Podcast Summary
A lawyer's lifelong mission to reverse Roe v. Wade: Lawyer James Bopp, inspired by his father's opposition to abortion and distressed by Roe v. Wade, has spent decades fighting to overturn this landmark decision
James Bopp, a conservative lawyer, has spent nearly five decades fighting against the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in the United States. Growing up with a father who was an anesthesiologist and strongly opposed to abortion due to ethical reasons, Bopp was inspired to become a lawyer after struggling in organic chemistry. When he learned of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, he was devastated, believing it to be unconstitutional and with detrimental societal and moral consequences. Bopp's personal experiences and beliefs led him on a mission to reverse Roe v. Wade, which he considers only the halfway point in his quest for an abortion-free America.
Challenging Roe v Wade: A long-term, incremental approach: To overturn Roe v Wade, a lengthy process involving numerous cases that gradually challenge and question the decision is necessary. Inspired by the NAACP's successful strategy, patience, persistence, and a clear legal strategy are key.
The strategy to challenge a deeply entrenched Supreme Court decision, such as Roe v Wade, requires a long-term, incremental approach. Bob, a former law school graduate and eventual general counsel for the National Right to Life Committee, drew inspiration from the NAACP's successful campaign to overturn Plessy versus Ferguson. This strategy involved bringing a series of cases that gradually chipped away at the decision, ultimately leading to its overturning. Similarly, those seeking to reverse Roe v Wade must accept that it will likely be a lengthy process, involving numerous cases that challenge and question the decision until the Supreme Court is willing to overturn it. This approach requires patience, persistence, and a clear legal strategy.
Legal adjustments during the 70s and 80s led to significant consequences: During the 70s and 80s, seemingly insignificant legal shifts, like replacing consent with notice in abortion laws, paved the way for more restrictive regulations in the future.
In the context of the ongoing debate around abortion rights, small yet significant legal adjustments could lead to substantial consequences. This was evident during the 1970s and 1980s when the Supreme Court struck down laws requiring husband's consent and minors' parents' consent for abortions, but left room for notice instead. Bob, a key figure in drafting model legislation, saw this as an opportunity to craft regulations that could be upheld under Roe v. Wade. His efforts led to the adoption of laws requiring only parental notice instead of consent. Although it may seem insignificant in retrospect, this shift was crucial during a time when the struggle was focused on whether there was an absolute right to abortion or not. The court's decisions paved the way for more restrictive regulations in the 1980s, such as funding restrictions for abortions, which required women to pay out of pocket or seek care at special clinics.
The Webster case of 1989 changed how the Supreme Court viewed abortion rights: The Webster case marked a shift in the Supreme Court's interpretation of abortion rights, allowing for increased regulations as long as the government had a rational reason.
That the Webster case of 1989 was a pivotal moment in the Supreme Court's interpretation of abortion rights. The court ruled that abortion was a liberty interest instead of a fundamental right, which meant that abortion regulations could be upheld as long as the government had a rational reason. This decision, according to some legal analysts, indicated that four justices were prepared to overturn Roe v Wade's recognition of a fundamental right to abortion. In the 1992 Planned Parenthood versus Casey case, Pennsylvania argued that it could regulate abortion based on this interpretation, and the court agreed, upholding several restrictions. This shift in interpretation raised concerns among abortion rights advocates, suggesting that the constitutional protection for abortion was not as secure as previously believed.
The Casey Decision: Disappointments and Opportunities for Those Against Abortion: The Casey decision introduced the undue burden test, allowing states to regulate abortion but not place an undue burden on women, leading to more court cases and opportunities to challenge the right to abortion, and the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch in 2017 brought a more sympathetic Supreme Court for those against abortion.
The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision in 1992, which reaffirmed the right to abortion before fetal viability, brought both disappointments and opportunities for those against abortion. While Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor reaffirmed the right to abortion, they also introduced the undue burden test, allowing states to regulate abortion as long as it doesn't place an undue burden on women. This vague standard opened the door for more court cases and opportunities to challenge the right to abortion. The incremental approach to overturning Roe v. Wade required a sympathetic Supreme Court, which had not been present until the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch in 2017.
The fate of abortion law in doubt after Justice Ginsburg's passing: The passing of Justice Ginsburg and President Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett may lead to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, prompting states to propose and pass pro-life legislation.
The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the subsequent nomination of Amy Coney Barrett by President Trump has led to a significant shift in the composition of the Supreme Court, potentially leaving the fate of abortion law in doubt. This issue, which has been a contentious topic for decades, is considered the most important and consequential by many, as it touches upon the fundamental human value and protection of all life, regardless of race, sex, or location. The overturning of Roe v. Wade has led to a renewed focus on passing legislation at the state level to protect unborn children, with various model laws being proposed for states to adopt. These model laws aim to prohibit abortion except to save the life of the mother, with exceptions for rape and incest, and include criminal penalties for those performing the abortion, as well as civil remedies to ensure the law's effectiveness. The focus is on making whatever states are willing to be as pro-life as possible and having effective laws in place.
The fight for an abortion-free America continues: Pro-life advocates must now pass and enforce laws, secure federal assistance, and address conflicting views on abortion while restoring respect for all human life.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade is just the first step in the fight for an abortion-free America, and the second part of the battle will be even more challenging. Pro-life advocates must now pass and enforce laws in various states and secure federal assistance, while also addressing the complex and conflicting views on abortion held by Americans. Additionally, there is a need to restore respect for all human life and challenge the notion that lives can be taken without value. With 88 prosecutors in over 30 states already refusing to enforce criminal abortion laws, finding ways to make these laws effective in blue cities in red states will be a significant challenge. The ultimate goal is to create a society that values all human life, and the legal system is a crucial tool in achieving this goal. However, the road ahead is long and complex, requiring significant effort and resources.
Returning abortion to the democratic process: The Dobbs decision allows for varying state-level abortion policies, encouraging public debates and potential consensus through democratic processes.
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision returned the issue of abortion to the democratic process, allowing for varying policies and public debates on the issue at the state level. This approach acknowledges the conflicting views on abortion and aims to achieve consensus through compromise and democratic processes. However, concerns exist regarding potential gerrymandering and biased legislative districts that may hinder the democratic process. Despite these challenges, the goal is to work towards an "abortion-free America" only through consensus and democratic means. The outcome will depend on the American people and their evolving views on the issue. The democratic system allows for diverse policies and approaches on various issues, including abortion, reflecting the complexities of human decision-making.
Lessons from a Veteran Conservative Activist: Persist through setbacks and keep moving forward, as defeats are temporary and the next step is crucial to success.
Key takeaway from the discussion with Jim Bopp is the importance of persistence and refusing to give up in the face of setbacks. Bopp, a veteran conservative activist, shared his personal experiences and lessons learned over the past 50 years. He emphasized that defeats are temporary and that continuing to think about the next step is crucial to achieving success. In other news, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson resigned after a wave of resignations from his government following allegations of appointing an accused groper to a high-ranking position. Johnson initially vowed to stay in power but ultimately gave in to the pressure. Additionally, former White House counsel Pat Cipollone has agreed to testify before the January 6th Committee, providing a significant breakthrough for the investigation into the Capitol insurrection.
