KPBS Midday Edition

What could Supreme Court abortion case mean for California?

By Andrew Bracken / Producer, KPBS Midday Edition, Jade Hindmon / KPBS Midday Edition Co-Host, Kitty Alvarado / General Assignment Reporter

Contributors: Carlos Castillo / Video Journalist

Published December 1, 2021 at 4:40 PM PST

This story was published more than 2 years ago.

Speaker 1: (00:00)

Arguments have concluded in the U S Supreme court today, whether or not to uphold a Mississippi state law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, here's some of what transpired in today's proceedings

Speaker 2: (00:12)

They're asking for. But the thing that is at issue before us today is 15 weeks. And, um, I just wonder what the strength of your reliance arguments, um, which sounded to me like being based on a total prohibition, uh, would be if there isn't a total prohibition,

Speaker 1: (00:30)

The case has drawn attention across the country, which many view as the biggest threat to legal abortion in decades with its potential impact on Roe V. Wade, the landmark Supreme court decision, which protects abortion rights. Joining me is Maggie Schroeder, a San Diego lawyer, and president of the lawyer's club of San Diego to talk more about the case and its potential implications for California. Maggie, welcome.

Speaker 3: (00:54)

Thank you so much for having me this afternoon. I'm happy to be here.

Speaker 1: (00:57)

So what is the Supreme court being asked to weigh in on?

Speaker 3: (01:01)

What is that issue now is a Mississippi law that is currently not in effect, but it would ban almost all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which would be a dramatic change or break from the last 50 years of Supreme court rulings, including Roe vs. Wade and planned parenthood versus Casey, which had both reaffirmed a woman's constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy before viability and viability is considered to be, um, scientifically about 24 weeks into a pregnancy.

Speaker 1: (01:35)

Um, is this Mississippi case a direct challenge to Roe V. Wade?

Speaker 3: (01:40)

I would consider it to be a direct challenge to Roe yes. To Roe versus Wade. However, I believe that the channel or excuse me, the state Mississippi state in this case is not framing it in such a way. And I also, after listening to the argument oral argument, believe that the justices, if they do uphold this Mississippi law, they would likely try to do so without directly overruling Roe vs. Wade

Speaker 1: (02:05)

Hmm. Arguments have ended after about two hours of sometimes contentious debate. What stood out to you from today's arguments?

Speaker 3: (02:13)

What stood out to me is just the strength of the, um, you know, the respondent's attorney's argument regarding viability being a Liberty issue. And what I mean by that is, you know, there was a lot of questioning from the justice as to, well, you know, basically a 15 week ban is not an ultimate ban, so it doesn't necessarily, and in all cases prohibit abortion, but what the argument or, you know, what, um, the respondent's attorney is saying is, look, this is a Liberty issue. And before viability, the state has no interest in protecting that particular pregnancy or at least not a substantial interest that would overcome the undue burden that a woman or a person who can become pregnant faces when to potentially obtain an abortion before that 24 week viability period.

Speaker 1: (03:04)

Um, do we have any idea on how the court may rule in this case?

Speaker 3: (03:09)

I, you know, I'd like to be optimistic, I'm listening to the ROI argument. I think my impression is that they appeared prepared to uphold the Mississippi law. Um, but you know, we'll have to wait and see and to until June, but that's, that was my impression does, after listening to oral argument, of course, the issue there is we can expect that at least 20 other states will now impose either similar or more restrictive abortion legislation in their own states. We've seen Texas, um, H you know, implemented or passed the Texas AB eight law, which prohibits abortions after just six weeks of pregnancy. So when a fetal heartbeat is detected. And so we can expect that if this law is upheld by the U S Supreme court, that other laws similar, or even more restrictive will also be upheld and that the states will feel that they can go ahead and pass those very restrictive legislation measures.

Speaker 1: (04:04)

So with that, in your view, we'll just have the potential then to ultimately overturn Roe V. Wade.

Speaker 3: (04:10)

Yes, I absolutely think it will. Um, even though, again, I don't think the Supreme court, and this is just my opinion. I don't think the Supreme court will say that, um, say that directly, but I think it will, right, because what RO tells us is that a woman has a constitutional right, a constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy after, excuse me, pre viability, which is at 24 weeks and upholding the Texas law would mean it would be unlawful for a woman or a doctor to perform an abortion on a woman after 15 weeks of pregnancy. So that is a direct contradiction to what Rhode tells us. Um, and also its progeny, which includes planned parenthood versus Casey. So yes, if, if the Supreme court upholds the slot, I do think it would have the effect of completely overruling Rowe.

Speaker 1: (04:53)

And the Supreme court is expected to announce its decision in June, what it potentially impact us here in California,

Speaker 3: (05:02)

Right now in California, the abortion laws here, um, we're following Roe basically. So women have a fundamental right to terminate their pregnancies before the fetus is viable. So about 24 weeks and also when the procedure is necessary to protect the life and the health of the mother, if the Mississippi law is upheld by the U S Supreme court, I don't expect that the law would change in California. And that's based on the current layout of the legislature here, as well as the governor. Um, however, if those layouts of, you know, the political parties in charge of our state were to change, which they obviously could someday, um, certainly then we would be in the same risk as any other state. I mean, if a legislature passes a different law, we can't expect that the us Supreme court would say that's unconstitutional. So I don't believe that we're at a direct risk today, women in California. But I do think that, um, if this is the case in the future, we, you know, any state could potentially enact more restrictive abortion measures as a result of this really

Speaker 1: (06:04)

I've been speaking with San Diego lawyer and president of the lawyer's club of San Diego, Maggie Schroeder, Maggie, thank you so much for joining us.

Speaker 3: (06:12)

Thank you so much for having me.

The United States Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on a controversial Mississippi state law that would ban abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy.

The case has drawn attention throughout the nation in what many view as the biggest threat to legal abortion in decades and its potential impact on Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that protects abortion rights.

Lawyer and president of the Lawyers Club of San Diego Maggie Schroedter joined Midday Edition on Wednesday to talk about what she took from Wednesday's hearing, and what they ultimately could mean for states other than just Mississippi, including California if the Court upholds the Mississippi law.

Become a KPBS sponsor

"I don't believe that we're at a direct risk today — women in California, but I do think that if this is the case certainly in the future, any state could potentially enact more restrictive abortion measures as a result of this ruling," Schroedter said.

But Schroedter warns this if the law is upheld it will set a new precedent.

What could Supreme Court abortion case mean for California?

Listen to this story by Kitty Alvarado.

"There are at least 20 states currently have restrictive abortion legislation pending and sort of ready to go and what we can expect is those states would act similar or even more restrictive abortion legislation," she said.

During arguments, Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart had harsh words for Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood.

"Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood haunt our country. They have no basis in the Constitution," he said. "They have no home in our history or traditions. They've damaged the democratic process. They've poisoned the law. They've choked off compromise. Nowhere else does this court recognize a right to end a human life."

Become a KPBS sponsor

But Darrah DiGiorgio Johnson, the president of Planned Parenthood of the Pacific Southwest said one in four women have had an abortion and most of us know someone who has had one.

She said this decision should be made by private citizens in their own homes.

"They are your neighbors, your coworkers, the folks at the shopping mall the people that you know that are in your family," she said. "And so the folks we take care of at Planned Parenthood who are choosing abortion care have made that choice for themselves because it is a right, a fundamental right and it is health care. And it really saddens me that if you are being told when to choose and if how you’re supposed to start or plan your family no one should get in between that decision. That should be a decision between you and the people in your family that love and care for you but certainly not the government."

Sarah Bacerra, president of the San Diego Women’s March, said women have been fighting for their rights for generations and this case shows the need to continue their mission.

"If we’re not fighting for our rights everyday, if we’re not fighting for our democracy and our ability to make these choices, to have this autonomy, it’s a very, very fragile thing that can go away," she said. "So let’s keep fighting together."

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision is not expected until mid-2022.