Funding for To The Contrary provided by the E. Rhodes and Leona B. Carpenter Foundation, The Park Foundation, and the Charles A. Frueauff Foundation.

Coming up on To The Contrary.

Harvey Weinstein's rape conviction in New York overturned.

Is this the beginning of the end of the MeToo movement?

Then Arizona comes one step closer to repealing an abortion ban from the mid 1800s.

Intro Music I'm Bonnie Erbe.

Welcome to To The Contrary, a discussion of news and social trends from diverse perspectives.

Up first, a stunning ruling by New York's Court of Appeals throwing out the Harvey Weinstein verdict.

In a stunning reversal, disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein's 2020 rape conviction in New York was overturned by the state Court of Appeals.

In a 4 to 3 ruling, the court found the judge made a mistake in allowing testimony about prior bad acts to be heard in his trial.

Weinstein will remain in prison due to a rape conviction in a 2022 trial in Los Angeles.

Joining us today are Debra Carnahan, retired judge and former assistant U.S. attorney.

Republican strategist Ann Stone.

Tiana Lowe Doescher, commentary columnist for The Washington Examiner and Ameshia Cross political comment editor and Democratic activist.

The four women in the majority on this court, threw out the verdict.

Now, we should point out that the verdict, because it included from testimony from prior women who had been raped and abused by Weinstein before the act that he was being prosecuted for, it was always thought to be kind of shaky.

But should they have done this?

By the way, they also held field hearings on the case to get feedback from the public.

Should they have ruled this way?

Well, the field hearings makes me uncomfortable.

But if you know, it's sort of a rookie mistake that the judge would do that would allow that to happen.

And if they're following the strict letter of the law, then I applaud them for that.

the very bad news, of course, that was overturned.

The very good news is they can certainly retry it.

And one would hope that they would.

Does anybody think it will be retried?

New York's got a lot of, major cases, going through its state court system.

And like every other state court system in the country, it's overwhelmed.

And these things cost a lot of money.

So, Bonnie, it's under the jurisdiction of the Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, who's currently trying Donald Trump for, you know, supposedly falsifying, falsifying official business records in relation to the Stormy Daniels payout from almost a decade ago.

I think we can all agree that a much better use of time right now would be retrying the Weinstein case.

Now, I'm not an attorney, so I can't say whether or not the court totally got this correct.

But what I will say is the notion that it's unprecedented for a judge to allow a pattern of behavior to be established with witnesses that aren't directly testifying to the crime times and the instances that are being litigated in question for that criminal trial.

Not unprecedented.

They did that in the Larry Nassar case.

And that's how you wind up getting the stunning conviction, because you had other witnesses attest to that pattern of behavior, because establishing that back pattern is incredibly relevant.

Look, all sex crimes by default are incredibly difficult to prove because when you think about it, your body that's already been traumatized, that is all the forensic evidence you will have in 99% of cases, much less if you're doing cases about instances from many years ago, which the Weinstein trial was.

Well, look, compare or consider both Weinstein and Bill Cosby getting off.

You are a powerful, wealthy man with money to spend on high dollar attorneys.

It makes litigating sexual assault cases even more difficult.

Ameshia, your thoughts?

We already know that.

He's also, I take issue with the term getting off because he's already been convicted in other places as well.

Regarding rape.

He's not getting off.

But I would argue that the likelihood of this case being retried is very high, in particular because of the fact that New York has changed multiple statutes related to sex crimes over the past 3 to 4 years.

And we're seeing more and more of those cases, regardless of who the person is, actually be brought to light.

This was the linchpin for the MeToo movement.

This means a lot to women across this country.

Those who are his victims, as well as those who were not.

And I think that we're definitely going to see, we're definitely going to see this one be brought to case again.

The there were some prosecutorial issues with the way in which they went about pulling off some of these, some of these older cases.

That is what stands at issue here, not the fact that they were drawn up at.

All, but they still had testimony from two actual, the women, you know, they were charged, they were charging in cases regarding two actual women who testified.

Debra, did they really need all the rest of that pattern evidence?

I think.

Thank you.

That's a great question.

One I want to say, when I was a state prosecuting attorney, my area of expertise and what I did was the Special Victims Unit where we tried rape cases against women, children and abuse cases.

Yes.

Extremely difficult cases.

to prosecute and get convictions on.

I'm not sure that talking about Harvey overturning tables and yelling at people, it was necessarily relevant to the charges that were against him.

However, certainly a pattern of conduct and the M.O.

is totally permissible because these cases do try and point out this is a pattern.

This is not a one time thing.

I murdered somebody this is systematically showing that the defendant had a pattern engaged in the pattern, and that the cases that are being charged are just part of that pattern, which is totally, totally relevant.

So I think it was a bad decision.

However, maybe next time they want to leave out some of those things.

Like he gets mad and throws tables over, you know, or he yells at waiters.

I'm not sure how that goes.

How much of that.

I heard one, prosecutor speaking this week saying that we've got to get to the point where one woman's testimony is enough, where we believe them because there is, of course, you know, throughout history there, I, I'm assuming there must have been a fair number, maybe 10% or something like that.

5% of rape claims that were not true, some very small percentage, some revenge cases, but the vast majority of them are accurate.

And yet we don't believe the prosecutors, why is that?

Well, I think part of the problem is, of course, the prosecution has the burden of proof.

That's a very heavy, heavy lift.

As you know, it doesn't take much to infuse reasonable doubt for the jury to acquit.

And they think that's why one person versus another person is very difficult in these cases.

Like with a murder, you've got a dead body.

There's no question the person is dead.

It's just now whodunit.

Right?

So I think that's why it's important to show pattern.

I doubt that there will ever be a time where we can just say he said, she said.

And sure, let's believe her.

I think that's the issue, the the level of the burden of proof.

And what do you think about the MeToo movement generally?

I mean, it was it was started 4 or 5 years, six years ago.

to specifically prevent sexual harassment in the workplace and sexual assault anywhere but also in the workplace.

And, men using their positions of power to force women to agree to sex that they wouldn't have had.

But for, so what's going on now?

Well, in the beginning, it had tremendous impact and brought down some very well-known people.

it sort of petered out and that's why it's interesting that the overturn of this case might actually ingest or inject new life and bring that movement back, but it it really sort of did Peter out.

and let's not forget and that's an excellent point.

and also, let's not forget the law is slow.

The law is rarely out there, you know, parting the waters and saying we're groundbreaking.

Usually there's a swell, there's a movement, there's a change in what's going on in our country, within society.

And then the law catches up, and then people go, wow, that's great.

These cases are usually brought because the media discover them.

As was the case with Weinstein, New York Times, The New Yorker, and then the prosecutors go in and use some of the evidence that the media turned up, the people they interviewed, etc..

Right.

So, you know, in one sense, it's not surprising, that this is a struggle, that this movement, the MeToo movement, is pretty much in an infancy, if you look at it as related to the judicial system, maybe not the public opinion, but certainly the judicial system.

I absolutely want to jump in and say this too.

One more thing and then we gotta give someone else some time.

Yes, the prosecution is going to retry this case.

Well, I was saying that, the MeToo movement is all about dead, the Time's Up the organization that started after, shortly thereafter, ended up falling apart in tremendous fashion because one of their leaders was also found to be protecting the former governor of New York when he was actually accused of sexual violence and sexual assault.

And we have seen time and time again, even at the outset of the MeToo movement, the women that were the most highly affected by sexual assault and sexual aggression at the workplace has always been women of color.

But the faces of the MeToo movement were very void of women of color.

I think that there are several issues with the movement in and of itself, but beyond that, the folks who are the most likely to be oppressed under these levels of sexual aggression in the workplace are often the women with the least amount of power.

They're interns, they're younger workers.

They're workers who are still trying to build their capacity.

They understand that even reporting these incidences means that they could be shut out of work.

They could be shut out of being able to earn for their families.

There is a reason why they are taking advantage of it.

In large part, it's because they are the voices that are often unheard, and they're the ones who retribution comes forth.

The swiftest.

I don't think that the MeToo movement ever surely placed a pause on a lot of the incidents that were happening in workplaces across this country because, quite frankly, as long as we have males in leadership at the top who recognize that they are shielded in large part because women do not report these things and they don't report them because of the repercussions they will face, they're going to continue to persist.

And that's in politics.

That is an entertainment that is in any of these layers of work.

Let me ask you this, because Time's Up.

A former panelist of ours, he was one of the founding members of Time's Up, and they were very powerful in Hollywood.

They had a lot of major stars and studio heads and whatever else funding them, getting foundation money, corporate money, private donations.

I'm assuming some of that money is still around, despite the leadership.

I, I'm assuming new leadership has stepped in, but they can't possibly have run out of stories about people in Hollywood doing this right?

And why aren't they finding more women of color to bring these charges?

It's purposeful.

Also, they were taking money from the various studio heads who were in charge of the studios where people were getting abused in.

So there are a lot of issues with Time's Up to begin with.

All right.

And, and your closing thoughts is the movement dead?

well again, This case being overturned, in fact, could revive it.

But yes, by and large, it has fallen by the wayside.

All right.

From the MeToo movement to abortion rights, two major developments on the abortion front this week.

First, the Arizona House voted to roll back its severe anti-abortion law that dates back to the US Civil War.

It did so with the defection of three Republicans, the Republican House speaker immediately took one of the three defectors off his seat on the House's desirable Appropriations Committee, and at the US Supreme Court this week, the four female justices, including conservative Amy Coney Barrett, pushed back the hardest against Idaho's almost absolute ban on abortion.

It bars doctors from performing abortions, except when a woman's life is in danger.

That conflicts with the federal emergency care statute known as Tala, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act.

So, Debra, your thoughts on this move?

Well, I'm talking about the Arizona State Legislature and the bill being sent to the governor.

obviously political.

there is a feeling out there among a lot of Republicans that this is a losing battle, what's happening to them in their races.

There's a lot of pushback, a lot of petitions going on to get, rights for women and abortion rights back on the ballot.

and I think the three Republicans that broke with their party are seeing that feeling that and also very much can be, a result of their own district and the reality of these districts that they represent locally and the pushback that they're getting.

do you think?

Well, I mean, obviously, a lot of Republicans and we see Donald Trump one day, he's you know, he's going to get rid of, Roe v Wade, which he succeeded in doing.

And now he's pro-choice.

He's for a 15 week ban.

And, are Republicans like, hurting themselves or helping themselves by confusing where exactly it is they stand on?

Bonnie, I just have to note that those are not contradictory positions.

It's not contradictory to say that the Constitution does not have a federal protection of abortion.

It should be left up to the state.

And also pointing out that you can be pro-life.

And think of that Arizona law from again, 160 years ago was incorrect.

Three quarters of all pro-life Republicans still favor exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Right.

And there's a reason why Doug Ducey tried to pass that 15 week abortion ban, which is what they want to revert the law to.

That's in line with the OECD average.

That's in line with Europe and stops those really grotesque partial birth abortions with with fetuses that are capable of feeling fetal pain.

Look, a state like Florida that is trending redder can pass a six week abortion law.

We'll see how much that punishes Republicans coming up in this election.

I don't think it will too much because that's largely where that electorate is headed.

Arizona is a little bit more purple.

Wait, wait.

But I think if you ask the average American to define how I feel on abortion, I am pro-choice, but I'm also pro.

I see myself as pro-choice, but I'm pro really severe bans that only allow abortions in the case of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.

Most people would define me if if those were my terms as pro-life.

Yes.

Which is, I think, fairly close to saying there shouldn't.

You know, but you're saying they're interchangeable and I'm telling you, they're not.

Wait, how am I saying those terms are interchangeable?

No, I'm saying you can be pro-life, but also federalist.

Also understand that the Constitution doesn't have any protections for abortion, but California is going to pass California law while Florida can pass Florida law and Alabama can ban the procedure entirely.

But the fact is that most pro most people that identify with the pro-life moniker by the polls still want those rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Protections and exceptions.

There was also action, this week in the Idaho abortion ban and that one, according to it allows abortion in very, very, very limited circumstances only to save the life of the mother.

And, people were saying that it's driving OBGYNs out of the state.

They absolutely won't live in a place where they're not allowed to practice medicine as they see fit.

Certainly people who OBGYNs who are pro-life or call themselves pro-life and don't want to perform abortions don't have to.

That's not a law anywhere.

Just like women don't have to have abortions if they don't want them.

But it is harming that state in terms of, being able to provide medical care to, pregnant women.

Yeah.

And they think also, Bonnie, it's very important to note, we keep talking about abortion like it's just the first couple weeks or eight weeks or ten weeks.

I mean, you can be, I found it astounding, but not so astounding, I guess, that they showed a clip from, Debbie Reynolds from decades ago who lost her child at seven months.

And because abortion was illegal, the doctors would not take that child out of her and said it had to come out naturally until she got so sick and was like going to die.

That then they remove the child from her.

I mean, this goes way beyond did you have failed birth control?

Were you not careful enough?

I mean, who decides not?

And I just want to finish here real quick if I can.

That should be left up to a woman and her doctor and the medical community who really know these things.

Politicians in Washington, politicians in the state legislature.

They're not doctors.

They're not there on the scenes.

And I think that's what women and men are starting to see and go, whoa, what does that really mean?

And we can get prosecuted if we mess up.

Okay.

Now, I also want to switch to the Supreme Court, which this week, heard arguments on its latest abortion case.

And, it's interesting because I was fascinated by the fact that, of course, the three Democratic appointees are women, two women of color and one white woman.

And, in addition, Amy Coney Barrett, the point the Trump appointed justice who came from Notre Dame Law School and, seems to be very anti-choice.

And yet she was arguing against this law.

So your thoughts, please.

No medical professionals shouldn't be making these decisions.

we are talking about linchpin cases in many cases.

And I've had family members, one of them being my cousin, who nearly died.

and she had to have an abortion in seven months because her baby was not going to survive.

There was no heartbeat.

The baby was gone.

And I think that in cases where you do have these later term abortions, and that's less than 3% of the cases of abortions into early term abortions are extremely rare.

It is because the child is not viable and the mother's life is on the line, and anyone saying anything different is lying to you.

Beyond that, to have women speak so fervently on a court where you have men who clearly don't even understand biologically, a women's reproductive organs and reproductive system that became very clear in a lot of the conversations in the commentary from the Supreme Court justices.

It is very frustrating to hear males be able to have this conversation and say things that do not mesh with the science we know about women's bodies and the efficacy of pregnancy.

They are literally putting women's lives in danger and lives up to and including being able to reproduce.

So when we talk about being pro-life, you also have to understand that in many of these cases, if a woman is not granted that right to choose, she will lose their ability to be able to reproduce later.

That was the case for Kate Cox.

If she did not have that abortion, she was going to lose her ability to be able to reproduce.

You cannot say you are pro-life, be okay with someone limiting that ability because they cannot further reproduce due to the fact that they had to have an emergency abortion.

It is frustrating to see this happen because women aren't being allowed to make the decisions they need and their OBGYN, the doctors who are professionally certified to talk to and help them with these decisions are being negated by people who have no earthly idea what they're talking about.

And it's why, when whenever this goes to the voters, they always want the woman to decide.

The pro-choice side of every single state initiative has won since 1973.

Every single one.

And I have to say, if we go back to, your point about Florida, Arizona and Idaho in Florida, as soon as Ron DeSantis, decided to get rid of the 15 week ban he had signed and go with six week, I turned to people and I said, he will never be president, ever.

I said he'll be rejected in the primaries, but he'll never be president with that ban.

And you saw how Haley, her stack went up when she talked about building consensus and having a much more conciliatory, position on abortion.

so in Florida, what's going to happen?

They're going to a ticket split.

They're going to vote the pro-choice side for the state initiative.

But I think they're still going to support Republicans in the state.

Arizona.

Good lord.

Finally, common sense.

They passed the ban.

the Republicans who joined in.

Yes, that one was punished.

But I'll tell you behind the scenes, the party everybody is thrilled that they, did pass the ban.

Nobody wanted that that law to stand.

It was insane.

So common sense has prevailed there.

So that's good in Idaho.

Quick question to you.

as a long term participant in and observer of Republican politics, is this going to drive the extreme right out of the party, finally, because what you saw was in Arizona, three pro-life Republicans, deserting the party on this issue because for many reasons, one guy said he had very strong women in his life, but also because they know it's going to kill Republicans at the polls.

And yet it's being pushed by the Marjorie Taylor Greens of the world.

Well, some of the strongest pro-life Republicans who I have known for years, and I see him at the RNC quarterly meetings, national meetings, and all that, they all behind the scenes say, My God, we've got to do something.

This is crazy.

You know, we're going to have to find a way to find common ground to work our way through this.

They're realists are they're extremists, that are so far out on the fringe that they won't hear anything except the extreme.

They're being marginalized.

Will they leave the party since they agree with the party on 80% of the other issues?

Probably not, probably not.

But they're going to make a lot of noise in the meanwhile.

All right.

Thank you all.

Great discussion.

That's it for this edition.

Keep the conversation going on our social media platforms.

Reach out to us @tothecontrary and visit our website Address is on the screen and whether you agree or think To the Contrary, see you next time.

Outro Music