 |  |  |
| 0:00 | -1:03:23 |
David and Sarah discuss another big day at the Supreme Court, from the court's decision to strike down a Louisiana abortion law to its ruling on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Show Notes:
-Our conversation with Louisiana's solicitor general
-Supreme Court's Louisiana abortion ruling
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
I don't get the resistance to doctors vs women bringing abortion rights cases, and I certainly don't understand comparing abortion providers to tattoo artists.
I have the good fortune of never having been in need of an abortion, but if I were, I would also be in a disadvantaged state. One does not typically terminate a pregnancy if everything is going well and choices abound. I'm sure countering examples could be found, but I think far more women bring pregnancies to term in inauspicious circumstances than choose to terminate them.
If a woman needs an abortion, she has neither time nor resources to go to court. She's likely also ashamed of the pregnancy, so she does not want to be exposed to public judgment.
This is simply a case of MDs, who support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy, advocating for their patients. I'm not an MD, but I work in healthcare, and I advocate (in a non-litigious sense) for my patients all the time. I'm constantly pushing for their preferences against the demands of family, and sometimes against the interests of my employer.
"Advocacy" is something most medical students are taught is part of their job. Whether this is regarded as a "distortion", I think is driven by one's assessment of the needs of women seeking abortions.
Where's the Tuesday podcast? I've been waiting all day to hear Sarah react to Espinoza.