Bloomberg Exclusive: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling

This is breaking new loose from Bloomberg. 0:00:06.680 --> 0:00:08.840 Here in Washington, we are all focused on the news 0:00:08.840 --> 0:00:13.320 that Bloomberg just exclusively broke the Supreme Court inadvertently today, 0:00:13.360 --> 0:00:16.560 posting a copy of an opinion on its website that 0:00:16.600 --> 0:00:20.560 would suggest the Court is poised to allow emergency abortions 0:00:20.600 --> 0:00:23.600 in the state of Idaho. Joe, this is a big deal, 0:00:23.680 --> 0:00:26.440 not final yet as this is not a formal issuing 0:00:26.840 --> 0:00:28.920 of an opinion, but still suggests that the Court in 0:00:29.000 --> 0:00:32.200 this case may be delivering a win for abortion rights. 0:00:32.600 --> 0:00:35.000 That's right, and for Joe Biden the day before the 0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:38.960 first presidential debate. The timing here is remarkable, Kaylee. We're 0:00:39.000 --> 0:00:41.720 in the midst of a three day tour here. When 0:00:41.720 --> 0:00:45.000 it comes to opinions, we did expect and still do 0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:47.080 to get more tomorrow, but we thought the Court was 0:00:47.120 --> 0:00:49.360 done for the day. We got to this morning and 0:00:49.440 --> 0:00:52.040 this dropped a short time ago. Thanks to our team 0:00:52.440 --> 0:00:56.640 at Bloomberg News and at Bloomberg Law bringing this to us. Now, 0:00:56.680 --> 0:00:59.840 the question remains, once again, will the Court do anything formal? 0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.400 We want to turn to June Grosso from Bloomberg Law, 0:01:03.720 --> 0:01:06.840 the host of Bloomberg Law here on Bloomberg radio and 0:01:06.880 --> 0:01:08.640 TV and June, it's great to see you here. I 0:01:08.680 --> 0:01:10.920 suspect you didn't think we'd be talking about this either 0:01:10.959 --> 0:01:14.920 after this morning's opinions were released. This is going to 0:01:14.959 --> 0:01:17.240 lead to a whole investigation. We have no idea how 0:01:17.280 --> 0:01:18.880 this was posted right right. 0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:22.959 You know, it could have just been some administrative assistant 0:01:23.120 --> 0:01:25.920 by mistake posted it and then took it back. I mean, 0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.320 I'm sure there'll be an investigation into this, and hopefully 0:01:29.360 --> 0:01:32.600 you'll get more information than you did on the political 0:01:32.720 --> 0:01:35.640 leak of the Dobbs decision. But if you know what 0:01:35.720 --> 0:01:39.520 we see is true, it's a huge decision and it 0:01:39.680 --> 0:01:42.760 means and it also affects other states like Texas that 0:01:42.840 --> 0:01:45.320 have similar laws. I mean, this case was so important 0:01:45.360 --> 0:01:48.920 that the trial judge had issued a ruling putting this 0:01:49.040 --> 0:01:51.800 law on hold and saying that, you know, the emergency 0:01:51.840 --> 0:01:55.880 procedures could go forward, and the Supreme Court said no, 0:01:56.720 --> 0:01:59.800 they they put a stop to that, and then they 0:01:59.840 --> 0:02:02.280 just ought to take the case without it going to 0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:06.320 an appellate court. So that's how important this is. And 0:02:06.480 --> 0:02:10.000 you know, it could show whether or not the federal 0:02:10.080 --> 0:02:13.680 law is going to take the place or supersede the 0:02:13.720 --> 0:02:16.880 state law, which is what the Biden administration argued in 0:02:16.880 --> 0:02:19.440 this case. They said, if you're taking, as Kelly said, 0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:23.040 you're taking Medicare funds, you have to follow the Atala law, 0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:27.399 and that provides for emergency room procedures of abortion if 0:02:27.440 --> 0:02:30.600 a woman's life is seriously at risk. And during the 0:02:30.720 --> 0:02:35.080 oral arguments, Justice Kagan was really sort of you know, 0:02:35.800 --> 0:02:38.760 I want to say, she was emphatic about saying that, 0:02:38.800 --> 0:02:41.079 you know, you don't have to wait until the woman's 0:02:41.120 --> 0:02:44.720 life is in jeopardy, is in threat, in order to 0:02:44.800 --> 0:02:48.400 have this procedure. And it was very the oral argument, 0:02:48.480 --> 0:02:50.320 you couldn't tell which way the court was going to go. 0:02:50.360 --> 0:02:52.639 I mean, you knew that the three liberals were going 0:02:52.680 --> 0:02:55.080 one way and the three very conservatives were going the 0:02:55.080 --> 0:02:57.600 other way. But then the three in the middle, Justice 0:02:57.680 --> 0:03:01.960 Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Amy Tony Barrett, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, 0:03:02.880 --> 0:03:04.799 where were they? They were all over the place. 0:03:06.600 --> 0:03:10.200 Well, of course, we'll await finding out for sure who 0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:13.560 the drafter of the final opinion is. But in what 0:03:13.720 --> 0:03:16.880 was briefly posted online, they indicated that the majority is 0:03:16.919 --> 0:03:20.160 going to dismiss this case as improvidently granted, which probably 0:03:20.440 --> 0:03:22.320 relates to what you were just speaking to June whether 0:03:22.360 --> 0:03:24.960 the Court should have taken this up in the first place. 0:03:25.160 --> 0:03:27.480 But this is a kind of a pattern I've noticed 0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:29.919 to merge with recent opinions where the court doesn't seem 0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:33.080 to necessarily be deciding the merits of the case, but 0:03:33.240 --> 0:03:36.200 rather standing, as was the case in the social media 0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:39.600 Biden administration relationship ruling they made earlier this morning, and 0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:42.640 in the other abortion related case, access to mif A Pristone, 0:03:42.840 --> 0:03:44.800 which they did rule in favor of, they did so 0:03:44.960 --> 0:03:47.480 on the grounds of standing. It doesn't seem that they're 0:03:47.560 --> 0:03:50.320 necessarily deciding the merits around these abortion rates. 0:03:50.480 --> 0:03:53.640 You're right, throwing this at is improvidently granted. Is another 0:03:53.680 --> 0:03:57.240 way to dispose of it, and it's because they're trying 0:03:57.320 --> 0:04:00.000 to get you know, they're trying to get five vote 0:04:00.760 --> 0:04:04.400 in order to decide the case. And in a lot 0:04:04.400 --> 0:04:07.400 of these cases, the easiest way is to say there 0:04:07.440 --> 0:04:10.040 was no standing. Now, the MYFI pristone case, that really 0:04:10.080 --> 0:04:13.320 there was no standing there. Everyone who saw that initially 0:04:13.360 --> 0:04:16.560 said why why do these doctors have the right to sue? 0:04:16.920 --> 0:04:19.520 And it's still going to go. States are still trying 0:04:19.520 --> 0:04:21.960 to sue over that. So in the mif of pristone 0:04:21.960 --> 0:04:24.159 case that was definitely no standing. But in the you know, 0:04:24.240 --> 0:04:28.240 in the case today they found no standing and that 0:04:28.360 --> 0:04:30.600 you know, they could have gone either way, so it's 0:04:30.640 --> 0:04:32.720 an easier way for them to deal with it. But 0:04:32.760 --> 0:04:36.040 what happens is the lower courts don't get guidance and 0:04:36.080 --> 0:04:39.159 we don't get information as far as the public to 0:04:39.279 --> 0:04:42.000 know where they stand on these issues. You know, how 0:04:42.080 --> 0:04:47.599 far can the Biden administration go in correcting misinformation online? Now? 0:04:47.880 --> 0:04:51.200 We don't know that because the decision is off on 0:04:51.240 --> 0:04:54.120 a procedural ground. And I had a professor I talked 0:04:54.160 --> 0:04:57.480 to recently say that, you know, lawyers can find a 0:04:57.520 --> 0:05:01.080 procedural reason for anything which is true. I can find 0:05:01.080 --> 0:05:04.320 a procedural reason if you're looking for it, and they're 0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:05.960 lo it seems. 0:05:06.240 --> 0:05:09.560 Yeah, all right. Jane Grosso, host of Bloomberg Law, thank 0:05:09.600 --> 0:05:12.160 you so much for your instant analysis on this breaking 0:05:12.200 --> 0:05:15.480 news story exclusive to Bloomberg. The Supreme Court poised to 0:05:15.560 --> 0:05:18.920 allow emergency abortions in Idaho. We want to get more 0:05:18.960 --> 0:05:21.280 reaction now with a special guest, I'm pleased to say 0:05:21.279 --> 0:05:23.880 who is joining us here in our Washington, d C studio. 0:05:24.240 --> 0:05:28.000 Dana Nessel the Attorney General of the state of Michigan 0:05:28.160 --> 0:05:30.640 is now joining us. Welcome to Balance the Power. Thank 0:05:30.720 --> 0:05:33.680 you so much for being here. While you're here in Washington, 0:05:33.720 --> 0:05:37.159 could I just ask you first about your reaction to 0:05:37.320 --> 0:05:40.360 the news Bloomberg has broken today, this opinion that seems 0:05:40.360 --> 0:05:42.600 inadvertently to have been posted on the website, but as 0:05:42.600 --> 0:05:45.480 a court ruling in favor of abortion rates, it seems 0:05:45.520 --> 0:05:46.000 are poised to. 0:05:46.080 --> 0:05:49.359 At least well, you know, fortunately in Michigan, in the 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:52.799 wake of Dobbs. You know, we had very restrictive laws 0:05:52.800 --> 0:05:54.960 that were on the books that were unenforceable, but in 0:05:55.000 --> 0:06:00.280 twenty twenty two, we passed the Reproductive Freedom for All Ballots, 0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:05.640 which you know, enshrined reproductive freedoms into our state constitution. 0:06:05.839 --> 0:06:08.680 So we haven't been worried about this particular situation in 0:06:08.720 --> 0:06:11.719 my state. But I've met with women in states with 0:06:11.839 --> 0:06:15.039 very restrictive bands all over the country, and I can 0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:18.400 tell you that women of reproductive age and the people 0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.000 who love them all around the United States are probably 0:06:21.839 --> 0:06:26.000 collectively signing some you know, a breath of relief right 0:06:26.040 --> 0:06:30.040 now because of how incredibly scary it is to think 0:06:30.080 --> 0:06:32.200 that you could be in this situation where you need 0:06:32.240 --> 0:06:36.320 emergency medical care, you're facing the loss of an organ, 0:06:37.520 --> 0:06:40.840 your fertility is at stake, and you know you're literally 0:06:40.880 --> 0:06:45.919 looking at potentially dying and having physicians have to, you know, 0:06:46.000 --> 0:06:48.839 violate their hippocratic growth and say I can't treat you 0:06:49.160 --> 0:06:51.760 because I'm afraid of going to jail for it. So 0:06:52.000 --> 0:06:56.680 I think for women all across America, this is a victory. 0:06:56.839 --> 0:07:00.640 If that is in fact an accurate meant what was 0:07:00.680 --> 0:07:03.080 on the website. It does give me some pause that 0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:05.719 now this is the second time in a few years 0:07:05.720 --> 0:07:09.359 that we're seeing something accidentally posted or distributed, and it 0:07:09.360 --> 0:07:11.520 makes me wonder what's going on at the United States 0:07:11.560 --> 0:07:16.440 Supreme Court right now. But you know, we've seen this 0:07:16.920 --> 0:07:21.400 exponential rise in both maternal mortality as well as infant 0:07:21.440 --> 0:07:25.320 mortality ever since the Dab's decision came out, and hopefully, 0:07:26.040 --> 0:07:28.680 if this is a real ruling from the court, it 0:07:28.720 --> 0:07:31.760 will do something to curtail the number of deaths we've seen. 0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:35.280 So are you encouraged then to see what is apparently 0:07:35.920 --> 0:07:37.800 forthcoming from the court. And I wonder if you think 0:07:37.800 --> 0:07:39.720 they should just come out with it today following the 0:07:39.800 --> 0:07:43.280 ruling on mifipristoe maintaining access to the abortion pill, or 0:07:43.440 --> 0:07:47.240 you discourage that both, to Kaylee's point, earlier have been 0:07:47.400 --> 0:07:48.960 essentially rulings on standing. 0:07:49.440 --> 0:07:53.160 Yeah. I have a theory about that. Yeah. I think 0:07:53.200 --> 0:07:56.720 that these are not cases that the High Court wanted 0:07:56.760 --> 0:07:58.800 to hear. I think they were sort of forced upon 0:07:58.880 --> 0:08:03.600 them by incredibly conservative circuit courts of appeal that really 0:08:03.600 --> 0:08:07.720 have forced the hand now of the United States Supreme Court. 0:08:07.840 --> 0:08:11.320 And I've seen decision after decision where I don't think 0:08:11.360 --> 0:08:14.280 that the justices wanted to rule on this particular case 0:08:14.640 --> 0:08:17.760 at this particular time. I don't think that the majority 0:08:17.800 --> 0:08:20.040 of justices by that, I mean six of them on 0:08:20.080 --> 0:08:26.320 the Supreme Court have an interest in restricting Second Amendment 0:08:26.760 --> 0:08:33.520 related rights. They don't like in general the gun safety laws. 0:08:34.000 --> 0:08:36.880 They don't like the use of mifipristom. But these are 0:08:37.120 --> 0:08:40.360 poor vehicles that have come to them to allow them 0:08:40.400 --> 0:08:45.160 to further restrict abortion rights or gun safety measures or 0:08:45.240 --> 0:08:48.520 things of that nature. So what we're seeing is they 0:08:48.679 --> 0:08:53.160 are finding other ways to dispose of these cases without 0:08:53.200 --> 0:08:55.559 having a rule on the merits, and that allows them 0:08:55.600 --> 0:08:57.840 the freedom in the future to say, well, we're not 0:08:57.920 --> 0:09:05.160 contradicting a prime decision. We're not overturning any sort of precedent. 0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:07.480 We got rid of that case on standing, and that's 0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:08.560 what they're continuing to do. 0:09:08.880 --> 0:09:11.080 But should the Court not have expected these kind of 0:09:11.120 --> 0:09:14.760 challenges to ultimately reach them after they ruled and Dabbs 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.760 to essentially overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. It 0:09:17.800 --> 0:09:20.760 was only inevitable that certain state laws or access to 0:09:20.800 --> 0:09:24.400 certain procedures or medications we're going to have to be 0:09:24.520 --> 0:09:27.800 called into question just because of the uncertainty that ruling created. 0:09:27.880 --> 0:09:30.600 Now, you would think so, and you would think that 0:09:30.600 --> 0:09:33.760 that would be their thought as well. But I think 0:09:34.080 --> 0:09:37.680 some of these cases are just so controversial and so 0:09:37.880 --> 0:09:41.720 anathetical to public opinion. And you already have the Supreme 0:09:41.760 --> 0:09:44.040 Court in a place where, you know, we've never had 0:09:44.080 --> 0:09:49.040 such low confidence or respect for this court, and they've 0:09:49.040 --> 0:09:53.679 been mired in ethical scandals, and every time they issue 0:09:53.720 --> 0:09:57.920 a ruling that is deeply unpopular with the public, they 0:09:58.280 --> 0:10:01.920 risk having their integrity impugned more and more. And so 0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:03.960 I think that might be part of the calculus with 0:10:04.040 --> 0:10:07.200 some of these rulings as well. And again, because these 0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:10.800 are cases that are being you know, essentially tossed on 0:10:11.240 --> 0:10:14.800 standing or improvidently granted or something of that nature. It 0:10:14.840 --> 0:10:18.280 does still leave room for future rulings where they can 0:10:18.400 --> 0:10:22.480 still continue to chip away at reproductive rights or the 0:10:22.559 --> 0:10:25.720 rights of people to have, you know, gun safety laws 0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:29.080 or other things that are frankly very popular in America. 0:10:31.080 --> 0:10:33.000 Is breaking new when he was from Bloomberg