00:00I'm glad you mentioned Justice Jackson's dissent because at face value, if you're looking at
00:05the headlines a little quickly, you know that she's a member of the more liberal wing of
00:10the court.
00:11So to hear she wrote a dissent in this case, I think is another aspect of this that might
00:15be confusing.
00:16But essentially, is it fair to say that her dissent was telling the court, hey, we should
00:22have been clearer on this.
00:23We should have set a more forward precedent.
00:26Right.
00:27Right.
00:28I mean, what she's objecting to is the fact that all the court did yesterday was dismiss
00:32a petition that it itself took and lifted a say that it itself put in place.
00:39And it is not addressing the underlying crisis in this country, which is that there are extreme
00:44organizations and states that are seeking to deprive women who are pregnant of emergency
00:50care that federal law requires that they receive.
00:55The court evaded that issue.
00:58You could say the court potentially wanted to maybe evade accountability in a year as
01:03momentous as this presidential election year might be one way to look at that.
01:07But the court evaded that issue, did not resolve that issue, which means that women and their
01:13doctors throughout the country continue to exist in a state of confusion or worse in
01:19places like Texas, in a state where they're not able to provide or get the care they need.
01:24However, for women that are in Idaho who had not been able to access medical emergency
01:31care as a result of the Supreme Court's own prior stay, the court did lift that yesterday.
Comments