FOUNDATION AND THE CHARLES A. FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

>>> THE ANTICHOICE SIDE HAS BEEN WOKE FOR A LONG TIME.

>> AND THEY WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD IN THE EARLY 70S BY THE ROE DECISION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THE PRO CHOICE SIDE THERE'S PLENTY OF NOTICE THINGS WERE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION BUT IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO MOTIVATE AND MOBILIZE.

SO A DECISION OVERTURNING ROE WOULD CERTAINLY MOBILIZE.

>>> HELLO.

WELCOME TO TO THE CONTRARY.

THIS WEEK I'M JOINED BY LINDA GREENHOUSE WHO WRITES OP-EDS ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE "NEW YORK TIMES."

A WARM WELCOME TO YOU, LINDA.

>> NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

>> AGAIN.

BECAUSE I COVER THE SUPREME COURT WHEN YOU DID FOR THE TIME I WAS THERE FOR NBC RADIO NETWORK.

WE WERE PRESS ROOM BUDDIES BACK THEN.

SO IT'S GREAT TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

BUT YOU'RE TEACHING AT YALE NOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT.

LET'S START WITH ROE.

TELL ME AND EXPLAIN TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE TRIMESTER SYSTEM THAT WAS SET UP IN ROE.

>> THE COURT DECIDED THERE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FOR A WOMAN TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY AND THE QUESTION WAS UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES.

AND SO THE DECISION WAS MADE BASICALLY THAT THE DIVIDING LINE THE STATE COULD INTERVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE WOMAN'S HEALTH.

REQUIRE ABORTIONS TO BE IN A HOSPITAL OR WHATEVER.

THIRD TRIMESTER OF COURSE IS WHEN VIABILITY BEGINS SO THAT WAS THE TRIMESTER SYSTEM.

>> SO ARE WE TALKING THIRD TRIMESTER VIABILITY BEING WITHOUT MEDICAL INTERVENTION?

>> OF COURSE A BABY BORN EARLY IN THE THIRD TRIMESTER IS LIKELY TO HAVE QUITE SERIOUS PROBLEMS AND TO NEED MEDICAL INTERVENTION AND INTENSIVE CARE UNIT WHATEVER WHATEVER BUT THE NOTION IS THAT BY ABOUT 24 WEEKS OF PREGNANCY, THERE'S AT LEAST A GOOD CHANCE THAT A BABY BORN THAT PREMATURE CAN SURVIVE.

>> THAT DECISION OF COURSE WAS WRITTEN BY JUSTICE HARRY BLACKMAN AND HAS BEEN CRITICIZED.

DO YOU AGREE THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT ALLOWING WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS SHOULD BE BASED ON SOME OTHER RIGHT IN THE CONSTITUTION?

>> WELL, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THAT.

YES, THE OPINION WAS WRITTEN, QUOTE, WRITTEN BY HARRY BLACKMAN AND JOINED BY SIX OTHER JUS SISES, IN FACT, BY -- JUSTICES.

THREE OF THE FOUR JUSTICES WHO RICHARD NIXON PUT ON THE COURT.

BERGER, LOUIS POWELL, HARRY BLACKMAN HAPPENED TO GET THE MAJORITY OPINION ASSIGNMENT FROM CHIEF JUSTICE BERGER SO IT WAS A COLLECTIVE PRODUCT.

YOU HEAR IT SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND WELL IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED NOT ON PRIVACY OR DUE PROCESS, LIBERTY.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON EQUAL PROTECTION.

THAT'S KIND OF AN AHISTORICAL OPINION.

THE SUPREME COURT DIDN'T YET HAVE A JURISPRUDENCE OF EQUAL PROTECTION FOR WOMEN.

IT CAME SOON AFTER THAT IN PART PROPELLED BY THE ABORTION CASE AND THE BIRTH CONTROL CASE.

BUT FOR PEOPLE TO SAY, OH, THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE EQUAL PROTECTION, THIS WOULD IS HAVE HAD TO MAKE IT UP AT THAT TIME.

SO THAT'S REALLY NOT A WELL FOUNDED CRITIQUE.

>> DO YOU THINK IT'S IN TROUBLE NOW, IN JEOPARDY?

DO YOU THINK THIS SUPREME COURT WILL ACCEPT A CASE IN ORDER TO OVERTURN IT?

>> WELL, AGAIN, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS NOT REALLY ROE AGAINST WADE.

WE HAVE A CASE CALLED PLANNED PARENTHOOD AGAINST CASEY WHICH IS SUPREME COURT DECIDED IN 1992.

IT REALLY REVISED ROE IN PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL WAYS.

THAT'S THE LAW OF ABORTION THAT WE'RE LIVING UNDER TODAY.

THE KEY ABOUT THAT IS UNLIKE ROE WHICH AS I SAID GAVE THE STATE NO POWER TO INTERVENE IN THE EARLY PART OF PREGNANCY, PLANNED PARENTHOOD AGAINST CASEY, WHILE PRESERVING REAFFIRMING THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION SAID THE STATE HAS AN INTEREST IN PROTECTING UNBORN LIFE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION.

SO CASEY GAVE THE STATES A LOT MORE LATITUDE TO INTERVENE.

WHAT THE COURT SAID IS THAT STATES MAY ENDEAVOR TO PERSUADE A WOMAN TO CARRY A PREGNANCY TO TURN.

THEY COULD HAVE WAITING PERIODS, MANDATORY COUNSELING BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY CANNOT OBSTRUCT.

THAT'S THE LAW WE HAVE, PERSUADE BUT NOT OBSTRUCT.

THERE ARE LOTS OF WAYS TO OBSTRUCT WOMENS ACCESS TO ABORTION.

WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN, WE HAVE ALL THESE LAWS THAT YOUR VIEWERS KNOW ARE POURING OUT OF THE STATE LEGISLATURES IN ALABAMA AND MISSISSIPPI AND GEORGIA AND MISSOURI.

I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THE VEHICLES FOR THE COURT TO, QUOTE, OVERTURN ROE VERSUS WADE.

I THINK THE COURT WILL ENABLE THE STATES TO IMPOSE GREATER AND GREATER OBSTRUCTIONS WHICH WILL HAVE THE SAME FUNCTIONAL EFFECT THAT IS TO SAY WILL ENABLE THE STATES TO DESTROY THE ABORTION INFRASTRUCTURE, THE CLINICS NECESSARY FOR WOMEN TO BE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT BUT IT WON'T LOOK LIKE THE COURT IS OVERTURNED ROE SO IT WON'T HURT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WHOSE PLATFORM THIS HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS EVEN THOUGH A STRONG MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY ANSWERS POSTERS BY SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION OVERTURNED.

>> WE KNOW EACH OTHER FROM BACK IN THE 80S WHEN I COVERED THE SUPREME COURT AND YOU WERE THE BEAT REPORTER FOR THE "NEW YORK TIMES" BACK THEN.

NOT WRITING OP-EDS WHICH IS A STEP ABOVE.

BUT I ALWAYS USED TO THINK BACK THEN WHEN IT WAS SCALIA AND THOMAS, THEY WERE THE FURTHEST RIGHT, THAT THEY WOULD DO WHAT YOU HAVE JUST SAID, UPHOLD ROE WHICH IS ALREADY SKELETAL IN A SENSE BECAUSE IT HAS SO MANY EXCEPTIONS THAT A LOT OF WOMEN LIVE IN RED STATES THAT ARE IN A POST ROE ENVIRONMENT.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THERE'S ONLY ONE CLINIC IN AN ENTIRE STATE.

>> OR, YOU KNOW, EVEN -- OR WITH THREE DAY WAITING PERIODS AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.

BUT NOW WITH GORSUCH AND KAVANAUGH, THE TWO APPOINTEES FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP, THESE ARE SUCH SORT OF OUT THERE CAN TANKEROUS IF YOU WILL PEOPLE AND SO FAR RIGHT THAT I HAVE THOUGHT ANYWAY, WATCHING THE COURT, THAT THIS MAY BE THE COURT THAT JUST SAYS TOO BAD.

IT'S DONE.

IT'S GONE.

>> IT MAY BE BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN RIGHT AWAY.

I DON'T ACTUALLY THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION.

I ACTUALLY THINK THAT'S A DATE THAT THE COURT MAY WELL HAVE IN MIND.

AND NOT TO GET TOO DEEP IN THE WEEDS BUT I THOUGHT THE COURT GAVE A LITTLE SIGNAL ABOUT THIS A FEW WEEKS AGO.

THERE WAS A CASE PENDING FROM INDIANA.

INDIANA HAD PASSED A LAW THAT MADE IT A CRIME FOR A DOCTOR TO TERMINATE THE PREGNANCY OF A WOMAN WHOSE REASONS FOR WANTING THE ABORTION WERE FETAL DISABILITY SUCH AS DOWNS SYNDROME, GENDER, RACE, REASONS THAT THE STATE DEEMED TO BE INAPPROPRIATE.

AND THAT LAW WAS, OF COURSE, STRUCK DOWN BY THE LOWER COURT BECAUSE IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF LAW AND THE COURT DIDN'T TAKE THE CASE AND THE COURT EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS NOT TAKING THE CASE.

THE COURT SAID IN THE UNSIGNED OPINION SO WE DON'T KNOW WHO IS SPEAKING TO US BUT SEEMINGLY WAS UNANIMOUS OR CLOSE TO IT THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE'S NO, QUOTE, CONFLICT IN THEOR SUMMITS.

NO OTHER COURT HAS UPHELD SUCH A LAW.

THE CONFLICT IN THE CIRCUITS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHERE THE RUBBER MEETS THE ROAD AT THE SUPREME COURT IS DOWN ON THE ROAD.

NOT NECESSARILY UP A THOUSAND FEET.

SO CONFLICT IN THE CIRCUITS MEAN WE HAVE 13 FEDERAL CIRCUITS.

THE COURT BELIEVES ITS PRIMARY ROLE IS MAKE SURE THE LAW MEANS THE SAME THING IN NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA AND THAT'S WHY THEY TAKE A CASE.

>> THEY HAVE TO TAKE CASES DON'T THEY WHERE THERE'S A SPLIT?

>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING BUT THAT'S -- THEY VIEW THAT AS THEIR PRIMARY FUNCTION TO MAKE UNIFORM LAW IN THE COUNTRY.

SO I'M HERE TO SAY THAT THESE LAWS THAT ARE BEING PASSED NOW THAT ARE FUNCTIONALLY ABORTION BANS, THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE STRUCK DOWN.

THEY HAVE TO BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE LOWER COURTS WHO ARE BOUND BY SUPREME COURT SETTLED LAW BY THE RIGHT TO ABORTION UNDER ROE AND PLANNED PARENTHOOD AGAINST CASEY SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A CONFLICT IN THE CIRCUITS AND I THINK THE COURT AT LEAST BEFORE THE 2020 ELECTION IS GOING TO CONTENT ITSELF BY DEALING WITH THE OBSTRUCTIONS RATHER THAN THE COMPLETE BANS.

>> SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DEEP SOUTH LAWS THAT PENALIZE AS YOU MENTION NOT JUST THE DOCTOR BUT ALSO THE WOMAN, IMPRISON THE WOMAN, RIGHT.

THOSE WILL BE STRUCK DOWN BY THIS SUPREME COURT YOU THINK?

OR JUST NOT TAKEN?

>> I THINK NOT TAKEN.

THEY'LL BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE LOWER COURTS.

HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF -- >> SO THEY'LL BE NOT TAKEN BY -- THEY'LL BE STRUCK DOWN BUT THE RIGHT TO LIFE ADVOCATES WON'T THEN APPEAL IT TO THE SUPREME COURT?

>> I THINK A CASE THAT'S REALLY GOING TO TELL US WHAT'S UP IS A CASE NOW PENDING FROM LOUISIANA.

SO LOUISIANA PASSED A LAW THAT SAID THAT A DOCTOR WHO PERFORMS ABORTIONS HAS TO HAVE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES IN A LOCAL HOSPITAL.

NOW, THIS MAY SOUND FAMILIAR TO PEOPLE BECAUSE TEXAS PASSED SUCH A LAW A FEW YEARS AGO AND IN 2016, THE SUPREME COURT, WHEN JUSTICE KENNEDY WAS STILL ON THE COURT BEFORE JUSTICE GORSUCH AND JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, THE SUPREME COURT STRUCK IT DOWN AND SAID THAT'S AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THE RIGHT OF WOMEN TO TERMINATE A PREGNANCY.

WHY?

BECAUSE HOSPITALS IN THE RED STATES WON'T GIVE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES TO DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS, A.

B, IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT DOCTORS WHO PERFORM ABORTIONS DON'T NEED TO HAVE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES BECAUSE THE RATE OF COMPLICATION FROM EARLY ABORTIONS THAT ARE PERFORMED IN CLINICS ARE SO LOW THAT DOCTORS CAN GO FOR YEARS WITHOUT EVER HAVING A PATIENT ANYWHERE NEAR A HOSPITAL.

SO THESE LAWS ARE PASSED IN THE NAME OF WOMENS HEALTH BUT ACTUALLY THE DESIRE IS TO SHUT DOWN THE CLINICS.

SO THE COURT OVERTURNED THE TEXAS LAW, OVERTURNING A DECISION BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT WHICH HAD UPHELD THE LAW.

LOUISIANA HAS THE SAME LAW.

LOUISIANA, LIKE TEXAS, IS IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.

THE FIFTH CIRCUIT TOOK THIS LAW AND SAID, YEAH, WE KNOW WE WERE OVERTURNING THE TEXAS CASE BUT THAT WAS TEXAS.

THIS IS LOUISIANA.

THAT WAS THEN.

THIS IS NOW.

WE'RE GOING TO UPHOLD THE LAW.

SO THE CLINICS HAVE APPEALED THAT CASE TO THE SUPREME COURT.

THAT APPEAL IS PENDING.

WAITING FOR THE COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER TO HEAR IT WHICH I'M QUITE SURE IT WILL.

THAT WON'T COME INTO THE FALL.

AND THAT WILL TELL US WHETHER THE COURT IS WILLING TO ADHERE TO ITS PRECEDENCE ON ABORTION BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE TEXAS PRECEDENT WHICH IS ONLY THREE YEARS OLD.

THE CASE CALLED WHOLE WOMENS HEALTH.

THEY HAVE THAT ON THE BOOKS AND WHEN THAT PRECEDENT, THE LOUISIANA LAW HAS TO BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IF THE COURT MAKES DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE TEXAS LAW AND THE LOUISIANA LAW WHICH ARE FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES IDENTICAL.

THEN WE'LL SEE THE GAME, THE GAME IS AFOOT.

AND IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE COURT IS DEFINITELY ON A ROAD TO OVERTURN THE RIGHT TO ABORTION.

>> EXPLAIN WHATEVER INSIGHT YOU MAY HAVE FROM HAVING READ THEIR DECISIONS IF ANY ARE APPLICABLE OF GORSUCH AND KAVANAUGH AND HOW THEY MIGHT RULE IN ABORTION AND SHOULD ROE STAY INTACT CASE.

>> THERE'S NOTHING APPLICABLE FROM GORSUCH AS FAR AS I KNOW.

THERE'S ONE DATA POINT FROM BRETT KAVANAUGH WHEN HE WAS ON THE APPEALS COURT HERE IN D.C.

IT WAS REALLY A DISTRESSING CASE.

CAME TO THAT COURT INVOLVING A PREGNANT, QUOTE, UNACCOMPANIED MINOR, A YOUNG WOMAN UNDOCUMENTED WHO HAD COME ACROSS THE BORDER, WAS PICKED UP.

WAS BEING HELD IN ONE OF THE IMMIGRATION SHELTERS.

LEARNED SHE WAS PREGNANT.

SHE JUMPED THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS THAT ONE HAS TO JUMP THROUGH.

THIS WAS IN TEXAS.

SHE WAS ABLE TO GET HERSELF BEFORE A JUDGE WHERE A MINOR NEEDED A JUDGE'S PERMISSION TO HAVE AN ABORTION IF THEY DON'T HAVE PARENTAL CONSENT OR PARENTAL NOTICE.

SHE THE DID ALL THAT.

THE SHELTER WOULD NOT LET HER OUT TO ACTUALLY THE ABORTION BECAUSE THE PART OF THE IMMIGRATION, OUR IMMIGRATION SYSTEM CURRENTLY THAT DEALS WITH THE UNACCOMPANIED MINORS IS RUN BY THE GUY WHOSE ONLY CREDENTIAL FOR THAT JOB IS THAT HE SPENT HIS LIFE IN ANTIABORTION ADVOCACY.

SO AN APPEAL WAS BROUGHT ON HER BEHALF TO LET HER OUT TO HAVE THE ABORTION BECAUSE EVERY DAY SHE WAS A DAY MORE PREGNANT AND THE APPEALS COURT LET HER GO AHEAD.

BRETT KAVANAUGH WROTE A SEPARATE OPINION AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY SHOULD WAIT -- >> SO THIS WAS ON -- IT WAS THREE JUDGES OR NINE JUDGES?

>> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.

IT WAS -- IT HAD A COUPLE OF ITERATIONS BUT THE KEY POINT IS WHAT THEN JUDGE KAVANAUGH SAID, HE SAID WE SHOULD NOT RUSH INTO THIS.

THIS IS VERY SERIOUS.

WE SHOULD GIVE HER, GIVE THE GOVERNMENT ANOTHER TEN DAYS TO FIND A, QUOTE, SPONSOR FOR HER WHO WOULD SORT OF TAKE MORAL CUSTODY AND BE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION IN HER BEHALF.

WELL, THAT WAS RIDICULOUS.

BECAUSE, A, SHE WAS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IN TEXAS SHE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE TAN ABORTION.

SHE WAS THAT CLOSE TO THE END OF THE SECOND TRIMESTER.

AND SHE HAD ALREADY DONE ALL THE RIGHT THINGS.

SO THE LOUISIANA CASE THAT WARP TALKING ABOUT JUST A MINUTE AGO, WHEN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UPHELD THE LOUISIANA LAW, THE FEW REMAINING CLINICS IN LOUISIANA WERE GOING TO HAVE TO SHUT DOWN BECAUSE THEIR DOCTORS DID NOT HAVE AND COULD NOT GET THE ADMITTING PRIVILEGES.

SO THIS CAME UP TO THE SUPREME COURT AS AN EMERGENCY STAY.

GRANT A STAY OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT OPINION.

SO THAT WE, THE CLINICS, CAN FILE OUR FORMAL APPEAL WHICH WILL TAKE SOME WEEKS OR MONTHS.

KEEP THE STATUS QUO.

AND THE COURT GRANTED THAT STAY BY A VOTE OF 5-4.

INTERESTINGLY, CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS JOINED THE 4 HAD LIB CAL JUSTICES IN GRANTING THE STAY.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH DISSENTED.

LOUISIANA TELLS US HE SAID THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO START ENFORCING THE LAW IMMEDIATELY.

THEY'RE GOING TO WAIT I THINK IT WAS 45 DAYS BEFORE ENFORCING IT EVEN IF THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO ENFORCE IT.

AND IN THAT TIME, DURING THAT TIME, THE DOCTORS SHOULD JUST GO BACK AND TRY TO GET ADMITTING PRIVILEGES AGAIN.

THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE MADE IT CLEAR THAT SOME OF THEM HAD BEEN TRYING TO GET ADMITTING PRIVILEGES FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT WAS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE STATE OF LOUISIANA.

SO WHY DID JUSTICE KAVANAUGH SAY THAT?

WHY DID HE WRITE THAT?

I THINK I KNOW.

WHICH IS THAT HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE A MODERATE VOICE, PRESENT HIMSELF AS THE SORT OF REASONABLE MAN IN THE MIDDLE BETWEEN THOSE WHO GRANTED THE STAY AND THE THREE OTHER CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WHO DISSENTED.

HE'S THE ONLY ONE WHO WROTE ON THIS SIDE OF -- ON THAT SIDE.

AND, YOU KNOW, HE FOOLED A LOT OF PEOPLE.

IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DAILY NEWSPAPER COVERAGE OF THAT, IT WAS IN LATE JANUARY, MAYBE EARLY FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.

OH, KAVANAUGH WAS IN THE MIDDLE.

NO, HE WAS NOT IN THE MIDDLE.

HE WAS WITH THE FOUR WHO WOULD HAVE ALLOWED ALL THE CLINICS TO BE CLOSED.

>> SO CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IN THE DECISION YOU JUST MENTIONED WAS DEFERRING TO THE LIBERALS IN A SENSE BECAUSE THERE'S TALK ABOUT THAT HE WANTS TO PRESERVE HIS PLACE IN HISTORY AS BEING SEEN AS A REASONABLE CONSERVATIVE.

DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY HINT AS SO WHAT HE MIGHT DO IF A CASE COMES UP AND THEY TAKE IT THAT TALKS ABOUT ROE ON POINT?

MIGHT HE DEFECT FROM THE CONSERVATIVE SIDE?

>> I ACTUALLY DON'T THINK SO OR AT LEAST I DON'T THINK HIS ACTION IN VOTING TO GRANT THE STAY TELLS US THAT BECAUSE TO GRANT THE STAY, SIMPLY PRESERVE THE STATUS QUO.

IT WAS NOT A DECISION ON THE MERITS AND, YOU KNOW, HE IS PRESENTED WITH IN THAT CASE IS WHAT I WOULD CALL AN ACT OF BLATANT JUDICIAL DEFIANCE BY THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SAYING WE KNOW YOU'VE RULED ON THIS BUT WE'RE GOING TO PERSIST IN TAKING A DIFFERENT VIEW OF IT SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE VOTE ON THE STAY ENGAGED HIS DEEPER THOUGHTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE RIGHT TO ABORTION AND THAT IS COMPLETELY, COMPLETELY LIES AHEAD AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED.

>> ARE THEY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THERE MAY BE, WHO KNOWS, RIOTS IN THE STREETS.

WHATEVER.

IF THEY OVERTURN ROE?

IS THAT PLAYING INTO THEIR DECISION MAKING?

ON THIS ISSUE?

>> I DON'T THINK SO, BONNIE.

I MEAN, I'M WILLING TO THINK THAT THEY THINK THEY'RE RIGHT.

I THINK THAT THEY THINK THAT THE COURT MADE A WRONG TURN 45 YEARS AGO AND PART OF THAFR JOB IS -- THEIR JOB IS TO BRING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE AND I CREDIT THEIR SINCERITY IN THAT BELIEF.

>> THE HYDE AMENDMENT.

WHICH IS NOW A POLITICAL ISSUE.

HOW DOES THIS PLAY INTO WHATEVER MAY HAPPEN WITH ROE AT THE SUPREME COURT?

>> PROBABLY TO MANY PEOPLE WHO WATCH THE JOE BIDEN FLIP FLOP ON THE HYDE AMENDMENT, IT SORT OF CAME OUT OF THE BLUE FROM NOWHERE BUT ACTUALLY AND YOU PROBABLY RECALL THIS IN THE 2016 ELECTION WHEN IT SEEMED LIKE HILLARY CLINTON WOULD BE THE NEXT PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS COULD TAKE THE CONGRESS, IT DID SEEM TO PEOPLE THAT THERE WAS A REAL CHANCE TO GET RID OF THE HYDE AMENDMENT WHICH IS YOUR VIEWERS PROBABLY KNOW IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL NOT PAY FOR ABORTIONS FOR WOMEN ON MEDICAID FOR POOR WOMEN.

SO IT WAS AN ISSUE IN 2016.

MAYBE KIND OF UNDER THE RADAR.

SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY HAVE BEEN UNDER THE RADAR FOR SMART POLITICIANS BUT I THINK FOR MOST PEOPLE.

SO NOW IT'S BACK AND OF COURSE IF THERE'S NO RIGHT TO ABORTION THERE'S NO RIGHT TO GET PAID FOR ABORTION.

THAT'S CLEAR.

SO TO THAT EXTENT, THE FATE OF THE HYDE AMENDMENT IS TIED TO THE FATE OF ROE BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A RED STATE BLUE STATE THING FOR ALL THESE DECADES BECAUSE MEDICAID IS A SHARED PROGRAM BETWEEN THE STATES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS WE KNOW FROM THE WHOLE OBAMACARE DEBATE AND SO A NUMBER OF STATES MOSTLY CALIFORNIA AND STATES IN THE NORTHEAST HAVE PICKED UP THE COST OF ABORTIONS FOR THEIR MEDICAID PATIENTS AND OTHERS SO AT THIS MOMENT IN POLITICS THAT THAT'S ABOUT TO CHANGE.

>> WHAT DO YOU THINK THE POLITICAL REACTION WOULD BE FROM OVERTURNING ROE?

DO YOU THINK THERE WOULD BE A GREAT -- FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE, A GREAT PUBLIC OUTCRY OR BECAUSE THEY'RE NOW -- THAT YOU CAN GET OVER THE COUNTER OR ONLINE WITH A PRESCRIPTION, ARE YOUNG WOMEN GOING TO ALL BE TURNING TO THOSE AS OPPOSED TO SURGICAL ABORTIONS.

>> IF THERE'S ACTUALLY A CASE ON THE DO ET THAT ASKS THEM TO DO THAT, I THINK THE PRO CHOICE SIDE WILL FINALLY GET THE ATTENTION OF THE SILENT MAJORITY WHO ARE WE KNOW IN SUPPORT OF THE ABILITY OF A WOMAN TO GET AN ABORTION AT LEAST UNDER SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.

THAT'S A STRONG MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY.

IF EVEN THE MAJORITY OF CATHOLIC WOMEN WHO GET ABORTIONS AT THE SAME RATE AS OTHER WOMEN IN THE COUNTRY SO IT WOULD FINALLY WAKE PEOPLE UP.

YOU KNOW, THE ANTICHOICE SIDE HAS BEEN WOKE FOR A WHOLE LONG TIME AND -- >> AND THEY WERE CAUGHT OFF GUARD IN THE EARLY 70S BY THE ROE DECISION.

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND, YOU KNOW, ON THE PRO CHOICE SIDE THERE'S PLENTY OF NOTICE THAT THINGS WERE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION.

BUT IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFICULT TO MOTIVATE AND MOBILIZE AND A DECISION OVERTURNING ROE WOULD ESSENTIALLY MOBILIZE IT.

YOU ALSO ASKED ABOUT NONSURGICAL ABORTION AND, YES.

I MEAN, WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE EMERGENCY CONTRACEPTION, THE SO CALLED MORNING AFTER PILL, WHERE YOU NEED ACCESS TO SOME KIND OF MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AND A COUPLE OF STATES IT COULD BE A NURSE PRACTITIONER.

MOST STATES IT HAS TO BE A DOCTOR WHO WRITES THE PRESCRIPTION AND SO ON.

SO I THINK PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO ASSUME, OH, WELL, I'LL JUST GO ONLINE AND TELL HER I WANTED PREGNANCY.

IT'S GOING TO BE A MOBILIZING MOMENT I'M SURE.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SCHOLARLY KNOWLEDGE OF ALL THIS INCREDIBLE ISSUE THAT IS AFFECTING CERTAINLY ALL AMERICAN WOMEN AND REALLY ALL AMERICANS.

>> WE'RE AT QUITE A MOMENT, QUITE A CROSS ROADS.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, LINDA.

THAT'S IT FOR THIS EDITION OF TO THE CONTRARY.

PLEASE FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER AND VISIT OUR WEBSITE.

PBD.ORG/TOTHE JOHN CONTRARY.

WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT WEEK.

PLEASE FRUEAUFF FOUNDATION.

FOR A TRANSCRIPT OR SEE AN ONLINE EPISODE OF "TO THE CONTRARY," PLEASE VISIT OUR PBS WEBSITE AT PBS.ORG/TOTHECONTRARY.