OA117: Restricting Abortion Rights (& a Deep Dive into Res Judicata)

Opening Arguments

Opening Arguments Media LLC

Opinion, News, Liberal, Politics, Law, Harvard, Atheist, Legal, Supremecourt

4.3 • 3.7K Ratings

🗓️ 31 October 2017

⏱️ 65 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

Today's episode takes a look at a tragic case currently unfolding of a pregnant young woman being detained for being in this country illegally and the Trump administration's efforts to deny her the right to an abortion. We begin with a quick procedural update on the 9th Circuit's ruling on EO-2 before taking a deep dive into the nuts and bolts behind Zarda v. Altitude Express, which we first discussed back in Episode 91. Thanks to some great questions from our listeners, Andrew and Thomas get into the civil procedure weeds with concepts like "claim-splitting" and res judiciata. In the main segment, the guys break down Jane Doe v. Wright, and discuss whether the government can prohibit an minor alien in this country outside of legal status from seeking an abortion. Next, Andrew and Thomas discuss a prominent tweet within the skeptical community and whether it is fair to characterize the statement itself as "sexual harassment." Finally, we end with the answer to Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #47 about landlord responsibility and immunity. Don't forget to following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE! Recent Appearances None! Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links

The recent news regarding the 9th Circuit was reported by Bloomberg News and other outlets.
We first discussed Zarda v. Altitude Express in Episode 91.
New York's Human Rights Law can be found in the New York Consolidated Laws, Art. 15, § 290 et seq.
We took you through the current status of abortion in our detailed two-part discussion of Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Episode 27 and Episode 28.
You can read Jane Doe's complaint, as well as the en banc decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Jane Doe v. Wright.
The regulations implementing sexual harrassment under Title VII can be found at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11.

Support us on Patreon at: patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter: @Openargs Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	Is that why you hit your wife with drawn?
0:04.8	Is that why you drink and pop pills with drawn?
0:07.7	Are you a virgin with drawn?
0:20.0	That's here you robbed a hospital.
0:22.8	How'd you do that?
0:24.0	Yeah, I'm not guilty.
0:25.2	That's not what the other lawyer said.
0:30.9	Actually, I was going to stay in my office tonight and work on my law blog.
0:34.3	Of course, the Bob-Law-Law-Law-Law blog.
0:37.4	Wow, you, sir, are a mouthful.
0:45.7	The jury is instructed to disregard its own testimony.
0:48.8	Your honor, the prosecution rest.
0:54.9	Welcome to Opening Arguments, the podcast that pairs an inquisitive interviewer with a real-life lawyer.
1:00.0	This podcast is sponsored by the Law Offices of P. Andrew Torres, LLC for entertainment purposes,
1:05.3	is not intended as legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.
1:09.4	Don't take legal advice from a podcast.
1:17.2	Hello and welcome to Opening Arguments.
1:18.7	This is episode 117.
1:20.7	I'm your host, Thomas Smith.
1:21.9	That over there is your other host, Andrew Torres.
1:23.6	How you doing, Andrew?
1:24.6	I'm great, Thomas. How are you?
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Opening Arguments Media LLC, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Opening Arguments Media LLC and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.