The Legal Vulnerability of Roe v. Wade

The Daily

The New York Times

Daily News, News

4.3 • 107.6K Ratings

🗓️ 20 May 2019

⏱️ 23 minutes

🔗️ Recording | iTunes | RSS

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

From the day Roe v. Wade was decided, some have seen the constitutional right to an abortion as an inferred right rather than a guaranteed one. That distinction has become a threat to the law’s survival. Guests: Sabrina Tavernise, a national correspondent for The New York Times, spoke with Adam Liptak, who covers the Supreme Court for The Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: Because the court led by Chief Justice John Roberts tends toward incrementalism, it is more likely to hear cases that chip away at abortion rights than to overturn Roe v. Wade directly.But after nearly five decades, the anti-abortion movement is closer than it has ever been to dismantling Roe.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0	From the New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro.
0:02.4	This is the Daily.
0:08.0	Today, from the day that Roe v. Wade was decided,
0:12.0	the constitutional right to an abortion has been seen to some as an inferred right,
0:18.0	not a guaranteed one.
0:21.0	My colleague Sabrina Tervanese talks to Adam Liptec about why that distinction
0:27.0	has only now become a threat to the law's survival.
0:32.0	It's Monday, May 20.
0:38.0	So Adam, take me back to the beginning.
0:40.0	What was the basis for Roe v. Wade in the decision there?
0:43.0	Well, the key basis was a case called Griswald versus Connecticut.
0:47.0	Number 496, Estelle T Griswald's, Adal, balance versus Connecticut.
0:54.0	And that was a case about a Connecticut law that forbade people,
0:58.0	including married couples, from obtaining contraception.
1:01.0	It wasn't really enforced. It was a stupid law.
1:04.0	But it was on the books and it was challenged.
1:07.0	Mr. Rammers, Chief Justice, I have a police report.
1:11.0	And the Supreme Court wants to strike it down,
1:14.0	but can't easily find the basis in the Constitution to strike it down.
1:18.0	Because it denies rights to married couples that should not be denied.
1:24.0	That should not be denied in the judgment of this court.
1:28.0	That's correct, John.
	...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Previous episode | Next episode

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from The New York Times, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of The New York Times and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.