Hey, Amani, remember in our first episode when we explored the arguments in Roe v. Wade over whether a fetus was a person?

I do. And I remember Sarah Weddington was pretty convincing as to why they shouldn't be considered persons

and why the pregnant person was the person the court should be protecting.

Yeah, well, apparently Justice Byron White was less than convinced.

Listen to this line of questioning he posed to Robert Flowers

the second time Roe was argued in 1972.

If you're correct that the fetus is a person,

then I don't suppose you'd have a, the state would have great trouble

permitting an abortion.

Yes, sir.

In any circumstance?

It would, yes, sure.

To save the life of the mother or her health or anything else?

Well, there would be the balancing of the two lives.

And I think that, uh...

What would you choose?

Would you choose to kill the innocent one or what?

Oh my God. Did Justice White just ask, would you choose to kill the innocent one as if between a

pregnant person seeking an abortion and a quote unquote unborn child? the innocent one is always the unborn child?

He did.

And the implications of his assertion are downright repulsive.

Because if the fetus is always quote-unquote the innocent one, then by definition, that makes the pregnant person what?

...