people of all genders to have equal right.

>> Ted: Gloria Feldt of take the lead and thank you for joining us.

>> Thank you, Ted.

[ ♪♪ ] >> Ted: For decades, there is a group Cathy Herrod who joins us about the Supreme Court draft regarding Roe v. Wade.

Your thoughts on the release, the leak, whatever and we now know it's what the draft says and your thoughts.

>> The leak was wrong, no question about that.

As an attorney, I was shocked to see the news that this leak had happened.

But it's a good day.

Wait and see what the final opinion is and it gives hope for unborn children and their mothers.

It's a good day to look ahead to when the court in a sense rights itself.

I disagree with the speakers.

This brings legitimacy to the court.

Abortion is not in the constitution and in gives the court -- it returns in the policymakers and lawmakers to the states.

>> Ted: That means some liberal states will enact protections and these sorts of things and if abortion is wrong, is that good for the country, to divide the country that way?

>> I believe that over time, we will see more and more states protect human life.

Life is a human right and that we will see life protected from the moment of conception and see their mothers protected from the horrors of abortion and it will take time.

For now, we'll put it back in the hands of people through elected representatives and not judges.

>> Ted: In the 1992, the Casey opinion, justice O'Connor, they assume Roe's concept of liberty to define the capacity of a woman to act in society and make reproductive decisions.

Was she wrong?

>> Well, I would say that the generation now that's never known cultural world without legalized abortion, they are more pro-life than their mothers, often, so we have a pro-life generation that is raised up and advocating for the pro-life cause many years now and I think we have a younger generation that actually understands that abortion is not the answer to unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.

>> Ted: Research center last year, 59% believe it should be legal and when you hear numbers like that, do they make a difference to you or those are just numbers and it doesn't matter what the majority of Americans would think?

>> I would dispute the polls finding and we could argue polls all day long and it depending on how the question is asked and if you ask what was the Roe v. Wade decision and what did it do?

Many Americans would say they don't realize Roe v. Wade allowed abortion up to the moment of birth.

So they don't realize how far Roe went.

When people stop and think, well, at any age of the pregnancy and any age of the mother, for any reason that's what Roe went, you get a different answer and certainly, majority support for restrictions.

>> Ted: So much of Roe is in privacy and certainly seems that way from the draft opinion, what does that mean about other privacy issues?

>> Not much.

Justice Alito and the draft opinion said this addressed abortion and no other issue and that is what will stand.

>> Ted: How could it only address abortion if it's grounded in privacy and you have contraception, marrying someone concensual act and all of these things with privacy and Roe had privacy as a base, some would argue otherwise and that is how it was and how do those things -- we heard from legal folks, worried about the fact other things could be impacted?

>> You could have had two other legal experts with different opinions, I would say, and I would say on the privacy, as I said, legal scholars believe Roe was undecided and the privacy cannot stand.

Again, to letting the states the people decide, returning it to the states and Alito clearly says the opinion does not bear on any other issue.

I don't believe it will set a precedents along those lines either.

>> Ted: In your statement after the opinion was leaked, the pro-life is ready to serve women facing unwanted pregnancies and babies.

Will you push in the legislature for those services?

>> The pregnancy has been preparing for 50 years and the pro-life movement in Arizona is ready to help women in need to take care of the women and babies.

So I think we will see an outpouring of support from the private sector, from the faith-based sector who are there to help women in need, whether as justice Alito talked about safe haven and whether the women decide to parent or place up for adoption, that there will be -- no woman will go through this alone.

This is not of a woman having a support system.

No woman will go through this alone in a state where it's not available or illegal.

>> Ted: What about the government?

What about government programs to help those now having unwanted pregnancies and having children?

>> I think the Arizona legislature last year moved to establish a new pilot program that would provide resources and services for women from abortion-minded women to provide alternatives and I think there will be certainly interest and some discussion in the legislature about what resources could be provided for women.

>> Ted: Family planning services, these sorts of things should be on the table especially now?

Should they be more emphasized now.

>> Well, we're talking about how do we help women?

Let me give one example.

You have a group in Maricopa county called Maggie's place and they have several homes where they take in unwed pregnant women and help them through nine months of pregnancy and several months afterwards to help them get on their feet over whether they parent or place their child for adoption and those resources, Maggie's place has government funding and those resources are there.

We'll be there to help those women.

>> Ted: I want to be clear now because in many cases now, there were exceptions for rape and incest and if a woman is raped, should she have to carry that baby to term?

>> Rape is a traumatic events and horrific and we all just cry and heartbroken when that happens to a woman.

Women are traumatized and when that happens, it is rare that a woman becomes pregnant but not further tramtized by adding an abortion on top of that trauma that's there.

And so I think what often is not shared and what is not available if the public arena are the women that were victims of rape and incest who were very tragic and much attacked, but they decided to carry the child to term and to place the child for adoption or parented the child.

And those women and those children certainly are grateful that their children lived.

So I think that's a story that needs to be talked about more.

>> Ted: You would say if a woman is raped she should carry that to term.

>> I gave you my answer.

I believe a woman of a victim of rape, the child has a right to live and that life is a human right and the life begins at the moment of conception and we want to take care of those children.

>> Ted: President Obama released a statement saying unlikely overturning Roe v. Wade to reduce abortions which have been steadily going down the past several decades anyway.

Does he have a point?

>> One reason knows a woman who has an abortion and suffered from that abortion.

Most people have seen an ultrasound picture where a 5-year-old can tell you that's a picture of a baby.

It does hurt women and that's a key reason it's going down.

I think it will continue go down and this will have an impact.

>> Ted: Critics of the move are what we're seeing a trading of women's rights for a political and in men cases religious perspective.

How would you respond to that?

>> Well, you know, that's almost laughable in ways.

Science and biology tell us and we know after nearly 50 years of legalized abortion that abortion hurts women and women physically and emotionally and the science of ultrasound shows the formation of an unborn child, the heartbeat and the stages which it formed noses and ears and so we know what biology and science has taught us about the humanity of the unborn child and the well-being of the mother carrying the child.

So that, think, is the focus.

>> Ted: But again, life begins with conception for you?

>> Yes.

>> Ted: So anything afterwards, pills, anything of that, not good, should not be allowed?

>> Well, with the exception of with the life of the mother at stake, we would support the life of the mother.

>> Ted: Cathy Herrod, thank you for your time.

>> Thank you.

[ ♪♪ ] [ ♪♪ ] >> Ted: Yesterday's news could mean that in a post Roe v. Wade world, abortion rights will be handled state by state and what could happen if Arizona is democratic state representative Athena Saman.

When you first heard the news, how did you react.

>> I reacted two-fold.

To see this on paper and the direction the court will be heading and close to the opinion they'll be issuing, it made my heart sink and made me sick to my stomach, but at the same time, I'm a woman of color in America, woman of color for a long time have been talking and sounding the alarm that this was the direction this country was heading.

So I was also felt vindicated this was inevitable.

>> Ted: What changes for women and families in Arizona once this decision is made final?

>> Yes, so first and foremost, Ted, I'm not sure if anyone reiterated this, today, right now, abortion is legal and this is just a draft opinion and for anyone seeking an abortion, they have the right to exercise that in Arizona and throughout the country.

But the final decision, this is a draft and time for changes to be made, Arizona will be one of the states where abortion will become illegal and the legislature has passed several bans on abortion even in just my tenure over the past six years in addition to an old ban that was this place long before I was born.

>> Ted: Long before Roe v. Wade and that comes back into effect.

How soon?

Is that immediate with the Supreme Court decision in June?

>> You know, with prosecutors like Rachel Mitchell, I believe we'll see someone try to enforce it right away and I believe that will result in litigation, but I mean, the reality is that doctors who provide the procedure will be hesitant and potentially shut down doors so as to risk prosecution.

Meanwhile, women themselves will be at risk and targeted for criminal prosecutes.

>> Ted: Many saying returning to the Roe v. Wade days, women that could afford to travel out of state and others would have to resort to dangerous methods and is that what you're seeing here in Arizona and around the country?

>> You bring up an excellent point.

In even my lifetime, there are still millions of Americans who lived in a pre-Roe society and absolutely, this will to the stop abortion.

What passing a ban and allowing bans on abortions to go in effect does, it pushes abortion care underground where there's no guarantee or no way to ensure that those abortions are safe, right?

And so this is why we see that the vast majority of Americans support abortion safe and accessible and this is underground and removes those protections for people seeking healthcare.

>> Ted: That would include black poor Latino teens, undocumented immigrants and that's what you're saying?

>> Right, exactly.

And the disturbing thing is, you know, the radical right that is pushing these abortion bans, they lie out of their teeth.

I heard so many lies, it was repulsive.

The ultimate end goal is not only to ban abortions federally to where even if you could afford to go to California or Colorado, now you're talking about having to go to Mexico or Canada or afford a flight to Europe, they won't stop at abortion, they're going after birth control.

Some of my republican colleagues consider forms of birth control as that.

You name all of the right's victories for the 20th century and those are up for relitigation by this radical religious rights that have weaponnized in taking over the Supreme Court.

>> Ted: We'll talk about this with our political consultants and it could galvanize others.

And which side is energized by this?

>> I think people need to understand that if the last two years -- so this legislative session alone, the legislature passed two different bans on abortion and because the margins for the state legislature is so thin, and the republicans have a one-vote majority, that means that every single republican legislator voted to ban your right to have an abortion, a form of healthcare, that is supported by the vast majority of people in Arizona and their constituents.

And every republican run for the Arizona legislature is willing to do the same.

When people are making the discussions at the ballot boxes, if abortion care, and again, talking about -- and I'm glad you're going into birth control, if these rights are important to you, then people need to understand that it's going to be state legislatures and the house and the Arizona senate that will decide these rights in your future.

And every single republican has voted to support stripping mean can become pregnant of these rights and forcing the government, allowing the government to force you to stay pregnant and give birth against your will.

>> Ted: Comment on part of the opinion here, justice Alito, no support for constitutional right to obtain an abortion, there is to support, zero, none, he said.

How do you respond to that?

>> I mean, he uses his own word as an original and you can make the case that a woman like me, a woman of color from an immigrant background doesn't have a right to fully exist as a full human being in this country.

But that's not how the law works.

It evolves it expands to broaden our own rights including the right to privacy, but if he were to have it his way, one of the cases that they're attacking is Casey, whereas a married woman, I have the right to seek healthcare without notifying my husband, without seeking his consent.

And you know, that's the direction they're heading,trying, no, you don't have that right and have to being submissive and secondary to men in this society.

I believe that the 14th amendment and there is plenty other places in the constitution and in law that protects my rights as a full human being in society.

But what's dangerous is that the radical religious rights and we do deserve to participate in society fully.

>> Ted: On a ground level, and I asked the previous guests and mentioned faith-based groups and not quite as encouraged about the government involved and you are part of the government here.

And I imagine come June, if this comes to fruition, societal impact will be strong and felt.

Government services, social services, child services, family planning, these sorts of things, is the legislature ready to take this stuff up?

>> You know, your previous speaker from the center of Arizona policy, I have not once seen her advocate for public, secular investments into families, into children, into education.

All of the advocacy, they are trying to strip our secular institutions, our public safety nets that support families, strip that of funding, strip that of resources so that they can funnel that money or put in religious organizations that will try to coerce people to follow a specific religious doctrine.

You can't take Roe v. Wade and separate that into a very minority religious element, an agenda trying to impose their belief system on the rest of us regardless of whether or not we ascribe to that religious belief.

The republicans will not -- we're sitting on a five billion dollars surplus and they're arguing about which wealthy donor or which corporation to give the tax cut to.

While there are so many children and families that need that support instead.

>> Ted: Thank you for joining us.

>> Thank you.

>> Ted: We wrap this up by looking at the fall-out.

We have our analysts.

We have a lot to talk about and Chris, scale of one to ten, how big of a deal is this?

>> Oh, 9.9.

>> Ted: Because.

>> Because there's nothing, I think, that is more personal that you can immediately grab onto as a political issue than the abortion issue and I want to remind you, and I don't think the point has been made on the show, that it is very possible for a person to be against abortion and also pro-choice.

Even though personally they're against abortion, they believe an individual should have the right to determine whether to have a child.

>> Ted: Abortion rights is what you're talking about here.

It's been brought up but not as succinctly as you.

Zero to ten?

>> I would agree, 9.5, 9.9.

Bringing an issue settled for nearly 50 years.

In fact, Ted, we don't even poll abortion and haven't for years because it's been a settled issue and now, here it comes back.

>> Ted: Here it comes back and what about midterm elections?

>> I think voters will have to decide.

We assume 10% to 15% are pro-choice and 10% or 15% vote pro-life and that's their number one issue.

Everybody else has border security, economy, inflation and education, et cetera.

And now we have to see if that other group that's not the ten to 15 on both sides, whether they now -- now this issue takes over for the issues they normally vote on and it's been settled for so many years.

>> Ted: Congressional legislative, where do you think it has the most impact?

>> All the way down the ballot.

What Democrats have to pound away on now and now they have an issue to pound away on, frankly, they've been lethargic up to now and it think it would be a big victory for republicans in the off-presidential election year.

What the Democrats have to pound away on is, make no mistake about it in the state of Arizona, if you vote for a republican candidate running for the legislature, running for governor, running for the U.S. senate or running for Congress, you are voting to completely overturn Roe v. Wade and visit so that abortion is illegal even under rape and incest.

>> Ted: It would galvanize a democratic voter and a republican voter and who is galvanized the most?

>> Again, this has been such an unsettled issue.

We have to see what comes out in June.

The legislature preempted, as we know, a bill by senator Nancy Bartow, similar to the Michigan -- I'm sorry, the Mississippi bill.

And at 15 week.

What it also did, was it codified the territorial law which is title 1336.03, that you're punishable two to five years.

If Roe comes down in June and no longer the law of the land, then Arizona defaults back to the territorial law until the new bill comes in effect and there's a lot of unsettled issues here in the short-term.

>> You know, Ted, it's important to realize one of the reasons why the Democrats did so well four years ago when Katie Hobbs won and Kyrsten Sinema won is because women in the suburbs of Maricopa county and Pima county turned out to vote against Donald Trump, frankly, and the republican party, many independents and many of them republican women, this issue is going to have the same impact on them again.

I don't think they're going to stand by and do nothing.

I think they will get involved and this will assist Democrats.

>> These were the voters as the Ducey, Sinema voters and about two thousand of them and they split their ticket back in 2018.

And to an extent some of the voters did the same thing in 2020 by voting by Joe Biden but down-ticket voted by the republican supervisors and republican legislature.

So that's the group of voters we're talking about here.

>> Ted: You mentioned Sinema and senator Sinema couldn't wait to say, this is not changing my position on the filibuster.

You could get this codified through Congress and can't do it without 60 votes and not getting rid of the filibuster?

>> Because of her position on the filibuster, this is another nail in her political coffin with regards to a democratic primary in 2024, which has to make you wonder if she's really going to maintain that recommendation and run against in a republican primary in 2024.

>> Ted: One thing I don't want a filibuster even if it means protecting abortion rights.

>> This opinion was attacking Sinema and say now do you change your position on the filibuster and this will be an issue, both as Chris said accurately, both in the congressional races and if Roe goes away it throws the constitution regulating the you abortion issue.

>> Ted: Does it scramble things to the point we can't see clearly where it all falls out?

>> Yeah, I think it does.

Look, good polling data has told us that this election year before this Supreme Court decision or leaked opinion came out, that it was going to be really tough on Democrats.

That the Democrats are down four points in registration in Maricopa county and that probably will be more like an eight-point advantage here in an off presidential year.

It cuts three or four back down and makes them again competitive.

>> Ted: What do you think?

>> Our data has shown consistently up to this point, six or seven point advantage in this presidential cycle for republicans.

Now, I won't go as far as my colleague saying it's that many points shaved because we don't know because this issue has been settled and we have to watch it.

But the main focus in the legislature, because that's what it counts, has to be the four swing districts and all four are those Ducey, Sinema voters and that could make a difference.

The Democrats put out an Email focusing on the house.

Of course, the gubernatorial and all three republican candidates are pro-life and, of course, the three that are running for the Democrats are pro-choice.

>> This will help Kelly and Hobbs from a democratic standpoint.

>> Ted: We have to wrap it up and I could go with you all night, too.

I'm Ted Simons and thank you for joining us and you have a great evening.