 How Americans feel about abortion, I'll start by talking about this a little. It is a, in some ways, obviously a very personal issue that many people have their own individual experience and feelings about. And yet also a very public policy and political issue and legal issue that we have to talk about in that sense also. So on the policy side and the question of sort of values and ideology and then this more specific questions about policy, we have polling data where surveys have been done that ask people what they think about. So one way to cut the issue is pro-life versus pro-choice. We talked a lot about how social problems are identified. And a lot of that has been argued over in the sort of naming of politics and political movements. Neither side in this debate, so if there are two sides, wanted to be described as anti-something, they both wanna be described as pro-something. So that's why we have pro-choice and pro-life where sort of in this framing of this question, they let both sides pick their name. If you ask the pro-choice people, they would say we are pro-choice and the other side is anti-abortion. But the pro-life people don't wanna be anti anything. So they prefer to be called pro-life, which raises obviously the issues. If you ask the pro-life people what to call the pro-choice people, they don't see it as choice. They see it as abortion. They think the other side should be called pro-abortion. Anyway, the country is about split on this, which does not mean that the country is about split on the issue. The country is about split on the question of how people identify themselves. Do identify yourself as pro-life, it's about half, a little under half that identify themselves as pro-life and right now a little bit more, but you can see it's bounced around for the last 25 years, okay? But if you ask, do you think the Supreme Court should overturn the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision? Now you can see the split is a lot more lopsided. Only one third of people say yes. I would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned. So that means if we did this right, that some of those people who consider themselves pro-life still don't want to overturn Roe vs. Wade and allow states to make abortion illegal. So there's not one legal answer to what your opinion is based on how you identify yourself. How you identify yourself. So 60% of people don't want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned which is more than the percentage of people who are consider themselves pro-truths. Finally, do you think abortion should be legal? And the way we ask this often and you can get into more or less detail on this, but one way they ask this is do you think it should be legal under any circumstances, illegal under all circumstances or legal under some circumstances? And this allows people, when you give in a poll, when you give people a more sort of middle ground position, they often take the middle ground position. So half the people say it should be legal in certain circumstances. And then the follow up question will be what are those circumstances? And we can talk a little bit about this if you like. But what happens when you do this way is you really only get 19% as of right now who think abortion should just be illegal, right? Like murder. So the pro-life politics or anti-abortion politics often speaks of abortion as if it is murder or a holocaust, et cetera. But it's a small minority of people who want to treat it that way in terms of the law, right? If abortion is murder, then it does not matter why or how the person became pregnant, for example, in the case of rape or incest, which is a common exception. That doesn't matter, the child, the unborn child is still innocent if you think abortion is murder. But most, but those are kind of the circumstances that people are thinking of when they say under some circumstances, they're thinking, well, if she's very young, if it was rape or incest, if it's very early in the pregnancy, then it's okay. If you're taking that attitude, then you are already not taking the attitude that abortion is simply taking a human life. But about 19% of Americans take that view. All right, so one way to look at this is just to say, well, it totally depends how you ask a question. But the other way to look at this more logically is that there are different questions. There's a question of what's your identity? I'm pro-life, I'm pro-choice. There's a question of what do you want to do about the law? And there's the question more specifically, what do you want to do about the law? If you want to criminalize abortion in the sense of put the doctor in jail, put the pregnant person in jail or whatever, okay? Okay. So when you drill down deeper in this and ask people, do you think abortion should be illegal in all cases or most cases? That's the numbers on the left. Or legal in all cases or most cases? This is a different poll, but it's a similar setup. Here we can kind of break down which groups of people show the most pro-choice or most anti-abortion perspectives. And again, these are just percentages. You can see nothing is 100% on here. But if you look, the most pro-choice in sort of each category, legal in most cases or all cases is 62% of women and 56% of men. So not a gigantic gender split, but some gender splits in the direction of women favor legal abortion more than men. Among the racial and ethnic groups, black and the Asian people are a little bit more positive than white and Hispanic people. Young people are more positive than old people. More educated people are more positive than less educated people. And people with no religion are the most, or unaffiliated religion, I should have said, are the most positive about abortion rights. On the other hand, sort of the flip sides, whites and Hispanics, men, old people, least educated people, and especially in terms of religion, these white evangelicals and Protestants in general. Okay. The majority of Catholics think abortion should be legal. The majority of Catholics use contraception. The majority of Catholics think the more should be legal. American Catholics are not good Catholics. They disagree with the public. What can you say? That's not my opinion, good or bad, I'm just saying. They disagree with the public. If that makes you a bad Catholic, then it does. But you're allowed to have whatever opinions you want. Okay, how common is abortion? Well, one thing to say about abortion is we don't measure it that well. If you just do a survey and you ask people, did you have an abortion in the last year? Some people don't answer you. Some people don't give you the true answer. There's shame and stigma. If you're a Catholic and you think you're not supposed to have an abortion, but you had an abortion, you might say no, of course, then you're lying, but then that's religion is complicated. So we do our best with going to measure abortion. There's also no federal registry. We have a registry of births in the country. So we measure every birth quite well, but there's no registry of abortions. So any number on abortions is based on an estimate. The numbers here are from the Gluckmacher Institute, which essentially does a collect data from abortion providers. And these are probably the best numbers we have, but they're probably not completely accurate either. Okay, so but close enough to say there's a little less than a million abortions per year. This is in 2017, which is about 13 and a half abortions for every thousand women sort of in the childbearing years. So in any given year, about 1.4% of childbearing age women are having an abortion. And as of now, almost 40% of these abortions are medication abortions, abortions that you do with pills where you take the, what's it called, plant C pills. So this is the trend when you look at the abortions out of all women, if you compare abortions out of all pregnancies, not counting miscarriages. So if you ask of all the babies born plus all the pregnancies, plus all the abortions, what percentage of that number is abortions? So it's complicated, 18%. So if you set aside the miscarriages which would count even less accurately than abortions, almost one in five is ending in abortions, but that has been falling a lot since really for the last 40 years, the abortion rate has been falling. You can see this is what it was when Roe vs. Wade was handed down in 1973 the abortion rate was rising at that time as the law liberalized and allowed people to get more abortions. And then subsequently the birth rate started to fall and the abortion rate also started to fall. It's so it's a little complicated, the relationship between those but one thing I can clearly say is that teenagers and very young women are getting pregnant a lot less than they used to. And that's one big reason that the abortion rate has fallen. And the age of marriage has gone up and people are allowed to be single mothers now in the culture, much more than they used to be. But there's less unintended pregnancies among young women who are the biggest, the group most likely to have abortions. Okay, so let's look a little bit at this sort of legal history. If this is all gonna change in the next year or so which is quite possible, then it's good to know this backwards. All of you got the quiz right. So that's good. Roe versus Wade was a 1973 decision. Roe was the pregnant woman who wants to get an abortion and the law prohibited abortion. So she brought a lawsuit that went to the Supreme Court and they ruled that women had a right to choose to end a pregnancy but they allowed states to limit that essentially to something like viability. 28 weeks is about six and a half months. So they're sort of saying, well, women have this right, but we're gonna draw, you know, you gotta draw the line somewhere. It was sort of their approach. Something like viability. Now, the basis for Roe versus Wade was privacy. Privacy is not in the constitution. So the idea, so the Supreme Court had to do some interpretation here and that's what allows them to still be arguing about it today, in a way. It did not say everybody has a right to have an abortion. They said women have a right to make the decision about abortion. That's why pro-choice people are called pro-choice now because that's the way they won Roe versus Wade because that's the legal framework. And it actually came from, I didn't put them up here, but it came from a series of Supreme Court decisions that allowed people to use contraception and allowed people to have gay sex. Although that was, I guess, later, but it was on the same, that was on the same principle, privacy principle, that the government has no business messing around in certain personal decisions. There used to be laws that said you could not, you could not practice contraception unless you were married. That was like a morality law. They weren't gonna let single women use birth control when birth control pill first became available. Okay, so that's Roe versus Wade. And after that, it became illegal for states to make rules again to ban abortion. Okay, so the issue was can states ban abortion? Some states didn't want to ban abortion, but a lot of states did, state governments. Right away, it became an issue. Well, what about women who are, whose medical care is funded by the government? And this was essentially the beginning of chipping away at the right. Once the abortion decision was made on the basis of privacy, they didn't say you have a right to have an abortion like you have a right to vote, right? You have a right to vote, and that means the government has to make it equally possible for everybody to vote. In the case of abortion, you have a right to decide about an abortion, and the government has to let everybody have an equal access to that decision, but they don't have to, according to the Supreme Court and the Harris decision, they don't have to pay for it. So the Congress passed a high amendment that said, okay, fine, you want legal abortion? It can be legal, but the federal government's not gonna pay for it. So essentially we're gonna not, this right is not gonna apply to four people. That is, they'll have the right to make a decision about whether they want an abortion, but not the right to actually have an abortion. And so that was passed in 1976, and it actually took about four years for it to work its way through the courts, and the Supreme Court finally said, okay, yes, the high amendment is constitutional, okay? That's the Harris decision. And it was big in the history of this in terms of allowing states, the government to start restricting access to abortion. This viability question that the federal, the Supreme Court opened the door to 1973, became litigated more specifically in 1992. By then, medicine was improving. The age of viability was going down. So a 23 or 24 week old fetus now has a pretty good chance of surviving. So they said, okay, we can't set a specific date in terms of number of days, but it is okay for states to ban abortion if fetuses are viable, if there is an alternative, if the alternative exists to have the baby alive, okay? There's no way to avoid some graphic conversation on this. So this allowed some encroachment on abortion rights by states. And the states that were anti-abortion started to try to find ways to restrict the number of abortions this way, okay? Okay, skipping a lot, bringing us up to the present, the case that was heard in the Supreme Court last week, dollars, what we're calling doubles. That is the case in Mississippi, which was passed in Mississippi just for the purpose of getting to the Supreme Court. So that the new Trump appointed judges could have an opportunity to overturn Roe versus Wade if they wanted to, which Trump promised us they would do when he appointed three Supreme Court justices. So Mississippi passed the law that obviously violates Roe versus Wade, right? Even though Roe versus Wade has been upheld in a series of decisions, each of these decisions reaffirmed Roe versus Wade. It's that we're not overturning Roe versus Wade, we're just clarifying it, but the abortion right is still not in the Constitution. So it's really just a matter of Supreme Court precedent. And so the Supreme Court can change its mind, can change precedent if they want to. Usually they're pretty cautious about doing that. And that's what they're arguing about now, okay? So Mississippi moved this back from 23 weeks to 15 weeks. And so after 15 weeks, even though the fetus is not viable at 15 weeks, a fetus born at 15 weeks does not have any chance of surviving, but we're still gonna say you cannot have an abortion at that point. If you get to 15 weeks, that's it. You have to have to do it, okay? So that's what we're gonna decide. If the Supreme Court says this law is okay, to one degree or another, they are overturning Roe versus Wade. And it will depend on the wording of what they say, how severe that is, but to some degree that's going to happen. No, Planned Parenthood actually affirmed the right of women to make this decision. It affirmed Roe versus Wade explicitly. It said we are not overturning Roe versus Wade. That's still good law. We're just clarifying it. That's the way they did it. You're not convinced. But the important thing is after Planned Parenthood, you still could not make a law banning abortion. They still said you have a right to an abortion, to decide if you want an abortion, we're just modifying it a little. It seems semantic, but it turns out to be kind of important. Okay? So that's where we are now. And the next thing that's waiting in the wings is the Texas Heartbeat Act, which is moving it back to six weeks. In Texas, they have passed a law that obviously also is illegal under Roe versus Wade. That bans abortion after six weeks. Six weeks, most women don't know they're pregnant. They call it a heartbeat act because there's an electrical signal discernible in the fetus at that point, usually around that point. It's not a heartbeat, there is no heart, but there's no heart pumping blood, but there's starting to be the electrical firings. The organ is beginning to form. That's very semantic, but that's how they like to describe it. The Texas law, although they knew they were violating Roe versus Wade, they wanted to give the Supreme Court another opportunity to overturn Roe versus Wade when they passed it. They made it so that it's not illegal like the police will come get you if you have or provide an abortion. They made it so that if you have an abortion, somebody can, anybody can sue your abortion provider for $10,000. So that essentially bans abortion because no abortion provider could stand those lawsuits if that was legal, okay? Okay, so the reason why we're even talking about this instead of just overturning it is because the Supreme Court, this current Supreme Court did not throw out that wall. When it came to the Supreme Court, they said, okay, well, we'll hear that. We're not, they could have said, no, you can't do that. But they could have said, you have to hold off on that law until we can hear it. But they did, they said, okay, you made that law, bring us the case and we'll talk about it. And that was a very big moment because prior to this court with six Republican judges, the Supreme Court would have obviously thrown that out and just said, well, this obviously violates Roe versus Wade. We have a precedent so we're throwing it out. Instead, the Supreme Court said, ah, interesting, we'll discuss it. Okay, so that's when the, if it came clear where we'll probably head, okay? Now, I talked about the decline in abortions. One thing that's been happening with the decline in abortions is there's less access to abortion. States have been restricting abortion in various ways. I'll give some examples. And with the issue, oh, sorry. And with the issue of funding, with the federal government not funding and states not funding abortions, it's hard to run a medical practice that provides abortion. There's also politics. There'll be, if you open a clinic that provides abortions, there'll be protesters, there may be violence. People, it's a smaller and smaller number of providers who are willing to take that risk and can handle the funding. You can see here the percentage of women who are living in a state in a county with no abortion clinic. So in Mississippi and what's that one? Arkansas, Missouri, more than 75% of women are living in a county where there is no abortion provider. So if they need an abortion, they might be able to get one, but it's getting harder and harder. They have to go further. And that becomes a financial issue and an issue of inequality and unequal access, which the Supreme Court has essentially allowed. They didn't say you have a right to an abortion. They said, you have a right to say you want an abortion. So this is a sort of the constricting of access to abortion is happening anyway. Okay, let me give you a description of some of the things that states are doing that are part of this restriction. The majority of states require abortion to be done by a licensed physician. It's a pretty simple procedure at the early stages. It can, in a lot of countries, it is done by people who are not medical doctors, people who are LPNs or sorry, what do you call those physicians assistants for RNs or something, different people at different levels apparently to have learned how to do abortions if there's no complications, they're very simple. But in the US, most states require you to be a doctor. If it's beyond a certain point, they may require it to be in a hospital or by a physician that has hospital privileges. If it's later, still they may require a second doctor if there's some restriction on who can do it. To your question on gestational age, 43 states have some limit on gestational age, how far along it's allowable, and that follows row versus weight in the subsequent decisions. 21 states prohibited this thing called partial birth abortion, which is not really a real thing. I'll talk about that in a minute. So that's essentially something about very late abortions, which there's not allowing. Most states prohibited funding using state funds to pay for abortion. Some states even say that private insurance cannot pay for abortion. So even if you have private insurance, it's not allowed to cover abortion. And the logic there is if an insurance company provides abortion, then sort of everybody who buys that insurance is helping to pay for that abortion and they don't wanna make everybody pay for abortions. 25 states require the waiting period. Mandatory counseling may be as simple as giving people a pamphlet or reading a prepared statement that says some things about abortion like did you know after six weeks, fetus has a beating heart, did you know that X number of women regret having abortions and so on. So things to try to talk women out of abortion. And for young women, the majority of states require some kind of parental consent or notification or permission, okay? So it's not like we have a right to abortion in some universal sense. There are lots of restrictions on the right, okay? It's more like you have a right to drive a car, but they can do all kinds of things to limit that right legally, okay? Not like voting. Voting you have a right to do period. Okay, okay? Or like the way some people think owning a gun should be, you should have a right to just own a gun. Finally, a number of states have bans on abortion for specific purposes. If you want to have an abortion because your fetus is female and you want a boy or male and you want a girl, some people have abortions for that reason and that's not allowed in some places, of course. Not that they know what your reason truly is, but that's just a way to restrict abortion. Okay? Okay, on the gestational age question. 79, 80% of abortions take place before 10 weeks, which is two and a half months. The largest number takes place in less than six weeks and that includes medication abortions, people who realize they are pregnant and right away take the abortion medication. A very, very small number of abortions take place in these later weeks. All of the abortions that take place after the age of viability. So if hypothetically a baby is 24 weeks along and usually a 24-week-old can survive, then if you're going to do an abortion on a 24-week-old, it is only going to be if that baby cannot survive. Okay. Okay? So there are a very, very small number of these abortions take place very later than when they discover that the baby has an abnormality, which is so extreme it can survive or something that would not allow the mother to survive or would greatly threaten her. Okay. You can see why from this feminists were not so distressed at the idea that states would only allow abortions before 24 weeks or something. That did not seem like the end of abortion rights because that's not what we're talking about in the vast, vast, vast majority of cases. Okay. And this is from that federal data, which is not as complete. So we don't have every state in here, but the federal government believes is the best they could do on this question of gestation. Okay. Our country is in a choice crisis with an administration that's closing clinics, punishing providers and effectively demanding people carry unwanted pregnancies to term. We need an option for a safe, self-managed, at-home abortion, a plan C, and this solution exists. So why doesn't everyone know about it? Let's review. 30 years ago, a combination of pills was discovered to effectively end an early pregnancy. The health community celebrated. The world would be forever changed. The French minister of health even declared them the moral property of women. But when the pills came to the U.S., they were severely restricted by the FDA, not for medical or safety reasons, but because of politics. Today, they're used by millions worldwide every year and backed by mountains of data on safety and efficacy. While in the U.S., they're still held from us by the FDA, over-medicalized, even kept out of pharmacies. But this is changing. Abortion pills and information on how to use them can now be found on the internet via online pharmacies, human rights organizations, and a physician-supported site called Aid Access. All of us can play a part in bringing this option into the mainstream. One, demand the FDA remove the restrictions on abortion pills. Two, spread the word. Tell everyone you know that abortion pills and information on how to use them are available online. Three, know your rights and risks. Free legal support is always available. The solution is here. Learn more at plancpills.org. What's gonna happen if we start restricting abortion access more and more is stuff like this is going to become more, essentially more underground. Right now, in Texas, if you wanted to use this method, it's pretty easy to get the pills and do it, but is illegal and somebody could sue whoever gives you, provides the person getting an abortion with those pills under the Texas Heartbeat Act. So it's risky, but obviously, feminists have been trying to provide access to abortion for a long time and they're prepared to, to continue to do this and sort of would go underground with this medication approach. So if they really start to make abortion less legal, if the Supreme Court overturns Roe versus Wade, which seems quite likely if not this year, then very soon, then a number of states will immediately ban abortion. A number of states already have laws written that say if the Supreme Court overturns Roe versus Wade as of that moment, abortion is illegal in our state. So there are like laws on the books waiting in a lot of places. Now, one of the things that happened in that debate was people pointed out that having a baby is more dangerous than having an abortion. That abortion counseling that you get tells people about the risks of abortion and so on, which is reasonable to know the risks, but the risks are much lower for an abortion than they are for a birth. Birth is difficult. Okay, people have been doing it for a long time, but it is one of the riskier things that people do in their lives. It has always been the case that abortion bans don't stop rich people from getting abortions and will have more medication abortions, although they might be illegal. It's going to be impossible to stop because it's just five pills. It's not that difficult. Okay, this is just to show you the dramatic graph illustrating the risk of having a baby versus the risk of having an abortion. Of course, it depends on the baby and depends on the abortion. But overall, the number of deaths per birth is 20 out of every 100,000. And the number of deaths per abortion is less than one half out of every 100,000. So obviously that's kind of rhetorical. It should be obvious that having a baby is more dangerous than having an abortion. This came up in the Supreme Court debate. And one of the really interesting things was, what goes around comes around. Feminists said, we need access, we need reproductive rights because we need to be able to control our lives. If you make us have babies, then we won't be able to have careers, for example. One of the things that happens in the legal cases now is the anti-abortion people say, tons of women have children and successful careers. You don't need to not have a baby nor to have a successful career anymore. So why do we still need this protection? Okay, I want to play this clip for you. I'll listen to it and we'll come back to it. This should take us right at the spot. Ms. Ruegelman, I have- This is Amy Coney Barrett, the most recent judge on the court, the one who replaced Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Okay, now it's very mild, it's very calm, but try to listen to what she's saying. She's talking to the pro-choice lawyer in the Supreme Court here. Okay. I have a question about the safe haven laws. So Petitioner points out- Do you know what safe haven laws are? Probably not. Safe haven laws are, if you have a baby, you can like put it in a box at the fire station or the hospital with no questions asked and it will be adopted. Somebody will take care of it and you don't have to. So it's to save, it's to prevent women who are really, really unable or unwilling to take care of a baby from killing the baby or abandoning the baby because they'll get in trouble. Instead, they can say like, you will not get in trouble if you put the baby in this box at the fire station or whatever. Oh, that's a safe haven law. Well, then in all 50 states, you can terminate parental rights by relinquishing a child after abortion. And I think- She said after abortion, but she meant after birth. So in all 50 states, there are safe haven laws. That's all she said. Okay. The shortest period might have been 48 hours if I'm remembering the data correctly. So it seems to me seen in that light, both Ro and Casey emphasized the burdens of parenting. And in so far as you and many of your amici focus on the ways in which the forced parenting, forced motherhood would hinder women's access to the workplace and to equal opportunities. It's also focused on the consequences of parenting and the obligations of motherhood that flow from pregnancy. Why don't the safe haven laws take care of that problem? It seems to me that it focuses the burden much more narrowly. There is, without question, an infringement on bodily autonomy, which we have in other contexts like vaccines. However, it doesn't seem to me to follow that pregnancy and then parenthood are all part of the same burden. And so it seems to me that the choice more focused would be between, say, the ability to get an abortion at 23 weeks or the state requiring the woman to go 15, 16 weeks more and then terminate parental rights at the conclusion. Why don't we? So what she's saying, just, Pitha, what she's saying is if the law now says 23 weeks, if we overturn Ro versus Wade, we're making women basically only pregnant for 50 more weeks, then they can put the baby in the fire station. And so it's really not that big of a burden. Why didn't you address the safe haven laws and why don't they matter? I think they don't matter for a couple of reasons, but we're on our first. Even if some of those laws are new since Casey, the idea that a woman could place a child up for adoption has, of course, been true since Ro. So it's a consideration that the court already had before it when it decided those cases and adhered to the viability line. But in addition, we don't just focus on the burdens of parenting and neither did Ro and Casey. Instead, pregnancy itself is unique. It imposes unique physical demands and risk on women and in fact has impact on all of their lives and their ability to care for other children. All right, so she says, well, it's not just, it's not just, it's not just have just dropped the baby off the fire station just to solve the problem. What she said was, we understand that if we say an abortion is a human life and you cannot just terminate a human life at will, that we are putting an imposition on, we are imposing on women on their bodily autonomy. Where the law is intervening and saying, you don't get to do exactly what you want with your body just like with the vaccine rule. That's what she meant. So we're making the law is restricting people's bodily autonomy and she was just using an analogy to another case where that's obviously considered acceptable nowadays. And street court has recently upheld vaccine mandates in some cases. So they are saying, yeah, you don't get to do whatever you want with your body. If there's a public interest, if the law wants to protect something, it can restrict what people can do with their bodies. The adoption thing has been an issue for a long time. The lawyer is right. What she didn't say in that is they didn't talk about the difficulty, what it is like to have a baby and relinquish it for adoption might be something that people really don't wanna do. So if the choice is to have an abortion at seven weeks or it's not just going through another 30 weeks of pregnancy as if you're only losing 30 weeks of time at work, not even because you can work for your pregnancy, but it's the process of producing a child and relinquishing it, which people don't wanna go through often, right? So there is a sense that you cannot avoid the fact that we have to, in this policy, we are in fact balancing the wellbeing of fetuses with the wellbeing of the people who carry them, women. And so you can't pretend that there is no issue there. There is a question. Even when you make the viability standard, you're saying, okay, we're gonna draw a line somewhere and say like, you can't kill a living baby after a baby is born. It's totally against the law to kill a baby. When a viable baby is still inside your body, we're still gonna say, okay, it's viable. We could take it out of your body and make it a human, a real human. Before it's viable, we're saying, okay, it's a potential independent life, but it is not yet. And currently the law says, okay, if you can afford it and you can find a doctor to do it, then you can put your wellbeing above the wellbeing of that, essentially that part of your body, which has the potential to become a human. So I don't think there's any, some people would like to not have a debate about abortion that recognizes that there's a continuum of life here. If you have a very religious view, you can say every fertilized egg is a human life and they're all completely equal, but science is never gonna say that. But on the other hand, science can't draw a line and say, at this moment, it becomes a human being. That's why this viability standard is a ballpark attempt. And in a reasonable world, something like a viability standard wouldn't maybe not be unreasonable. There's a radical feminist view that you probably, then it's somewhat shocking my suppose that Catherine McKinnon says, my stance is that the abortion choice must be legally available and must be women's, but not because a fetus is not a human life. Usually people say abortion is only allowable if we're not talking about a human. I can't follow that, she says, why should women not make like-or-death decisions? So she would say, fine, an abortion is a human life, it's an important decision and women can make important decisions. Most pro-choice people don't wanna say that or they don't agree with it, but even if they did agree with it, they don't wanna say it because nobody wants to say you're allowing, like, infanticide, nobody wants to allow infanticide. Well, one important point of it is that the creeping power of this ideology and its connections to government power kind of sneaks up on people, like literally one day women's ATM cards don't work anymore. Like that's like the first thing they're like, wait, what's this? And it's like, oh, there's been an emergency rule and then it like the crackdown is very rapid. So it's dramatic and it's not like things don't really happen that fast usually, but what it is is a warning, and this was written a long time ago in the 80s, I guess, this is a warning to people that your rights are contingent on the government respecting them and that the public, the public is pliable. So there are men in the army who enforce these rules and they do crazy things like stone women to death. Humanity is cruel. And so it's disturbing and it's a warning and I just wanna say to you all younger, people younger than me, in some ways this is disturbing, these are disturbing times, even if you are unsure about or against abortion rights, there are aspects of this politics which are, which are disturbing to most people, right? So it's only 19% of Americans think abortion should always be against the law. And I would never tell religious people what to believe, but there are absolutely trade-offs between some people's rights and other people's rights and the way we manage those things is with politics. And so there's no easy answer. And this is just my way of saying I understand this is difficult. So I'm sorry.