 public public access challenges. Thank you. So thank you Sandy for having me always glad to be here and meet other people like you and other scholars in the legal field. So today I'm here to talk about Roe v Wade and before I get to that I just kind of want to talk about constitutional protections a lot of here. Oh my fourth amendment right was violated or my first amendment right is violated but really what this comes down to is actually the 14th amendment the due process clause and so your constitutional rights are applied to everybody via the constitution via the 14th amendment. And that is the privileges and immunities clause. And so when the 14th amendment was passed that clause prohibited states from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States and then it also importantly important in Roe v Wade defined all persons born or naturalized in the United States to be citizens and those are the people who are protected by the laws of the Constitution. When laws are passed and when somebody believes that their rights are being violated. They have to the court has to determine whether the right that's being violated is a regular liberty or whether it's a fundamental right. And if it's a regular right, they will apply the rational basis test when they're analyzing the law and the rational basis test is pretty, it's pretty low key, the state that passed the law has to have a legitimate interest and the legislation is presumed to be valid and it will be sustained as long as the law is rationally related to whatever the state interest is. If the law however violates a fundamental right or affects the fundamental right. The court has to apply the strict scrutiny test. And in order to survive the strict scrutiny test, the court has to find that the legislator the government state has a compelling government interest in whatever is being affected, and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve whatever that specific interest is. So, going a little bit further into what is a fundamental right there was an important Supreme Court case, Washington v. Gluxford, and this was a case that actually dealt with the right to assist in a suicide. And the argument came down to whether there was a fundamental right to death. The court analyzed whether this was a fundamental right that all citizens were entitled to, and they had to apply either rational basis or strict scrutiny. And what they found is that a fundamental right is considered fundamental when it's so deeply rooted in our history and traditions or so fundamental to our ordered concepts of constitutionality or ordered liberty. So legal jargon for what is a fundamental right. Moving on to reproductive cases. One of the first important cases that really dealt with the right to contraception was Griswold v. Connecticut. And that came out in 1965 so this was a few years before row. In that case dealt with a married couple. They lived in Connecticut. There is a law in Connecticut that prohibited anybody from obtaining any type of birth control. They went to New York, and they got some advice on how to prevent pregnancy and which contraceptions to use. And so, under that Connecticut law. They could be sent in anywhere from 60 days up to a year in jail, and they could also get a fine and so could the doctor who provided them those medical advice. They ended up suing. And in that decision, the court very importantly laid out this what's called a zone of privacy. And what the court found was that within the Bill of Rights, there is a penumbra of rights, including the right to privacy. And the right of privacy includes the right of privacy of intimacy between married couples. And so they got to that conclusion by analyzing some other constitutional cases that had come up prior to this, that weren't necessarily the numerous rights in the Constitution, but rights such as the right to homeschool your children the right to determine their medical care, things of that nature and so the Supreme Court said, these all created a kind of invisible zone of privacy. And so, when it comes to decisions between married people they found that that was within that zone of privacy. And that was a fundamental right. So the next case of course was Roe v Wade. Can I interrupt you for a minute. Justine, so that you so that I, I think our audience should understand that that was only however for married people, correct. Correct. Not for single people. Correct. They could not use birth control. Right. Yeah, correct. Yes. So, when we get to Roe v Wade this was a few years later this was decided in 1973. So this was a Texas law that made it illegal to obtain an abortion or to attempt to obtain an abortion, except if the mother's life was in danger was the gist of the law. So the appellant Roe, she was an unwed pregnant woman. She wanted to terminate her pregnancy and in her argument she wanted to terminate her pregnancy. She wanted to be performed by a competent licensed physician in a clean clinical setting, and she was unable to legally do that because of the Texas abortion law. She also said she could not afford to go to another state jurisdiction to obtain this. And so her rights were being violated is what she argued. So she actually argued that her rights were being violated in the first fourth, fifth, ninth and as applied to the 14th amendment. So the court when they were discussing this opinion, found that there's not a an explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, however, based on prior cases including the Griswold case that I was just talking about the court that a right of personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy do exist under the Constitution. This included the right to privacy in relation to marriage, procreation, contraception, child rearing and family relationships and those all came from prior cases leading up to this. And then the court further held that this right of privacy, whether it be founded in the 14th amendments concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. And so they further went on to determine that, you know, contrary to the arguments of the appellies that a fetus was not a citizen, and the reason being was because as defined in the 14th amendment, a citizen were persons born or naturalized in the United States and so the fetus has not been born yet it is not entitled to the protections of the 14th amendment. And following the court also kind of laid out a trimester standard for when it is okay to intervene and create laws on a woman's decision to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy or not. And then they further held that any laws in regards to abortion had to survive strict scrutiny so they determined that abortion, the right to privacy in regards to an abortion was a fundamental right. The next kind of landmark case that really solidified Roe v Wade came in 1992. And that was Planned Parenthood versus Casey. In that case, there were some Pennsylvania laws that abortion clinics and physicians challenge saying that they created a burden against women's right to an abortion. Court and Casey called their decision a watershed decision and that's important because in Supreme Court history and their discussion of stare decisis. And for those who don't know sorry decisis is the principle that the Supreme Court is founded on the English common law founded on that when you decide a case that has to be based on your prior decisions you can't just be making law left and right with your legal court decisions. So in Casey they talked about sorry decisis, and Casey was a watershed decision, meaning that if this case was ever challenged in the future, that the court should look to not overturn it because of the importance and the principles that went into it. So at the court and Casey found, they actually had created the viability test which we know now is pre viability. There can be no restrictions on a woman's right to get an abortion post viability which is when a fetus is perhaps can live outside of the womb. They cannot create laws that cause an undue burden to the woman in her right to an abortion. So that created the undue burden test. So in this specific Pennsylvania case, they found that informed consent requirements, a 24 hour waiting period parental consent provision, the reporting and record record keeping requirements, did not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to an abortion. However, they did find that a spousal notification in which a woman would have to get permission from her spouse did constitute an undue burden under the statue under row and now Casey. And so that case was really important essentially what that said is no you cannot overturn Roe v wave. And it also created that undue burden test which is what all of the states are subject to now when they create any type of law that affects a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy or not. So those are really important as we kind of come into today's landscape. We have quite a few attacks on the on Roe v Wade and Casey. Most importantly, there was a case argued in December in front of the Supreme Court, and it was Dobbs v Jackson women's health organization, and that is a Mississippi case in which they are trying to outlaw abortions outright after 15 weeks. And so the questions specifically that were presented to the court in throughout the procedure of this case are whether the pre viability prohibitions on elective board abortions are unconstitutional. And whether the validity of a pre viability law that protects women's health, the dignity of unborn children and the integrity or the medical profession and society should be analyzed under the Casey undue burden test, which we just talked about, or whether it should be analyzed under Heller's dead balancing benefits and burdens. And the last question presented was whether abortion providers have third party standing to invalidate a law that protects women's health from the dangers of late term abortions. And if you listen to the arguments that were made in December. The whole argument really rests on well Roe v Wade and Casey got it wrong. And now we have medical advancements and we know about fetal harm and so therefore those two cases should be overturned. And so that was really the basis of the argument. And so that was the basis of the argument behind those. And then most recently there is a new Texas law that was passed, which outlaws all abortions after six weeks and it doesn't outlaw them it's actually very unique. And the reason it's unique is because the Texas law allows private citizens. So not a state actor, a state actor is necessary to burn constitutional claims. It allows private citizens to enforce the ban on after six weeks. So it's not the state imposing a burden on a woman's right to choose but it's private citizens. And so legal scholars had kind of framed it that way to really get past whether that can even be argued in the Supreme Court because in order to argue the constitutionality of any type of law you need a state action or a state action that impeans on a constitutional right. And so that law is very unique in the fact that it's creates an avenue for private citizens really. Any questions. I have a couple but I also wanted to tell a little story about Vermont, if that's okay. Please do. In 1972, when I was first living in Vermont. There was a very important state case called the Jacqueline R case the real name of the case was beach and versus Leahy. In that case, there was a woman Jacqueline are who wanted to get abortions and abortion, and she was prohibited from doing so. At least she was prohibited legally in a way and let me describe what the law was at that point, which would lead me a little bit into what's going on in the legislature now with prop five actually okay. So, there was one law on the books at that time and I'm going to ask you about that. The one law that dealt with abortion was a law that said, a doctor could not perform an abortion. The doctor could be criminal I could we could go to jail. If he was found to have permitted or done an abortion. There were no law other laws though that prohibited abortion. I'm not certain what it was another states but that was the way it was. Jacqueline R sued under that law, and by the way the person that was sued was Pat Leahy who was the state's attorney at the time. And now he's of course the senator from the state of Vermont, and he's a very pro choice senator as well. Okay, so that went to the Vermont Supreme Court. And the day that that was decided I was in the courtroom, I was not an attorney but I was an observer very interested in this case. And out of the, you know, chambers comes all these men judges and I thought God was screwed. However, this was the decision that they made which was really not particularly a constitutional decision. And what they decided that because a woman could could abortion herself. That why couldn't the doctor, there was no intrinsic crime in the abortion. In other words, although a fetus was removed and was, you know died in an abortion that it was not a homicide in any way. If a woman did it herself. So why then, would you criminalize a doctor for doing this procedure at all, because it wasn't really a crime. So the court decided that it was a contradiction in the law, and therefore that the law had to be essentially decided to be void. That was in 1972, before row. Okay, so everybody. So, in other words, abortion was decriminalized, and it became merely a medical decision that a woman could get an abortion and private consultation with a doctor and it was the end it was totally, it was a vacuum, there were no laws prohibiting it. And that situation that occurred in maybe late summer, and then the legislature was going to meet again in January. And so all of us women and men decided that we better do something before the legislature met again to outlaw it perhaps. And so we formed at that point, the Vermont women's health center, which is still in existence today. And it was the first women's health clinic in the I believe in the United States that legally could perform abortions. There was no real doctor to doctor a couple doctors. It was a total collective. There was no real authority at the top it was a very radical little group, and they are still in existence today, except that now it's part of Planned Parenthood. So I was going to ask you this just in, if, if row is overturned, and it might be, there's a, there was, you know, the Jacqueline our case, 72, followed by row 73. And that abortion became legal but there was always a backlash against abortion there was always been the threat that if the, this weird court got appointed that was basically partisan and a Republican court that that role would be overturned, but I want. I want to ask your comments, if it is overturned, what do you what's going to happen. If it's overturned, I think at that point it goes to the states, right. And it would be up to each individual state, because at that point you no longer have this medical decision within what was determined to be a zone of privacy. And what do you mean by that okay so this is the way I understand it would go. It's, I think many people out there are under the impression that if rose overturned that somehow abortion is going to be illegal, but it's not. What, what it means to overturn that federal case in the US Supreme Court means that the whole issue returns to the state, and then the legislature would be taking it up correct. Okay, so what is it. What would the legislatures then do say for instance that all of a sudden that right to life, so called that organization. What would they propose it would they propose again that abortion by a doctor would be illegal kinds of things that would happen use what what kinds of things would happen. Well, tell us a little bit more about Texas, because Texas, the legislature in Texas did pass a law, correct. And now the Supreme Court has decided not to enforce an injunction preventing that law from take place. Correct. And so, and I think really what the issue probably comes down to is where the standing is, because if the law allows private citizens to an abortion ban. Then I don't know where the standing would come in to protect that right, because it's not a government actor. In other words, what do you mean by that so any person in Texas, who assists, not assist who knows that an abortion is being performed. They can tell the police who can sue who the woman the clinic who are the whoever. So I don't think they can as of right now sue the woman but anybody who drove them a doctor that performed it anybody that assisted in any way shape or form can be sued by civilly civilly, right. Yes, any private citizen. So it's not criminal. It's in the civil courts, for which what the, you know, if a clinic was found to have allowed an abortion, then the clinic would have to pay somebody damages or something, or do you know, so I'm not sure how it's playing out um, I believe they can also seek injunctions to prevent somebody from assisting, although I don't know how well that would have to stand legally. So but I'm not quite sure how it's playing out yet it's still pretty new and it's been kind of in the are they going to allow it to be enforced or they're not going to allow it to be enforced, and they just, they did just take it up for a hearing but it was just on the standing issue. Okay. But there, but there are other things that a state might do, for instance, in Vermont, even I think when I was in the legislature, they tried to pass, I especially in New Hampshire to they in New Hampshire they did in Vermont we didn't pass a law that said a minor has to get parental consent to have an abortion, a minor, you know, a woman then under 18. Correct. That's, however, that did not pass constitutional mustard, you know that right justine. Well I know that in Casey it did. It did so there are certain states where parental notification can happen. So as long as there is a judicial. Overreach. Yes. As long as that's in place then yes then the parental consent or, you know information was not found to be an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Not amazing. Anyway, okay. So that's what I think is going to happen if it's overturned I really would like a man who favor this right to understand that that does not make it automatically criminal. It means it returns to the states. So in other words, if you're an activist on this issue. I would guess that the message would be to keep your state safe. And I think Vermont is trying to do that. But maybe there are other questions. Okay, any other healthy. Hey, yeah. I don't really understand that. Can you hear. Can you hear me. Yes. There is a woman is performing enough. Let's say the example of Texas. The Texas sample that she gave the woman wants to perform an abortion and anybody who bring her to a private clinic. Okay, can be sued by who you, I've heard by anybody, but who are these anybody. As long as they know that this woman perform an abortion, so they can kind of, they don't say or say that denounce denounce her. Just like that. And, and also, um, I know a story in that happens in 1984. We didn't talk about the time of the abortion, the time that three or 12 weeks. Okay, you are allowed to have an abortion up to 12. This is legal. Well, is it, is it just a yes, is it legal or is it something that that you can do that they allow you to do, but it's not in the law. It doesn't happen. And you have the private clinics in New York City that happen in New York City, you have private clinics who do have abortion after 12 weeks. A lot. So what, what is happening with this clinic if they, they, the people who are there, I don't know, found out. So the case in 84 that you're talking about, that was prior to the Casey decision. So back when Roe v. Wade was decided the court divided it by trimester. So in the first trimester, which I believe is up to 12 weeks, you can, there was no restrictions on any choice to get an abortion. There were some restrictions at, you know, during the second trimester, it kind of depended and the states could interfere. And then the third trimester was, the states could definitely interfere, and they could balance the interests of the unborn fetus with that of the women's. But when Casey came out in 1992, that actually did the viability test which has become more of a bright line test. And so I believe they decided that viability is at 23 weeks. And so anytime after 23 weeks, the states can create laws. And again, it brings in that balancing test of the unborn fetus versus the woman's interest. But prior to that viability line that 23 week line, there is not supposed to be any laws passed that create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. But as far as the Texas law in place right now. And I know that there are actually a lot of abortion providers that are announcing to Texas. Hey, I just provided an abortion today sue me as a way to challenge the law. So I think they're trying to get the law into the district court or to get it taken up by the courts to address that. I think that LC if I understand it was also thinking that perhaps abortions after 12 weeks were illegal, but they're not. Okay, as Justin said, under 12 weeks. There are no questions asked it's really abortion on demand which is what the pro, the anti choice people would argue that it's a board it is up to 12 weeks. Well, that was under row. What that was under Roe v Wade, but then Casey clarified it more to the 23 weeks to 23 weeks. Correct. So, yes, it was divided up by trimester which why when she's talking about an 84 anything after 12 weeks could have been it was up to the states kind of. In 92 and Casey was decided that's when they pushed it to a viability line which is around 23 weeks. Do you know that used to be the religious position in the 19th century, even the Catholic Church, prior to viability. They didn't make any statement about it and only became late 19th century that the Catholic Church even sort that well of course they don't outlawed because they outlawed, I guess for their own people who belong to the church, but not for normal. We have still in this country is separation of church and state. However, but even okay so maybe you could comment to. I remember about the parental consent. That's very confusing to a lot of people, because the argument will be well you can. Nobody can give a kid an aspirin without asking their mother and father about it in schools for instance I don't know if that's true or not but let's say it's true. So why shouldn't the girl notify a parent when and get that permission when she wants to have an abortion well, I remember Howard Dean said something that was really compelling. Howard Dean by the way was a doctor when he was a governor, and he was totally firm on this issue. He said he had seen too many cases where the father of the mother was a father of the fetus. He never ever have a young girl have to tell her parents about an abortion. And I thought that was. I mean that was his position period that if a woman is old enough to get pregnant, then she is old enough to make the choice whether or not to terminate that pregnancy. So another way to look at that too is, if a minor, you know, 1415 year old ended up following through the pregnancy, that minor has the rights over that child her parents don't. Right. So that's another way to look at that as well as if the child was born, then they have the rights over the same parental rights that everybody does regardless of that person's age so. She cannot have an abortion, she's not allowed to have an abortion under the age, but she has to become a parent. She is allowed to have an abortion, however, under road, you know, the, in other words, what we're talking about now I think Justin and correct me if I'm wrong. So these are various ways a state, the states have attempted to restrict Roe v. Wade this is that was an attempt. As far as I knew parental consent was not was considered a restriction on a woman's rights to to terminate a pregnancy, unless there was a court avenue over that correct. And so and that's what they said and Casey was that the parental consent provision was not an undue burden, so long as it had the judicial avenue to kind of go around that if need be. I mean, Robin had a question so good. Okay, Robin. You're muted. I'm going to talk about the abortion pill, and I thought I heard that it was, it was part of the Texas that down there in Texas they're trying to make that tell, could you talk about the pill, and is that going to be an option for pregnant girls if this is Wade is thrown out and could you I mean I don't know whether you know about this but talk about the non legal issues do young women like the pill is it. What does it do to the body is it, it doesn't work. And what is it called I forget the name of it. How are you 40 I believe something along those lines. I'm not super familiar on the effects it has other than I know it can be used up to eight weeks after eight weeks. It is not recommended for you so after that point DNC is recommended as the safest procedure. Essentially, it is a two part pill. The first part is taken in the office with the provider, and they send you home with the second part. And I believe it's eight or 12 hours later, it is inserted into the vaginal canal. It essentially causes the uterus to contract and expel any content so it essentially causes a shedding of the lining similar to a menstrual cycle. Anytime after eight weeks though they don't recommend that they recommend the DNC procedure. But as far as the effects in Texas that I have not heard. Robin, if I might address that, there's always been an attempt to outlaw the morning after pill is called often in common parlance. The again the anti choice people would like that outlawed however, is fairly easy as I understand it just maybe you could correct that too. It's easy to obtain and in a way, I don't know how I don't know how that could be outlawed unless it's determined by the FDA, not to be an approved drug but I don't I don't think that the police are going to be able. I don't know. I mean that that might be a real solution for a lot of young women. And then morning after that separate from the r u 40 pill that I was just talking about the morning after pill is plan B. That is a strong dose of birth control, and that just so essentially regular birth control oral contraceptive birth control when it's taken as prescribed it essentially prevents any eggs from your ovaries from implanting and fertilizing with this firm and creating a fetus the morning after pill is a strong birth control which does the same thing in a short amount of time, and it is not the abortion pill and so a lot of critics try to. They either do or they try to confuse the general public and make them think they're the same thing but they're not. Obviously the morning after pill is most effective when taking 24 to 36 hours after unprotected sex or failed contraceptive, and it just prevents any egg from being released and fertilized, whereas the abortion pill the r u 40 actually is taken after a confirmed pregnancy and the risk contracts to expel what is already there. And so that's the differences between those two. I will say plan B over the last several years has become very accessible you can buy at the drugstore I think when Obama was president he made it so you do not need a prescription It might be useful for some listeners. It's available on Amazon one day shipping so if you ever know someone that needs it and they can't get to a store Amazon will send it to you so. Good question. Okay. All right, any other questions. No, I did want to talk about the recent LC did you. The recent efforts in the Vermont legislature are you aware of those Justine. Absolutely from what you were talking about earlier. Okay, so up until a couple years ago then. Abortion was decriminalized in other words, it was not on the books there was nothing. It was merely a private matter between a woman and her doctor and that's by the way another statement that Howard Dean once made that I found interesting from a doctor's point of view he said that's what abortion should be. It should be a matter between a woman and her doctor period right, and that's the way it really was after the Jekyll in our case. A couple of years ago, however, some of the pro choice people within the legislature decided that because row was going to be they thought overturned course it hasn't been yet. They would try to make Vermont safer than it already was, and they introduced legislation, which attempted to codify the language of row into the legislation, and also into a constitutional amendment that constitutional amendment is called prop five. And it's going to be on the ballot in the fall, whether or not you want the Vermont Constitution amended, in other words, to include a woman's right to choose abortion. So that's what's going on and it's going to hit the ballot box in November. I don't know anybody have any thoughts about that and how that's going to go. You know, what do you think? How do you think it will go in a popular vote? Do you think that the pro choice forces will win or what? I guess no one has a thought about that. How about you Robin, what do you think? Is she still there? No? I'm just saying what I'm thinking is that now that it's going to be up for a vote, I think it's going, I don't know, I think it's going to be extremely controversial and that there'll be a lot of open fights about this. Vermont is perceived to be a very pro choice state. I really don't know. I don't know. I mean, does anybody have any thoughts on that? Yeah. It's completely tiresome that we have to argue these stupid things over and over and over again. You know, I mean, next October, is that's going to be the issue that we're going to have to be working on? How about all the other issues? I know. Out there and anyway, it's. Yes. Grant had something. What? How do you think the form of the founding of the Women's Health Center, how that vote went would relate to coming over in October? Because that was a big surprise. Right. Let me tell you another struggle that I was involved. It was one of the best and most fun struggles that I ever was involved with. And this was the, about the founding of the Women's Health Center and that was in 72. So there was a space of about maybe four months between the Jackal in our case and then the opening of the Women's Health Center. And so in November of that year, the town of Colchester put this thing on the ballot that said the following and see it was a trick question. By the way, the Women's Health Center was opening in Colchester, Vermont, not Burlington, but in Colchester. And so the town fathers, as we would call them put on the ballot, this question. Do you approve of an unlicensed clinic in the town of Colchester? Okay, so people can understand what that meant or not. I mean, Justin, do you get it? Sort of. Yes. Okay, so we thought we were going to lose that. I remember that we tried stupidly, and now I look back on it, we tried to keep it off the ballot, even because we are so afraid we'd lose. I remember going to court, I was the plaintiff in the case. And my attorney was this guy named Jim Morse who subsequently was on the Vermont Supreme Court. He always reminds me if I see him, I was his first client. He was a very young attorney. I was the plaintiff. And we tried to keep that off the ballot and we lost. But he reports that when he went back into chambers to talk about the judge, talk with the judge, whose name was Judge Valenti from Rutland, Italian Catholic, Judge Valenti said, and why are you here with all those baby killers? So that was, that guy was going to be open-minded, right? Anyway, so we lost that case. It was on the ballot. And guess what? We campaigned like crazy. We even went to church parking lots and stuck, you know, pamphlets and the windshields of people, especially at the Catholic Church. Okay. And there was a big meeting the night before the vote in the town of Colchester. We all went. And all these nuns showed up and they had all these little fetuses and bottles. And they said that this is what you're doing to these little Johnny's and little Susie's. It was really fun, actually. It was really fun. Anyways, the town meeting was really, it was the first time ever that I spoke in public even. So the next day was the vote. And actually we won two to one on that vote. In other words, the town of Colchester voted that they did want unlicensed clinics in Colchester. Right. And Grant is remembering that Colchester was like Winooski in terms of its Catholic population. But I mentioned that because in the privacy of people's ballot box, I think, I don't know, what are your, what are your guesses? I, we won that two, you know, two to one in a Catholic town. What do you think? I mean, are people in this country? Do you suppose pro women, pro choice or not? What do you think? Anybody who has a thought on it? What do you think? I think they're more less, I think they're more for less government intrusion is my thoughts on that. And so. And so maybe that's why they voted that way. They didn't. Right. Right. I mean, they, I think many Americans of any religion feel that, that you're right that people don't want the government telling them what to do in the bedroom. I really do. Okay, I think they have to assume the consequences of people in their bedroom. I know. Okay. I was, I taught a long time, just seeing that Johnson State University too. And I can remember that we took a poll in my class. And all the men approach choice to they don't want to be paying child support for the rest of their lives. I mean, maybe, maybe for a one night stand, I mean, I hate to be that flippant about it, but I mean, I think that men do consider that, or, or that they should. Okay, Joanne had something in the chat right Joanne. Question or comment. Okay. Yeah, I, I think the majority of when they take opinion polls the majority of Americans believe in the right to have an abortion. Correct. If I, if I, if I remember correctly, if I, if I remember correctly, and, and, and Vermont is and Vermont has, has been a purchase state just despite there being the presence of, of some right to life, of some right to life groups that have been protesting at the plant parenthood clinics in Burlington sometimes. So I, I think I, I think we're probably a safe state for, for, for, for passing it, unless people get intimidated by, by, by the right by, by the, by the so called pro lifers. What's the first, what's the percentage of people to ask it. Okay, I'll see has a question. Yes, I wanted. My question is, what's the percentage of a woman and men who are pro choice in Vermont. I would be a Vermont referring to what Cindy was saying. Does anybody have a comment on that, other than me. From the beginning, that 60% of Americans redefine themselves as I would say pro women, but also of course the common parlance is pro choice so I'll use both. But to me, Roe V Wade, and all of those pro choice arguments are really arguments for women's rights over their bodies. I think we forget that. I think that gets us into an argument about when a fetus is viable when a fetus is not. The fact is, I think in the legality of the situation, the only person involved at this moment is the woman herself the pregnant woman who I think the court in Roe V Wade said that that was a person, and that person. She had the right to make medical decisions, free of the interference of the government, I think, but anyway, I think 60% anyway, I just want to point out for those of you who are in Vermont which I think is probably everybody but me. I am in a not safe state I'm in Florida and we have passed a 15 week. Or we are this week we have been flying our 15 week abortion ban through the legislator and it's going to vote tomorrow. I think that safe state should be worried as well, because if you're a safe state that does provide abortions live, you're going to start seeing the overflow and the effects of women from states like Florida and Texas, and Mississippi, who are going out of state to get an abortion because they can and that's because those women have the privilege of the funds of being able to do so. And so, here's where it comes down is the women who can't afford it, black and brown communities are going to be most affected by these bands because you're you know poor neighborhoods and poor women not being able to afford to go to those safe states to get abortions or to get the medical procedure that they need. And so I think safe safe states should be worried as well I don't think we can forget that and get into this bubble of I'm in Vermont so I'm safe or I'm in New York so I'm safe because the effects of other states are going to compound and affect the safe states as well. And then another thing I just want to put out there is often when we have pro choice fighters. I think too often, we go out there with good intentions and we narrowed the argument to our counterparts of what about, what about incest what about rape what about this and I think we are doing ourself a disservice by making those arguments, because the need for an abortion does not need to be a tragedy in order to be something that you want, it doesn't need to be tragic. And I think it's very important that we keep the focus on this is a medical decision for a doctor and not pigeonhole ourselves by what about incest what about rape what about this what about that it doesn't need to be a tragedy you can get an abortion because and because that's what suits your needs and so I just I like to make that point when I'm talking about this so we don't get into this vortex of. Now we find ourselves down the road where abortions allowed for some incidents but not others. That's a very good point because Roe v Wade was really about women's rights. It was not about only about abortion, it was about a woman's rights to make medical decisions in accordance with her own conscience. And in consultation if she wants to with a doctor but it was about women and pregnant women in particular. Does anyone else have any final thoughts. So what are your predictions about this prop five. What do you think about Robin said something interesting I don't know if she's still with us I want to point that out. I think that putting it on the ballot might very well subsume our whole election in November, and that is what worries me. It really worries me that that will become kind of the dividing law and the most talked about issue. And there are so many other issues. I really, in some ways, wish that that could have waited, or not been put on the ballot at all. Yeah, I'm seeing some of the comments with the opinion polls. That may be public opinion but we're not a popular vote country where what our legislators vote for. So even if the public at large is in favor of abortion. That doesn't necessarily mean that that's going to be what the lawmakers vote for. I'd like to jump in about the privacy of the ballot box which I think Sandy brought up and I think that's important because what I'm wondering is what are the Trump people, the people who follow him. Is this a big issue for them because to my mind Trump. I think he was anti abortion. He, he imposed the gag law, which takes money away from helping clinics overseas to be able to provide abortion so I mean on a sort of an official way but obviously he lived a life where he would be glad to. He would he has the morals of a person. I mean, that he would not stop for a moment to, to avoid an abortion. All I'm saying is, I'm just wondering what the Trump people how they will vote. So, once they are in the ballot box and I have the feeling they will vote for this, this bill that will be in Vermont. First of all, can I comment on that Robin. I don't think you can lump Trump voters that way. I was in a discussion group in which there were Trump voters women and men. They basically the hostility toward them was so great from the Democrats that they eventually left that group, however, but I listened to them, and they were pro choice. And they said, and they said what many libertarian say I mean you've got to remember that Trump voters are not any one thing. They are, some of them are extremely pro fetus extremely and anti abortion. But some of them are libertarians and the libertarian believes that government shouldn't interfere with your most intimate decisions, even when those decisions are being made by women. I, I think that the polls will show most people are pro choice. However, I don't know if most people are pro a constitutional amendment. You remember Robin and you were involved when the era hit the ballot here remember that that loss. And it did it lost not because people hate women. It lost I believe because people don't want the Constitution change. So I don't, I really don't know, I wish, I wish. I wish the proponents well I just don't want that to be the main argument of the November elections just like you said, you know. Anyway, any, any final thoughts or questions. Okay, well Justine any final thoughts from you. And what could you say one other thing we're adjusting well so what is going on in Florida. We are passing a bill very similar to the one that was passed in Mississippi that's in front of the Supreme Court right now. It's a 15 week ban. I haven't read the full text of it so I don't know if it's civil or criminal, but I do know it's a 15 week outright ban. And you're going to Florida you think is going to pass it. Yes. How do you know that just because that's what the polls are saying. That is the makeup of our legislator. Yeah, so I went to an abortion march. A couple months ago, and there was a large turnout but it was in Orlando, which is one of the more progressive areas of Florida. And the law has been passing historically fast through our legislator over the last couple of months and it just passed the last committee and so I believe it's up for a vote tomorrow if I'm not mistaken. Well, call me after that then and let me know how it goes with you or email me would you do that. Yes. Well, thank you any final questions before we let justine get back to her sunshine is the sun still out or is it dark yet. No, dark out. Okay, but it'll be sunny tomorrow without snow right. It should be. Thank you very much, and we will see everybody next week next week we'll be discussing another issue close to Floridian's hearts, and that is Cuba, and the 60 years that the United States has had a blockade or what they call a blockade, or we call it embargo against Cuba which is like 90 miles from you. Is that right justine or more. Correct. We'll see you then. Thank you very much for justine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having me.