JOINING US ON CHICAGO TONIGHT.

I'M BRANDIS FRIEDMAN.

HERE'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

THE CITY ATTORNEYS.

WIND CITED US.

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION IS 2 WEEKS AWAY, BUT SOME GROUPS ARE STILL NEGOTIATING A PROTEST ROUTE WITH THE CITY.

I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

UNITED STATES TERM LIMITS AND MANDATORY ETHICS RULES FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE IS A LOOK AT PRESIDENT BIDEN'S PROPOSED REFORMS.

WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW ADOPTION WAS ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING IN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE MOST IMPACTED BY IT.

AND A NEW BOOK EXPLORES THE POLITICS OF ADOPTION.

AND NOW TO SOME OF TODAY'S TOP STORIES MOUNTING RECESSION FEARS WERE JUST PART OF THE REASON FOR A MASSIVE DROP IN THE DOW TODAY.

MORE THAN 1000 POINTS MAKING IT THE BIGGEST DAILY PERCENTAGE LOSS IN 2 YEARS.

THE NASDAQ AND S AND P 500 BOTH CLOSED THE DAY IN NEGATIVE TERRITORY AND GLOBALLY.

JAPAN'S NIKKEI INDEX HAD ITS WORST ROUT IN HISTORY.

ECONOMISTS SAY THE U.S. ECONOMY REMAINS STRONG, BUT IT ADDED FEWER JOBS IN JULY THAN EXPECTED AT 114,000.

ALSO, THERE'S CONCERN THAT THE FEDERAL RESERVE FAILED TO ACT PROMPTLY AND OFTEN FEARS THAT BIG BETS I MAY NOT PAY OFF.

A COALITION OF GROUPS LOOKING TO PROTEST OUTSIDE THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION.

THAT'S IN 2 WEEKS IS PUSHING BACK ON THE CITY'S PROPOSED ROUTE.

THE GROUPS KNOWN AS THE COALITION TO MARCH ON THE DNC WERE IN COURT AGAIN TODAY ADVOCATING FOR A LONGER ROUTE THAN THE ONE YOU SEE HERE.

COALITION SAYS MORE THAN 200 ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE PLANNING TO JOIN THEM IN CHICAGO FOR THE DNC.

WE KNOW THAT A PROTEST OF 10,000 PEOPLE TAKES UP LONGER THAN ONE MILE.

AND IF WE CAN GET 20,000 ON OUR OWN IN CHICAGO WE DEFINITELY WILL HAVE 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF THEY'RE COMING FROM ALL ACROSS THE MIDWEST AND ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

EVEN AND THERE'S NO WAY THAT 1.1 MILES WILL ACCOMMODATE THOSE PEOPLE.

THE COALITION SAYS IT HAS INSTEAD PITCHED THIS ROUTE.

ONE YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN, THE GROUP'S ATTORNEY SAYS HE EXPECTS A RULING THIS WEEK.

AND JUST IN TIME FOR THE DNC, WEST SIDE, COMMUTERS HAVE A SHINY NEW L STATION AT LAKE STREET AND DAMEN AVENUE.

FROM THE GRANTS.

THERE'S AN ESCALATOR VISIBLE THROUGH THE GLASS FACADE AND THE INCREDIBLE MURAL.

EVERY DETAIL HAS BEEN THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED TO ENHANCE THE PASSENGER EXPERIENCE AND CREATE A VIBRANT ADDITION TO THIS COMMUNITY.

CITY OFFICIALS TODAY CUT THE RIBBON ON THE NEWLY REOPENED DAMON GREEN LINE STATION THAT HAD BEEN CLOSED SINCE 1948, THE CITY SAYS THE STATION FILLS A 1.5 MILE SERVICE GAP BETWEEN ASHLAN IN CALIFORNIA.

THE 80 MILLION DOLLAR TO FUNDED STATION INCLUDES A GLASS BRIDGE CONNECTING INBOUND AND OUTBOUND TRAIN PLATFORMS AS WELL AS A GRAND STARE AND ESCALATOR.

UP NEXT, A BOLD PLAN TO RESHAPE THE NATION'S HIGHEST COURT RIGHT AFTER THIS.

CHICAGO TONIGHT IS MADE POSSIBLE IN PART WHY THE ALEXANDRA AND JOHN NICHOLS FAMILY.

THE GYM AND K MAYBE FAMILY.

THE POPE BROTHERS FOUNDATION.

AND THE SUPPORT OF THESE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN'S PROPOSAL CALLING FOR SUPREME COURT REFORM IS ALREADY RECEIVING SOME MAJOR PUSHBACK.

SOME OF IT COMES FROM CURRENT JUSTICE NEIL GORSUCH WHO ADVISED THE PRESIDENT IN A RECENT INTERVIEW TO, QUOTE, BE CAREFUL IN ADDITION TO TARGETING RECENT COURT DECISIONS ON PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY.

BIDEN'S PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO ADDRESS TERM LIMITS FOR JUSTICES AND IN MANDATORY ETHICS RULE.

HERE TO TALK MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL ARE HAROLD KRANTZ, A LAW PROFESSOR AT THE ILLINOIS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY'S CHICAGO.

CAN'T COLLEGE OF LAW.

WILLIAM HOWELL, A PROFESSOR IN AMERICAN POLITICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO.

AND DAVID APPLEGATE AND ATTORNEY AND MEMBER OF THE CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERTARIAN LEGAL ORGANIZATION, THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY.

GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU ALL FOR JOINING US.

FIRST, LET'S GET YOUR YOU KNOW, TO THIS THIS PLAN, WHAT IS WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF IT?

FIRST OF ALL, CAROL, CAROL, START WITH YOU, I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS HAPPEN SOON.

SO THIS IS SETTING THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE.

IT'S SUGGESTING THAT THE PARTY SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ALERT TO THE FACT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS LOST CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE SUPREME COURT.

LOT OF REASONS SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN GET INTO LATER.

BUT IT IS SETTING THE AGENDA.

AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THERE WOULD BE A COALITION REPUBLICANS, DEMOCRATS DOWN THE ROAD THAT COULD LEAST AGREE TO THE TERM LIMITS.

PART OF THE PROPOSAL?

WELL, YOU I I AGREE.

WHEN BIDEN 4 YEARS AGO FOR OFFICE, IT WAS UNDER THE PROMISE TO RESTORE SOME STABILITY TO OUR DEMOCRACY, TO SHORE UP OUR INSTITUTIONS AND AND HE SAID THAT WORK ASIDE FOR THE MOST PART WHILE PRESIDENT AND SO LATEST TERM.

HE'S PUTTING IT FRONT AND CENTER.

THE WORK OF INSTITUTIONAL REFORM IS NOT THE WORK OF YOU KNOW, 1, ONE ADMINISTRATION.

IT'S REALLY THE WORK OF A GENERATION.

IT REQUIRES A LOT OF COALITION BUILDING.

A LOT STATES SETTING I THINK IT'S HEALTHY FOR POLITICS.

I'M GLAD TO SEE.

IT'S COMING LATEST HER.

DAVID APPLEGATE.

I AGREE WITH HAROLD AND BILL THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON.

MY OWN TAKE ON HIS IS THAT IT'S UNNECESSARY THAT THE ATTACKS ON THE COURT ARE LARGELY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY THE THE ADMINISTRATION AND HIS SUPPORTERS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

AND IT IS THE THOSE ATTACKS ON INTEGRITY OF THE COURT THAT ARE UNDERMINING FAITH IN THE COURT.

I DON'T THINK THESE PROPOSALS ARE NECESSARY.

I DO THINK THERE IS SOME POTENTIAL BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR TERM LIMITS FOR THE JUSTICES BUT IT MAY BE A LITTLE KNOWN FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY DOES HIM.

BUT YOU'RE IN A CODE OF CONDUCT AND WHICH 9 JUSTICES SIGNED OFF LAST NOVEMBER.

THAT PUTS IN WRITING OUT THERE FOR PUBLIC VIEW.

THE CODE OF CONDUCT THAT THEY HAVE LARGELY FALLEN FOR GENERATIONS.

HAROLD KRANTZ, THAT POINT, IF THE SUPREME COURT ALREADY HAS A CODE OF ETHICS THAT JUSTICE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING, DO WE THINK TO THINK WE NEED A NEW ONE?

WE NEED A WELL, OBVIOUSLY THE DISCLOSURES ABOUT JUSTICE THOMAS AND ALITO IN PARTICULAR HAVE SCANDALIZED.

PART OF THE POPULISTS AND THEY DON'T THINK THAT THE MEMBERS, THE SUPREME COURT TO TAKE MONEY FOR FREE AND THEN DECIDE CASES THAT AFFECT THE INTERESTS OF THOSE WHOM THEY'VE TAKEN VACATIONS WITH.

AND THERE IS MINIMUM APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED BY THE COURT.

IT WASN'T.

AND SO IF THE JUSTICES ARE GOING THUMB THEIR NOSE AT THIS KIND OF ETHICS RULE, THEN MAYBE CONGRESS HAS TO DO SOMETHING MORE STRINGENT.

THEY BE EXEMPTED THE SUPREME COURT IN PAST ETHICS DETERMINATION.

SO THEY FOUND LOWER COURT JUDGES.

MAYBE THEY INCREASE ENHANCE IT IN TO COVER THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES AS WELL.

DAVID IS IMPOSING ADDITIONAL CODE OF ETHICS.

IS THAT EVEN CONSTITUTIONALLY ALLOWED AT MY OWN VIEW?

IS THAT IT DOES NOT.

IT INFRINGES ON THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOWER COURT JUDGES IS THAT THOSE JUDGES ARE CREATIONS OF CONGRESS BECAUSE TO TO SHUN ITSELF.

CREATES THE SUPREME COURT AND SETS THE TERMS OF SO I DON'T THINK THE CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONALLY HAS POWER ACT HERE.

AND I PLEAD TO TOO UNNECESSARY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCH, WHICH THEN, OF COURSE, THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE.

WILLIAM, HOW DO YOU THINK THESE REFORMS ARE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED AS WE HEARD FROM DAVID?

YOU KNOW, SOME FOLKS HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY WITH DECISIONS THAT THE COURT HAS MADE.

WE CAN NAME SEVERAL OF IS THIS A REACTION TO SHE IN SUMMARY SHORE.

IT ALWAYS IS THE CASE THAT ARGUMENT ABOUT INSTITUTIONAL REFORMS ARE INFORMED BY KUZ ACCESS BEING GORED WHO WHO STANDS POLITICALLY TO BENEFIT THAT IS THAT IS TRUE.

BUT THEY'RE NONETHELESS ARE REAL REASONS TO THINK ABOUT THE NEED FOR REFORM OR INSTITUTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO TERM LIMITS, WHICH IS TO MY MIND, THE REAL YOU HERE FOR THE MOST PART, THERE ARE STRONG ARGUMENTS AGAINST IT.

WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT TERM LIMITS FOR GOVERNORS OR MAYORS, THE WILLINGNESS OF PEOPLE TO STEP FORWARD AND RUN FOR THESE OFFICES, HAVE INCENTIVE FACE OF THAT.

THAT TERM LIMITS CREATE MOST PART OF BAD.

I THINK MOST VOCAL SCIENTISTS TO COME OUT AND NOT GET BEHIND THEM OR TALKING ABOUT 18 YEAR TERM LIMIT AT THE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE LEVEL, THOUGH THOSE CONCERNS ATTENUATE QUITE A BIT.

AND BIG BENEFIT THAT WOULD COME OUT OF THIS KIND OF INTERVENTION TO MY MIND IS THAT WOULD REGULAR EYES THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS THAT IS PRESIDENTS WOULD ROUTINELY BE ABLE TO COUNT ON BEING ABLE TO MAKE TOO APPOINTMENTS TO THE COURT.

AND RIGHT NOW IT'S BY WHO HAS WON 3 FOR NONE AND AND THIS WON'T DO GIVEN JUST HOW INVOLVED THE SUPREME COURT IS IN ALL MANNER OF POLICYMAKING BECAUSE IT STANDS RIGHT NOW WERE OFTEN WAITING ON ON A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO EITHER DECIDE TO RESIGN WHILE THEY'RE ABLE TO DO SO OR THEY DIE ON THE BENCH.

WHAT DOES THE CONSTITUTION CURRENTLY SAY ABOUT HOW LONG A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE SERVES?

SO THIS AND, CAROL, THAT THE CUTS INTO THE CONSTITUTION YOU KNOW, LIFETIME APPOINTMENT.

AND SO WE WOULD REQUIRE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THIS TICKET TO GO THROUGH.

WE HAD A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE TERM LIMITS FOR PRESIDENTS.

AND I I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD REASONS SUGGESTED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, TO DECIDE TO REALIZE APPOINTMENT PROCESS, MAKE SURE IT'S EVEN OVER TIME.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROBLEMS WITH SOMEONE IN OFFICE FOR OVER 18 YEARS AS A HUGE FIGHT.

NOW WITH A JUDGE IN LOWER COURT, ONE STEP BELOW WHOSE 95 AND SHE'S SUED THE ENTIRE REST OF THE COURT BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S TIME FOR TO STEP DOWN AND SHE THINKS NOT.

AND IT'S IT'S UGLY.

AND WHO KNOWS GETS INTO THE MAYOR TO THAT.

BUT THIS IS JUST A SOUND MECHANISM FOR GOING FORWARD.

IT AIRS, RIGHT.

I REALLY WANT TO DISAGREE WITH BOTH MY COLLEAGUES HERE, WHICH IS THAT THIS WOULD NOT SAW PURPORTED PROBLEM.

NUMBER JUSTICE COULD DIE.

RESIGN OR RETIRE SHORT OF 18 YEARS AND DO THAT FOR PURELY POLITICAL REASONS.

JUST JUST EVEN PRIOR DIE FOR POLITICAL REASONS, RESIGN OR RETIRE AN ABSOLUTELY JUST AS JUSTICE BREYER STEP DOWN SO THAT PRESIDENT BIDEN COULD APPOINT HIS SUCCESSOR ON WATCH.

THIS WOULD, IN MY OPINION, EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM BECAUSE NOW YOU YOU HAVE.

PRESIDENT'S KNOWING EXACTLY WHEN SOMEBODY WOULD BE UP, SOMEBODY ELSE COULD STEP DOWN.

THE 2 TERM PRESIDENT COULD APPOINT 4 OUT OF 9 JUSTICES AND THEN PRESUMING THAT PRESIDENT, HE HAD THE SENATE IN HIS FAVOR COULD HAVE 2 MORE JUSTICES STEP DOWN AND CONFIRM 2 MORE AND THEREBY HAD 6 9.

THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT PRESUMES THAT THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO BE A POLICY-MAKING BODY.

IT IS NOT.

IT'S NOT TOO MANY LEGISLATURE, NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE TALKED ABOUT WHO VOTED, WHICH WAY WHERE JUDGES ARE SUPPOSED TO SAY, YEAH, I I VOTE FOR THIS RESULT.

TYPE OF FOR THIS RESULT.

THE COURT IS SUPPOSED TO DECIDE CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FACTS AND THE LAW, BUT ROUTINELY DOES BEHAVE LIKE A POLICY-MAKING BODY.

IT ENGAGES IN INTERVENES.

IT ALL MEAN FOR POLICY DISPUTES.

AND SO IF WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE POINT PERCEIVED HAVING IT BE REGULARLY TIE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

I MEAN, SO I THINK THAT THESE CONCERNS THAT YOU COULD RETIREMENTS ARE IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND.

BUT HOLDING OUT THE ROLE THAT THEY OUGHT TO PAY WITHOUT EYE TOWARD WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DO BEEN THINKING ABOUT INSTITUTION THAT THE FIGHT, HOW THE APPOINTMENTS MADE BUT MY POINT IS THAT WE SHOULD NOT SUCCUMB TO THE NOTION THAT THIS IS A POLITICAL BODY THAT'S GOING TO MAKE DECISIONS FOR US.

WE SHOULD GET BACK TO DECIDING SHERYL.

AND WANT I WANT GET BACK TO LETTING WE THE PEOPLE DECIDE WHAT THE LAW IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE LET THE EXECUTIVE ENFORCE.

THAT YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

BUT ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS FUNDAMENTALLY DO IT IS TRYING TO INCREASE ITS OWN AGENDA.

IT'S TAKEN ACTIVE STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN DECIDE CASES THEY WANT TO DECIDE TO ACTING MORE IN A PARTISAN MANNER, WHICH I THINK EXACERBATES THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE 18 YEAR TERM SECOND, TAKE EVERYTHING.

WE AGREE WITH THAT.

BUT CERTAINLY A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

AND IF IT DOES HELP THE STATURE OF THE DISH TO SHARE.

THAT'S OFTEN A GOOD.

DAVID.

IF YOU KNOW, IF THERE IS AN EXTERNAL CODE THAT IS PER THAT IS IMPOSED ON THE SUPREME COURT, THEY STILL WOULD HAVE THE FINAL SAY IS WE'RE MOVING OVER TO SORT OF LIKE THE THE CODE OF ETHICS VERSUS OBVIOUSLY THE TERM THE SUPREME COURT WOULD STILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS'S DECISION TO IMPOSE SAID CODE OF ETHICS OR SAID REQUIREMENT IS EVEN CONSTITUTIONAL.

WHAT MIGHT THAT LOOK LIKE?

I MEAN, TO ME, THAT WOULD PARTICULARLY FARCICAL YOU TELL YOU.

THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO AGREE TO.

AND I SAY YOU HAVE NO POWER TO AGREE TO THAT.

SO I'M GOING TO IGNORE IT.

I MEAN, THIS IS VERY MUCH NOW LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION TO SIGHTING.

IT'S NOT GOING TO ABIDE BY A SUPREME COURT DECISION ON STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS.

LOOK FOR WAYS TO GET AROUND IT.

THAT SIMPLY UNDERMINES FAITH IN OUR INSTITUTIONS.

AND I BELIEVE THE CONGRESS TRYING TO IMPOSE A COURT TAKES ON THE COURT, WHICH THE COURT THE DENTIST REGARD WOULD FURTHER AND MINE TAKE INSTITUTION WHICH ALL 3 OF US, I THINK LIKE TO SEE A.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE SUPREME COURT ITSELF COME UP WITH A MORE ROBUST SET OF CIVICS CODE?

I I JUST REALLY READ THE CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED NOVEMBER 13TH OF LAST YEAR.

AND IT LOOKS PRETTY RIGOROUS DEBATE.

SO WE DO SO WERE WELL AND GOOD RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF THINK COURTS BEHAVIOR IN HONORING THE CODE THAT THEY'VE WELL, WHAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THIS CODE IS COME OUT PARTLY IN RESPONSE TO TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU GENTLEMAN BROUGHT UP.

AND I THINK IT'S JOHN ROBERTS WAY MY JUSTICE THOMAS IN PARTICULAR, NOT SO MUCH JUST WE DO.

I THINK LIKE CONTROVERSY IS A TEMPEST IN A TEAPOT.

BUT I THINK THIS IS JOHN ROBERTS WAY TO PUTTING HIS HAND SAID, LOOK, GUYS, WE HAVE GOT TO GET THIS RIGHT.

IF WE DON'T, WE HAD BIGGER PROBLEMS.

ALL RIGHT.

THAT IS WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO LEAVE IT.

I'M SURE THERE'S A LOT MORE TO TALK WITH THIS ISSUE GOING FORWARD.

I THINK THE 3 OF YOU FOR SUCH A ROBUST DISCUSSION, HAROLD PRINCE WILLIAM HOWE AND A DAVID APPLEGATE, THANKS, EVERYBODY.

UP NEXT, A LOOK AT THE U.S.

ADOPTION INDUSTRY IN A CONVERSATION RECORDED EARLIER.

STAY WITH US.

IN THE WAKE OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DOBBS DECISION, MANY ANTIABORTION ADVOCATES OFFERED ADOPTION AS A SUITABLE SOLUTION TO UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

BUT THE AUTHOR OF A NEW BOOK SAYS THAT ARGUMENT IS MISGUIDED IN RELINQUISH THE POLITICS OF ADOPTION AND PRIVILEGE OF AMERICAN MOTHERHOOD, AUTHOR AND SOCIOLOGIST GRETCHEN SISSON TELLS THE STORIES OF BIRTH MOTHERS WHO PLACE THEIR INFANTS FOR DOMESTIC ADOPTION PAINTING A FAR MORE NUANCED IMAGE OF THE ADOPTION INDUSTRY THAN MOST PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.

AND JOINING US NOW IS AUTHOR GRETCHEN SISSON, AUTHOR OF RELINQUISH.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THANKS FOR HAVING SO FIRST, TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO WRITE THIS BOOK.

SO I STARTED DOING IT A COLLECTION FOR THIS BOOK.

BACK IN 2010, OBVIOUSLY.

WELL, BEFORE WE KNEW THE DOBBS DECISION WAS COMING DOWN THE PIPE.

BUT AT THAT POINT, I WAS IN GRADUATE SCHOOL.

I WAS WORKING AT AN ORGANIZATION THAT WORKED WITH PREGNANT AND PARENTING TEENAGERS AND YOUNG PEOPLE.

AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE WAYS THAT OUR CULTURAL IDEAS OF PARENTHOOD WHAT YOUNG PARENTHOOD BENT REALLY DIVERGED FROM THEIR LIVED EXPERIENCES.

AND I WAS ALSO DOING SOME WORK IN ABORTION CARE AND FUNDING AND SEEING THE WAY THAT THOSE CULTURAL NARRATIVE STAY PURGED FROM WHAT WE'RE HEARING FROM CALLERS.

AND I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND HOW ADOPTION WAS ACTUALLY FUNCTIONING IN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE MOST IMPACTED BY IT.

SO THAT'S WHAT BROUGHT ME TO THAT RESEARCH IN 2010.

AND THEN I DID 10 YEAR FOLLOW-UP WITH A LOT OF THE SAME WOMAN THAT I HAD INTERVIEWED THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

AND THEN OPPOSITION HAPPENED AND TOOK WHAT WAS KIND OF A A SMALLER ACADEMIC QUESTION AND GAVE NEW POLITICAL FRAMING AND AND RESIDENTS FOR IT TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO WHAT THE JUSTICES WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE ORAL ARGUMENTS OF THE DECISION.

YOU TELL MANY STORIES OF BIOLOGICAL OR BIRTH MOMS WHO COME FROM VARYING BACKGROUNDS.

WHAT ARE THE COMMON THREADS THAT YOU FOUND AMONG THEM?

YEAH.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE COMMONALITIES AND EVERYTHING, I SAY AS FAR AS COMING OUT HAS MANY EXCEPTIONS, RIGHT?

BECAUSE A REALLY DIVERSE GROUP OF WOMEN.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, MOST OF THEM WANTED TO PARENT THEIR CHILDREN.

THAT'S WHY THEY CONTINUE THEIR PREGNANCIES.

THEY WERE INTENDING AND HOPING TO PARENT.

AND IT WAS REALLY WHEN PARENTHOOD FELT IMPOSSIBLE ARE UNTENABLE ON BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT THEY NEED.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEEDED TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE THAT THEY TURNED TO ADOPTION IS A LIFELINE.

THIS WHOLE IDEA THAT WOMEN ARE CHOOSING BETWEEN ABORTION ADOPTION IS JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN AND HOW PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY MAKING DECISIONS ABOUT PREGNANCIES AND ABOUT PARENTING.

THE STORIES IN THE BOOK, THEY'RE PRIMARILY, AS YOU SAY, FOCUSED ON WOMEN WHO RELINQUISHED IN POST ROE VERSUS WADE.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU SAY ON ACCESS TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE HAS IMPACTED THE ADOPTION INDUSTRY.

SO ADOPTION IS PRIMARILY A CONSTRAINT CHOICE WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY OTHER OPTIONS, RIGHT?

WHEN YOU MAKE ABORTION COMPLETELY INACCESSIBLE OR WHEN YOU MAKE PARENTING VERY IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOME PEOPLE TURN TO ADOPTION.

IT WAS NO ONE'S FIRST CHOICE.

REALLY.

AND I THINK THAT THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT LIMITS ON ABORTION ACCESS AND OTHER TYPES IMPACT OF HEALTH CARE.

THAT'S A CONSTRAINT THAT'S GOING TO LIMIT THE OPTIONS THAT PEOPLE HAVE AVAILABLE TO THEM IN A REALLY CRITICAL WAY.

BUT WHEN YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE ENDING THE CHILD TAX CREDIT, RIGHT, THAT IS ALSO A CONSTRAINT ON HOW PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THEM.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE DOBBS DECISION A COUPLE OF TIMES.

AND SO I WANT TO GET TO, YOU KNOW, IN THE WAKE OF THAT DECISION, OF COURSE, DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, THERE ARE MANY POLITICIANS, PUBLIC FIGURES WHO, AS YOU SAY, PUT ADOPTION AND ABORTION SIDE BY SIDE AS IF THESE ARE 2 EQUAL ALTERNATIVES ON THAT, WE HAVE A CLIP OF FORMER SOUTH CAROLINA GOVERNOR NIKKI HALEY ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL LAST YEAR.

MY HUSBAND WAS ADOPTED AND I AM REMINDED OF THAT BLESSING EVERY SINGLE DAY.

WHEN HE WAS JUST A FEW YEARS OLD, MICHAEL AND HIS SIBLINGS WERE TAKEN FROM THEIR HOME.

LATER.

THEY WERE PUT INTO FOSTER CARE.

IT WAS A ROUGH EXPERIENCE FOR HIM.

THANKFULLY, WHEN HE WAS 4 YEARS OLD, A LOVING FAMILY ADOPTED MICHAEL AND HIS YOUNGER SISTER.

IT CHANGED THEIR LIVES.

ADOPTION LITERALLY SAFE THEM.

IN THE CASE OF HER HUSBAND'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

HE WAS ADOPTED AFTER GOING TO THE FOSTER SYSTEM.

HE WAS A LITTLE BIT OLDER VERSUS BEING ADOPTED AS AN INFANT.

BUT WHAT IS YOUR REACTION TO ARGUMENTS LIKE HERS AND SOME THAT WE HEARD WHEN THE DOBBS DECISION WAS PLAYING OUT.

I THINK MY RESEARCH SPECIFICALLY IS ON PRIVATE ADOPTION SYSTEMS, THE UNITED STATES.

BUT I THINK MORE AND MORE THE CONTRIBUTING FACTORS FOR BOTH PUBLIC ADOPTION, WHICH IS FOSTER CARE, ADOPTION AND PRIVATE ADOPTION, ISRAELI POVERTY, RIGHT?

WE SEE THAT MOST RELINQUISHING MOTHERS HAVE LESS THAN $5,000 OF ANNUAL PERSONAL INCOME RIGHTS.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY COMING FROM A PLACE OF CONSTRAINED AS WE TALKED ABOUT FINANCIAL STRUGGLE WHEN THEY'RE MAKING THESE DECISIONS.

WE ALSO SEE THAT THAT'S DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY FOSTER CARE SYSTEMS, ALONG WITH FAMILIES OF COLOR AND PARTICULARLY BLACK FAMILIES.

RIGHT?

SO YOU HAVE THIS INCREASED SCRUTINY AND REGULATION OF.

POOR FAMILIES, THE UNITED STATES BECAUSE WE JUST WE AS A CULTURE, DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN POVERTY ARE CAPABLE OF PARENTING.

AND WE WANT TO INTRODUCE THE SOLUTION, A FAMILY SEPARATION AND THE TRANSFER OF CHILDREN AS A WAY OF ADDRESSING THESE INEQUITIES.

SO WHEN I HEAR A STORY LIKE NIKKI OR OTHER STORIES THAT HAVE COME OUT OF THE PRIVATE ADOPTION SYSTEM AS WELL.

THE QUESTION FOR ME IS ALWAYS WHAT SUPPORT COULD THAT FAMILY ORIGIN HAVE HAD TO MAINTAIN THAT CONNECTION?

IT IN FULL DISCLOSURE FOR THE AUDIENCE AS WELL.

I MYSELF DOCTOR TO YOU MENTIONED YOUR RESEARCH POINTS TO THE TURN AWAY.

STUDY AND IT FOLLOWED 956 WOMEN WHO SOUGHT ABORTIONS IN THE U.S.

INCLUDING 160 WHO ENDED UP GIVING BIRTH BECAUSE THEY WERE DENIED AN ABORTION BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO FAR ALONG IN THEIR PREGNANCIES.

ACCORDING TO THE POLICY OF THE LOCATION WHERE THEY SOUGHT CARE.

ONLY 15 OF THEM.

SO THAT'S 9% TO RELINQUISH THEIR CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION.

THAT MEANS 91% OF THEM CHOSE TO PARENT, BUT THAT 9% TO RELINQUISH THEIR CHILDREN.

THAT'S ONLY ABOUT HALF A PERCENT.

2.5% AMERICAN BIRTHS THAT LEAD TO ADOPTION.

WHAT DOES THAT SAY?

WELL, IT JUST SHOWS THAT ADOPTION IS NEVER REALLY GOING TO BE A MEANINGFUL ALTERNATIVE TO ABORTION ACCESS IN THE LIVES AMERICAN WOMEN.

AND WHEN YOU DENY PEOPLE ACCESS TO ABORTIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE FAR, FAR MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE PARENTING AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THEY DIDN'T PLAN.

THEY DIDN'T CHOOSE A TIME IN THEIR LIFE.

THAT'S NOT IDEAL WITH A PARTNER THAT THEY DON'T REALLY WANT TO CO-PARENT WITH WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WERE LEADING THEM TO WANT THE ABORTION IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY'RE GOING TO PARENTING IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.

MORE THAN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTUALLY RELINQUISHING CHILDREN FOR ADOPTION.

BUT I SHOULD SAY THAT 9% PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED CARE THAT END UP REALLY PUSHING ACTUALLY IS A HUGE INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PRIVATE DOMESTIC ADOPTIONS BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO NEED ABORTIONS IS SO HIGH COMPARED TO THE NUMBER OF PRIVATE OPTIONS.

SO WE HAVE ABOUT 850,000 TO A MILLION ABORTIONS EVERY YEAR IN THE UNITED STATES.

THESE ARE PRETTY DOBBS NUMBERS, BUT THEY ACTUALLY HAVEN'T GONE DOWN IN THE LAST YEARS THAT WE'VE SEEN AND YOU'LL HAVE ABOUT 20,000 PRIVATE DOMESTIC ADOPTION.

SO EVEN A RELATIVELY SMALL PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE DENIED ACCESS RELINQUISHING MEANS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A YOU COULD HAVE A FAIRLY DRAMATIC INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PRIVATE ADOPTION CAN TALK ABOUT THIS ALL DAY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF THE BIRTH MOMS THAT YOU SPOKE WITH AS WELL.

SOME WHO SAY THEY REGRET THEIR DECISION TO RELINQUISH THEIR CHILDREN BECAUSE IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT ONE TO HAVE HAD TO MAKE.

BUT HOW WOULD YOU SAY?

BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME, BUT HOW DO YOU THINK SOCIETY SHOULD BE THINKING DIFFERENTLY ABOUT ADOPTION GOING FORWARD?

I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE WAYS THAT WE'RE USING ADOPTION AND WHO ADOPTION PURPORTS TO SERVE.

RIGHT.

WE HAVE THIS IDEA THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF CHILDREN THAT ARE IN NEED OF HOMES.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE FAR, FAR MORE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO ADOPT A PRIVATE ADOPTION SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE CHILDREN AVAILABLE.

AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MAKING ADOPTION CHILD CENTERED IN SOME WAY, WE NEED TO BE CENTERING WHAT CHILDREN NEED AND WHAT CHILDREN NEED AND THEIR FAMILIES OF ORIGIN AS WELL.

WHAT THAT MEANS TO KEEP FAMILIES TOGETHER AND TO SUPPORT THEM.

BECAUSE AS SOON AS YOU CENTER.

WHAT ADOPTIVE OR PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE FAMILIES WANT, YOU'RE MAKING THIS ABOUT WHAT ADULTS WANT RATHER THAN WHAT ABOUT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ACTUALLY NEED AND UNITED STATES.

YEAH, THERE'S ALWAYS IF IF YOU TELL SOMEONE YOU'RE ADOPTING A SO MANY BABIES OUT THERE THAT NEED GOOD HOMES WHEN ALL BABIES NEED GOOD HOMES, NOT JUST THOSE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR ADOPTION.

WE HAVE TO LEAVE THEIR GRETCHEN SAYS.

AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

THANKS.

AGAIN.

THE BOOK IS CALLED RELINQUISHED THE POLITICS OF ADOPTION AND PRIVILEGE OF AMERICAN MOTHERHOOD.

AND WE'RE BACK TO WRAP THINGS UP RIGHT AFTER THIS.

AND THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR THIS MONDAY NIGHT.

YOU CAN GET CHICAGO TONIGHT STREAMED ON FACEBOOK, YOUTUBE AND OUR WEB SITE W T TW DOT COM SLASH NEWS.

YOU CAN ALSO GET THE SHOW VIA PODCAST AND THE PBS VIDEO APP AND JOIN US TOMORROW NIGHT AT 5, 30 10, OUR SPOTLIGHT POLITICS TEAM WILL WEIGH IN ON SOME NOTABLE, ILLINOIS REPUBLICANS ENDORSING VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA PLUS THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT MISSES A DEADLINE TO LAUNCH A STUDY ON HOW OFFICERS ARE DEPLOYED.

NOW FOR ALL OF US HERE AT CHICAGO TONIGHT AND BRANDIS FRIEDMAN, THANK YOU WATCHING.

STAY HEALTHY AND SAFE AND HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

CLOSED CAPTIONING IS MADE POSSIBLE BY ROBERT A CLIFF CHICAGO PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH THAT IS PROUD TO RECOGNIZE ITS FOUNDER AND SENIOR PARTNER ROBERT WHO RANKED NUMBER ONE IN THE STATE OF ILLINOIS BY SUPER LAWYERS