 It's Wednesday, it's 11 o'clock. I'd like to introduce you to a new concept and a new show called American Issues, Take One. I'm Tim Appachella. I'll be your host for this new show with a new format and certainly new content in the way that we discuss issues and the politics that affect America each and every day. With me will be J. Fidele is my co-host. And we will, again, have a slightly different format. And again, those issues will be as the same as our previous shows of America, what now, but slightly different. So we haven't quite implemented everything just yet, but we certainly will be moving forward as the show progresses. Speaking of issues, today's title is Scotus Leak, Roe v. Wade, To Be Reversed. And with us to discuss this particular topic, we have a special guest by Jeff Portnay. He's the senior counsel for K. Shuddy and of course our continuing guest and special guest, Cynthia Lee Sinclair and of course, J. Fidele, our co-host. Welcome, everyone. Thank you, Tim. Good morning. To Jeff, you first, what do you think are the key consequences for the GOP as the Supreme Court weighs in and is most likely going to reverse 49-year case law of the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973? How many hours do I have? As many as you want, except for most of them. I mean, you know, the question has a million different tentacles to it. And first of all, this shouldn't come as a shock. What comes as a shock is that the sanctity of the Supreme Court for the first time in history has been breached by someone inside the court. And that issue has kind of not been at the forefront because as a political issue, it doesn't have the same impact as overturning Roe v. Wade. But that may have more long-lasting ramifications to people's confidence in the court, to the ability of the court to do its business than the actual decision. We'll get on to that later on. It was clear from oral argument and that Roe v. Wade was going to be, if not totally reversed, completely infeminated and abortion was going to be outlawed in frankly, right now, 26 states. And the only question was, would it be totally overruled with the court find, which I think is an enormous issue, that there is no right to privacy in the United States Constitution that it was made up 50 years ago. It's been a long-standing debate and abortion is just one part of it. What's coming up next is marriage equality, gay rights. You name it, a number of decisions that have been decided over the last 50 years on a presumed constitutional right to privacy. So we'll have the debate. It'll become a state's rights issue and good luck for abortion tourism because states like Connecticut and Hawaii and New York and Massachusetts are gonna see a lot of rich white women able to come get their abortions and the poor black population living in the South are gonna have a very difficult time. So Jeff, what does the GOP really gain out of this? I know they've been trying for 50 years as the decision was made, but what does the GOP really gain from this reversal? I'm not sure what the GOP gains. I mean, what you have to look at is that there are 26 state legislatures that have been one way or another over the past few years minimized the rights of women to get abortion. Those state legislatures are elected by the people in their states. So really, I think what we have is a bitterly divided country on many issues and abortion is one of them. So can you blame the Republicans quote unquote? No, I blame the voters in all those states that have voted for the various legislatures, legislators who have passed these restrictive bills. And now if Roe versus Wade is completely overruled, it's gonna be worse. You get a state like Oklahoma and Texas that wanna make it criminal for a doctor outside the state to perform an abortion on a resident of that state which prohibits abortion within its borders. I mean, it's become crazy what's going on and it's not just abortion. It's what we're teaching in schools. We can go on and on and on. So what is the GOP gain? It has six justices on the Supreme Court. It has a looming Donald Trump. I think they're feeling quite good about themselves today. Most agreed on that point. So what would you say to the average viewer that's watching this issue? And it distinctly recalls when Justice Kavanaugh and Gorsuch were in their Senate confirmation hearings and explicitly stated that Roe v. Wade was settled case law. Yet within a matter of time, they've reversed that in this opinion to reverse Roe v. Wade. Again, 49 year settled case law. What do you say about that? Is were they disingenuous? Were they out and out lying? They were presumably under oath when they testified in front of the Senate confirmation hearings. What are we to do about that? You've asked two questions. I'll answer the last one first. We can't do anything about it. They're on the court for life and or until they become infirm even then, who knows? I mean, just look at Justice Thomas. You have to go back to Abe Fordus to find the Supreme Court Justice who's been so involved in things criminal, political and otherwise, that you can't do anything. So unless you can get rid of the filibuster and I'll take a bet on that one that's never gonna happen, you're gonna have Supreme Court Justices who are on the bench for life who have almost no rules as to when they should recruse themselves who, I don't know how many have been impeached in the history of the country. Jay probably knows maybe one, if there's been one. So there's nothing we can do about it except time. And by that, I mean, hopefully the next time there's a vacancy, there's a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress and then it'll be five, four. And then a little bit more time, we hopefully have a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress, it'll be six, three. But you know what? There aren't a lot of old conservative justices on the court right now. Yeah, one of the things that GOP wanted to do was to appoint young justices so they'd be on there a long time. That was their stated policy. Before the show began, Jeff, we talked about the fact that the leak would allow the Democrats a couple of months between now and July to formulate a strategy to deal with it. And that strategy might include starting a move in Congress to codify Roe v. Wade or to reform the court and have it go the other way somehow. Or to get out in the street and make the protest clear so that in the elections coming later this year, maybe there's a reversal, you know, or a stronger Democratic majority that would have an effect from Congress and especially the Senate. But they have two months. And many more, the question I put to you is, is any of that likely? Oh, I'm sure they're mobilizing and they've been mobilizing for decades. You know, I mean, this is not something that's come out of the blue. Roe v. Wade has been minimized over the last 15 years. It's just never been completely overruled. You know, the life of a fetus has gone from what? I'm not an expert in this, but 24 weeks to six weeks. And these cases have all been upheld in one form or another. So, I mean, it's not like overnight abortion is now illegal in 50 states. What's happening is it's going back to the states. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? It depends how you view it. So, you know, we've been arguing states' rights issues since before the Civil War. And now we have a social issue that everyone will focus on. So sure, I believe that the, you know, the pro-abortion pro, you know, excuse me, people will have something to mobilize, but is it gonna make a difference in Texas? I doubt it. Is it gonna make a difference nationwide? Is it gonna reverse the decision? Let me put it to you, Cynthia. Is it gonna reverse this decision? Definitely not. I do not believe it's going to reverse anything. And you know, something that I've seen in looking at this, and I wanna make first one real quick comment. I don't think it's pro-abortion. I think they're pro-choice. It's not necessarily that people that are pro-choice are pro-abortion. They're just pro-choice, man. We need to be able to have that kind of physical autonomy to ourselves. And then take it one more step further. This isn't just against one woman or women in general. We live in a pluralistic democracy, right? There's so many different phases and shades of religion and atheism or agnosticism or whatever that you believe and you are, according to our constitution, able to have that freedom. This strikes straight to the heart of that because it is religious zealots that are out there causing all of this trouble. So what do we call it then? State-enforced theocracy. I think that's a much better term. Do you think that this whole move against choice and abortion is religiously motivated? Is that what it is? I absolutely believe that, yes. Or is it something about let's get on the team with Trump or let's get on the team with GOP? Despite the democratic establishment, are you saying that theocracy is the core point? I'd be interested in Jeff's thoughts about that. Well, you know, I think the problem is that it's such an emotional issue when you're dealing with abortion, which is what the issue is, but really the issue is much greater. The issue deals with federalism versus states' rights. Is a woman's right to choose guaranteed by the federal constitution? And there's a legitimate question as whether it is or it isn't. And up until 50 years ago, the question was absolutely not. There was nothing in the constitution in the 14th Amendment. There's freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association. The word privacy on which Roe versus Wade was decided is nowhere, nowhere in the constitution and the bill of rights. It's in the constitution of the state of Hawaii, and I believe 14 other states. So this is really a federalism issue, but it's focused on abortion. It could be focused on gay marriage. Are those kinds of social issues to be decided on a national basis or on a state basis? And that question is, maybe on a federal issue, Jeff, but all the states, how do you, 26 of them, who have taken action against choice, against abortion, they're all motivated by the GOP. And look at Texas as an example. And they're not interested in making it just a matter of state's rights. Clearly, clearly they're interested in squashing choice. That's what they do. And my question to both of you guys is why? Is it religion? It's not matter of privacy or state's rights, in my opinion. It's something else. I'm asking, what is it? But, and I'll let everyone answer that, but Jay, abortion is just exhibit A. It's much greater than abortion. You can see what's going on in state after state. We're focused today on abortion. How about focusing on Disney or what we can teach in the schools? And is gay marriage gonna be permitted in the United States? These are social issues that are either federally going to be protected or not, or are gonna be decided on a state-by-state basis. So, yeah, you wanna look at pro-choice, which I think is the correct term, Cynthia and I apologize for being more direct about it, but it's a social issue. And it's one that generates enormous, enormous interest in the part of the population and rightfully so. But it's just one of the issues that are involved in whether there is a constitutional right to privacy. That's the issue. And what the court is deciding in that preliminary opinion, I can summarize in a sentence, because that's what Alito said. He said, there is nothing in the constitution to give anyone a federal right of privacy. End of story, case was made up, the decision was made up of that. Well, I agree that it is what is happening, and that is what Alito said. So, I wonder because they can't just say that it's God's will that we take away abortion, that it's not religiously sound and all these other things. Well, wait a minute, what happened to the separation of church and state? Since when did they get the ability to rule this land completely by themselves? And that's- Wait, Cynthia, if you think the Roe versus Wade reversal, wait until the end of June and you'll see how religion is gonna triumph over everything in this Supreme Court. Exactly, I totally agree with you. And I call it religious- Wait a minute, specifically in the constitution, the separation of church and state. So, okay, there's no privacy provision per se in the constitution, but there is a separation of church and state provision and that's been the law of the land all this time until fairly recently. I'll never forget how concerned I was when George Bush, I mean, W got up there and said, this is a faith-based administration. What? What happened here? And faith-based is in my view, as I guess in Cynthia's view, a large part of the motivation for all this. And so the question is, is that consistent, Jeff? Is that consistent? The interpretation of separation and church and state is up to federal judges and ultimately the United States Supreme Court. And I think it's been clear in the case we can go through one after another where this court is gonna come down when it's religion versus some other fundamental right. And they have coming down consistently on the part of religion. And they are finding that an individual has the right to refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple. So where is separation? Where is the establishment clause? Hey, I try to teach it and it changes on a weekly basis and it's not going in the right direction. Hey, Cynthia, I've got a question for you on this one. You know, we talk about Roe v. Wade, in this case as an issue about abortion or not abortion, but isn't there a greater issue from some of these states that are going to impose, if you will, a psychological and societal abuse of women by forcing them to carry to term a child through the result of rape or incest? Isn't that just more than an abortion issue? I'm really glad you put that to me, Tim, because it is way more than an abortion issue. And I'll tell ya, it is that clause that is not in there in any of these states. There is no exception for rape or incest. And that to me shows, it reveals the craven nature of what's going on. I personally, and I wanna share a quick personal story about this because I have personal experience. My first husband was extremely abusive after I had already kicked him out of the house and we were separated. He came back and he raped me. I got pregnant. I could not imagine having to try to bring that child to term, to bring another child into the world with a father like that. And I'm a Christian. I really wrestled with this decision, God, and I talked a lot about it. And I knew it was the right thing for me. I knew it was the right thing for the two kids I already had that I needed to be a good mother for. And my story is not unique. And that's the most important thing. There's one more caveat on the end of that, though, that is horrific, okay? If you are raped and your rapist goes to prison, your rapist from prison can appeal to the court, can petition the court for both visitation and parental rights. So how does any of that work? Okay, now let me put one more in there really quick. She's 13 years old. She gets raped by her uncle. She gets pregnant. You're going to tell me that it is okay to put a 13 year old through that kind of stress and horrific emotional trauma because you think that your God says it's right? And these same people that stand up on their high horses and say, this nation was based on Christian, blah, blah, we were born out of Christianity, but no, we weren't. We were born out of freedom of religion. So let me shift a little bit up, Cynthia. And to you, Jeff, what about the public policy here? Does the Supreme Court have an obligation to consider the impact of its decisions on the country? Whatever the technical law is, we know they can do what they want, actually, and they can reverse themselves and they do. But public policy is really important. And the welfare of the country in general. And let me be more specific, the economy. So if I give you millions of unwanted children, orphaned children, who are going to be on the rolls, we're going to be black and brown largely, and who will not have had the opportunity or the money to get an abortion in some other state or country as the rich people will. What effect does that have on, let me say this, our economy? Where are we going in terms of competing in the world order? Well, I love that you said that, Jake, because that's right where I was going. That was the very next thing that I was going to say. Let me let Jeff take a whack at it. Go ahead, Jeff. I'm fine. Go ahead, Cynthia. I'll go after you. No, no, no. I just wanted to say that. I mean, this is the philosophical debate for hundreds of years is, are you a strict constructionist, which is what the present court pretends to be when it wants to be? And it looks at the literal language of a 250-year-old document and decides it based upon what was going on in 1778. Look at gun control in the Second Amendment. We can go on there for hours and hours. Or do you look at, in a way, what you're talking about, Jay, modern times and how an impact of a particular decision will affect everyday life? And that's a philosophical difference on the court. And frankly, the liberal judges view it in a way that you've suggested, that you look at impact and you look at what's going on in 21st century America. And the Trump appointees, the Federalist Society, say that's crazy. You just look at the Constitution and you read it, and it tells you the answer. So I mean, this is the Supreme Court that authorized slavery. I mean, not this Supreme Court, but our Supreme Court upheld the right of people to have slaves. And then, you know, 100 years later decided, well, we made a mistake. It's the same Supreme Court that only 70 years ago said interning Japanese was constitutional. And then decided, you know, well, maybe we were wrong there. And frankly, what they're now saying is, well, Roe versus Wade was wrong, and we're the first court to recognize it being wrong. And you know what? 20 years from now, another Supreme Court may say, you know what? It was decided right the first time, or something can happen. There can be a constitutional amendment. The problem is the majority of the country doesn't appear to be in favor of a woman's right to choose. If it was, we'd already see today state legislatures petitioning for a constitutional amendment making abortion a constitutional right. It ain't happening, not now. OK, thank you, Jeff. Cynthia, I still want to kind of dig on one issue. In your opinion, what are women's advocate groups going to do about this aspect that we had not seen before? And that is, again, forcing women to be, if you will, first human incubators in the case of incest and rape. What are these advocate groups going to do to argue that you're forcing us, you know, and not only that, by forcing us, you're causing psychological trauma to us to make us carry a child to term under those circumstances? What is their best strategy, in your opinion, or how do you think they'll move forward? Well, I know right now there's a lot of them that have been being interviewed on the various news shows to talk about how much the influx of people coming from other states to their programs to access abortion and how much that is going to just overwhelm the already-established clinics that are in the, you know, 16, I guess, states that already have laws that, like, here in Hawaii, we're safe. But I doubt people are going to be flying here. They might. You know, I doubt it. But things like California and Nevada and, you know, Oregon and Colorado, Illinois is the one that's really being talked about a lot right now, because it's right dead said in the middle of a lot of these, you know, trigger law states. So, you know, we don't know what's going to happen to them. They've been interviewing a lot of Planned Parenthood people that are trying to beef up different places that are already seen in influx, because Texas has already got their state, you know, criminally-charging people to leave the state. And I think the first actual case has been brought by someone who was suing someone because they drove someone across state lines to get an abortion. So the first thing. Well, that's an important point. And that is, to what degree will prosecutions take place for those that do go outside of their prohibited state and get an abortion from another state and then return home? Do you foresee or does anyone here, Jeff, do you foresee an aggressive prosecution in those situations? Well, they're trying. And I think Cynthia's right. I'm aware of one case that's been brought already. And I think that's part of where this country is. I mean, it's retaliatory. I mean, it's not only banning a woman's right to choose, it's making it a criminal act to go ahead and get an abortion, even in another state, even to perform the abortion. So we're going back, we're going back to witches and Salem. Yeah. I mean, this country is absolutely going in the wrong direction. I wake up every day, not that we're perfect here in Hawaii, but say, thank God I live in Hawaii, because if I lived in 26 other states, I'd be at the end of a rope, I think, or on my way to Montreal. All right. Jay, just to you, I'm just curious what your take is on the same question is, what legal basis, will these 26 states or potentially how many states to prosecute if I have the freedom to travel between interstate boundaries and I obtain a service in another state and then return to my home in the state with forbids abortion? To what legal basis will they be able to prosecute? Ask Samuel Alito, Florence Thomas, they'll tell ya. Go back to loving, go back to loving versus Virginia. Black man, white woman getting married in Virginia, prosecuted criminally. But in the end, in the end, Jeff, that's now been decided in their favor. Well, up until, up until June. I think there'll be a little gloss on this, you know. This is not the last case. And I don't think the opinion is gonna change much. Even Robert said that the other day yesterday, but I think there will be other cases. And the question, for example, of prosecuting somebody who has an abortion out of state, you know, that'll come up, there'll be something and it'll go to the Supreme Court. And I'm afraid to think that, although that wasn't covered in this draft opinion, ultimately, the Supreme Court will decide it and maybe in a way that will give us further shockwaves. As you say, Jeff, we're careening back to the 12th century. And the remarkable thing about this is in the eyes of the world, we're wasting time. In the eyes of the economy, we're wasting time. Everybody's so involved in this issue when we need to compete on a global scale to retain our city on a hill, our moral superiority, our moral history. And we're losing that. We're losing that in the eyes of the world. And this kind of argument is truly ridiculous. Don't think that people realize, this means an inflection point where the United States is coming down, it's declining. It starts here and it goes other places. And so I don't think the Supreme Court has finished. As you said, Jeff, there's a lot of other cases involving moral issues, social issues, that will come before the Supreme Court, this Supreme Court, which is a six to three or maybe a five to four, that will be decided in similar fashion. And there will not be any reform. Congress cannot get its act together. The Senate will never agree to, for example, codify choice or anything like that. And so we're gonna see more of this. This is only, this is my final thought to you, Tim. This is only the beginning. All right, thank you, Jay. You know, we've run out of time, but let's go around the table with, for our last thoughts and comments. Cynthia, let me go to you. Okay, well, first off, you know, I wanna remind everybody what's been going on in China for how long because they're only allowed to have one child because of the overpopulation. So what, do we need more kids here or something? Is that it? We have a low population that we have to have children, that we would force people to do it in the same, but using the same exact technique that they're using in China to stop people from having them. And that terrifies me. And that's where the religious authoritarianism term that I like comes from, or this state-forced theocracy stuff, that we are forced to believe what these few people think, and it seems wrong. And so I have a quote from Obama about this. Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke God's will. They have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal rather than religion-specific values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument and amenable to reason. Now, I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Great, great quote. Jeff, you get the last word for this show and this topic. 40% of the country believes that the election was stolen. I'll leave it at that and say, I'm sorry I've done the show because I'm really depressed. Well, welcome to the show, this new show, and I agree with you. This topic is horribly depressing. And if I was a female, I'd be up in arms and spit in nails and not rest until this thing is settled, but I'm not. Jay, do you have a last word? We need men too. We need men to fight for this too. Agreed, agreed. Jay, do you want to conclude with a last word? I'd like to think this will cause a pushback by the liberals, the Democrats, the thoughtful people in the country, but I don't see that happening. I see, as I said before, it's the outset, breadcrumbs of hope. And breadcrumbs of hope work better for the GOP because they deflate the possibility of a big pushback by the liberals, by the Democrats. And I think people are tired, they're fatigued with this issue. The leak of the opinion sort of deflates the possibility of a big pushback. And I think at the end of the day, we know what's gonna happen. As Jeff said initially, there's no surprise here. It's inevitable and it's happening. And what's worse is it telegraphs more things to come about this board. Everyone says that, oh no, give it 20 years and we can reverse ourselves, we have in the past. I'm not sure that's true. I think the country is on a decline. And Jeff, to the extent that the show depresses you, it depresses me at least as much. But I wanna say, and this is my closing comment, and I really like Montreal. As we do. All right, thank you. We are out of time. I would very much like to thank our special guest, Jeff Portnoy, Cynthia Leeson-Clair, and of course, Jay Fidel as the co-host of this new show, American Issues Take One. Join us next week, Wednesday at 11 o'clock. And also join us Thursday for American Issues Take Two, a companion show dealing with issues and politics of the day for this country. So I'm Tim Apachele, your host. Won't you join us? And until then, aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.