Cecile Richards on Roe v. Wade

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Now, for decades in the United States, the culture wars have turned on a woman’s fundamental right to freedom of choice. Two major cases on abortion are the latest to sow divisions across the land. Our next guest, Cecile Richards, was president of Planned Parenthood, and she’s now co-founder of Supermajority, a new organization which is fighting for gender equality. Here she is talking to Walter Isaacson about what the Mississippi and Texas cases mean for women’s rights, the law and politics.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

WALTER ISAACSON: Thank you, Christiane. And, Cecile Richards, welcome to the show.

RICHARDS: Thank you, Walter.

ISAACSON: There are two big cases that have just hit the Supreme Court on abortion. The first is from Texas, your home state. Your mother was governor of Texas. Explain that Texas law and why you think the justices are now taking it up.

RICHARDS: So, the Texas law essentially bans any safe and legal abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, which, of course, is long before many people know they’re pregnant. But it also has an additional element, which is — and one of the ways it tried to evade any challenge in the court, in that it’s set up as a bounty system, which is, the way it’s enforced is by any citizen can turn in anyone they believe who has helped assist a woman access abortion services. And that is, of course, a very novel idea and one that would be — that is — could be used in any number of different kinds of ways to avoid challenges in the court. So that the two elements are really before the court, but, of course, probably most important, Walter, is that, in Texas now, you cannot get a legal abortion after six weeks, and that’s been in effect now for more than three months.

ISAACSON: And the other case is a Mississippi case that says, after 15 weeks, a state can ban an abortion. Were you surprised? I mean, what’s changed since Roe v. Wade that would make them change the timing? And were you surprised at what you heard in the oral arguments?

RICHARDS: Well, I was really disheartened by what I heard in the oral argument. And I think your question is exactly on point. It’s the one that Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Sotomayor asked, which is, we have had the right in this country to safe and legal abortion for nearly 50 years now. It is established law. It’s an established right. And yet the court seemed willing to completely abandon precedent and rule now that what has been in effect, which is essentially, up until viability, a woman or a pregnant person has the right to make their decision about a pregnancy, and that there should be no undue burden on exercising that right, the court seemed willing to completely throw out both of those principles. And what Justice Sotomayor said is, what has changed in 50 years that would make such a dramatic difference for the court to basically go against precedent? She said, the medicine hasn’t changed. The question of viability has changed. Women’s need to be able to make their own decisions about pregnancy hasn’t changed. The only thing that has changed is politics on the Supreme Court. And, of course, she talked very eloquently about whether or not the court can survive the stench that will result from potentially overturning a right that women have had for 50 years.

ISAACSON: Well, yes, what’s changed is the politics and elections have consequences.

RICHARDS: Correct.

ISAACSON: And that’s what’s causing this. Isn’t it partly on the Democrats and those who favor the right to abortion that they have been able — they have been unable to control the politics of this?

RICHARDS: Well, first, I just want to say we actually — I work with an organization who just did polling with Planned Parenthood. The right for women to make their own decisions about pregnancy, rather than the government, is something that’s supported not just by Democrats. It is supported by independents, by Republicans. People actually in the country don’t understand why this is a political issue. So I think that’s important. And, in fact, I think the most recent poll said that about 80 percent of Americans believe that, when the question is, who should make a decision about a pregnancy, the pregnant person or the government, overwhelmingly, 80 percent, say it should be the woman. Now, the question of politics and whether the Democrats should have been able to prevent, as you know, Donald Trump committed to only appointing justices that would overturn Roe vs. Wade. He was successful with Mitch McConnell’s help in putting three justices on the Supreme Court. And even though they said and there’s been — people have now shown their testimony saying they believe in precedent and established law, it seems they are absolutely willing to go against that. These justices were put out in the most partisan fashion. Usually, we think of, historically, that justices of the Supreme Court are supported by a bipartisan group. As we know, the three justices that were put on by President Donald Trump were put on in a very partisan fashion. And, in fact, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was a pivotal vote in this case and all future cases, was put on just weeks before the presidential election in almost a completely partisan vote. So, they’re — and we know that the American public has a very low opinion of the Supreme Court right now. They believe it’s very politicized. And I think that’s going to be a problem for our judicial system going forward.

ISAACSON: This politicization of the issue in the past 20 years or so harks back to something that Justice Ginsburg said, at one point, which was that maybe it would have been better if this all had gone through legislative processes, rather than Roe v. Wade having done it by fiat by the Supreme Court. What do you say to that?

RICHARDS: Well, with all respect to the departed Justice Ginsburg, who, of course, we all wish was still on the Supreme Court right now, the truth is, Roe was decided because this was a critical health issue for women across the country. Women, young, healthy women, were dying in emergency rooms all across the United States of America. It was a public health crisis. And it was a right that the justices believed women should have, regardless of their zip code, regardless of what state they lived in. I mean, it is incredibly ironic, though, after 50 years of a right that women, families have been able to expect that they had that, suddenly, overnight, they could lose that right. And it may be that, as Justice Ginsburg has said at the time, we now are going to go back to a time in which there are states where women have rights and states where they don’t, and this is going to be fought out on a state-by-state fashion.

ISAACSON: You have cited polls saying that a large majority when you frame the question as being, should it be up to the woman or should it be up to the state about whether to have an abortion, come down on the side of the line allowing it to be up to the woman. But if you phrase that question in a very neutral way, which is, do you tend to be pro-life, do you tend to be prochoice, the country is pretty evenly split. How do you make the argument? I mean, do you even get the other side of the argument that maybe people feel that the right to abortion is a bad thing?

RICHARD: Well, I just — fundamentally, I understand what you’re saying. But, you know, I worked for Planned Parenthood for many years. I’ve had many conversations with voters, patients, doctors. The question really is not how you personally feel about abortion. Because it is a deeply personal issue. The question is, who should make that decision? And, you know, it’s interesting. One of the valid initiatives that we have dealt with in when I was at Planned Parenthood was that — was actually an abortion ban that went on the ballot in Mississippi. So, where the voters were going to make a decision of whether people who were pregnant should be able to make their decisions about a pregnancy with their doctor or whoever or should it be to stay. Overwhelmingly, the voters of Mississippi said it should be the decision by a woman of what to do about her pregnancy. Because I think if you are — if you actually talked to people, they do have deeply personal feelings about abortion and maybe about what they think they would do or what they would hope their daughter would do or whatever their circumstances. But also, they understand that they can’t make that decision for every other woman and they don’t want to, and they certainly don’t want politicians making that decision. So, you’re right. You can have — and I think, I guess, the last piece on that is, this binary nomenclature of prolife and prochoice is so outdated and frankly, irrelevant because this is seen as not a political kind of labeled issue, it is seen as a deeply personal issue. Probably for a lot of women, the most personal important private decision they’ll make in their lifetime, and the last thing we want and the majority of Americans want is government to be in there making that decision for a woman.

ISAACSON: So, if that’s the case, if it’s put to the voters to say, who should make the choice, and the voters are going to say, we should allow the woman to make the choice, why don’t you fight it out in referenda and around the country and do it so that we have a political resolution to this problem?

RICHARD: Well, as you know, every state has a different rule on that, but I actually agree with you. I think if this was put to the voters to make this decision, it would overwhelmingly be clear. But all 50 states have different ways of dealing with this. And so, it’s kind of interesting. One of the points that Justice Kavanaugh made was, which is one of the most disturbing parts of, I thought, the oral arguments on Mississippi was, well, this issue is so complicated, deciding between women and a fetus. He clearly was not able to make that decision. He felt that was too hard. So, we should throw it back to the Mississippi legislature, which I’ll just let that stand, you know, for one of the most — if the Supreme Court of the United States can’t figure this out, I’m not sure why he thinks the state legislature in Mississippi or any other state can figure it out.

ISAACSON: But don’t state legislatures represent the will of the people in that state eventually?

RICHARD: Not when you come from states like Texas or Mississippi where — I mean, Texas, our state legislature is so gerrymandering, as you know, I’m sure you’ve heard the Justice Department has brought suit again trying to have the lines redrawn because they are drawn to favor the Republican Party. So, no, they’re not representative. And I think probably any woman, any person of color in this country would probably look at their state legislature with very few exceptions and say, actually, that is not a representative body of the people of our state. I mean, look, it’s only — I remember the first case I heard before the Supreme Court when I was with Planned Parenthood before the justices and the only woman on the court was Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And I thought, here is a woman carrying an entire gender on her shoulders because we don’t have equal representation, not in — neither in the courts, nor in state legislatures. A true vote by the people is a much different thing.

ISAACSON: When you say that they haven’t stopped the Texas law, which is true for the moment, but they have agreed to take the case. So, they could decide in favor of the Mississippi law but against the Texas law. Would that be something that you would consider to be not exactly a victory, but not exactly the worst loss?

RICHARD: Certainly, anything at this point is better than what we have now. But, Walter, the thing to remember is that this — the Texas case, they absolutely could say, we’re going to send this back, allow the abortion providers in the state to challenge the law, and because it’s so clearly unconstitutional, we’re going to keep it from being in effect until this can work its way through the system. They did not do that. And as you know, Justice Roberts actually voted with the minority to say, we should actually prevent this law from being in effect until we can deal with the issues at hand. That’s a very bad sign, Walter. That is essentially saying, now, for potentially months, this law, this unconstitutional law allowing local citizens to turn in their fellow citizens because they think they have access on what should be a legal right in this country to legal abortion, that law is in effect today and the consequences are going to be felt over the months ahead. I actually think it’s going to be — it will be the first-time people in this country, for many folks after Roe to see what it looks like to live in a country where safe and legal abortion is no longer available. I can’t help but point out too that the impact is not going to be felt equally. The folks already that we’re seeing have the least access to health care in Texas. Women that live in rural parts of the state. Women with low incomes. Young people. Women of color. These are folks who can’t get on a plane and fly to California or fly to New York. And so, again, the burden and the cruelty of this law is going to be felt disproportionately on folks who already have the least access to health care.

ISAACSON: It’s already in effect. Nobody knows better than you how things affect people on the ground because you’ve been at Planned Parenthood, you’ve lived in Texas. Tell me, what is the real impact as we’re seeing today of this law on the ground?

RICHARD: I mean, from talking to doctors who are abortion providers, providing safe and legal abortion in Texas, women are coming in, in tears, women are being turned away because they cannot provide legally the service to which — you know, which they are entitled. Many women are saying, I can’t leave. I already have children. I’m working. I am not someone who can actually take off a week and go to another state. Women with complicated pregnancies because, of course, there’s no exceptions under this law. And I think these stories are going to continue to come out. You know, the other thing I fear, and this was what I’ve always feared if Roe were overturned, is that, of course, abortion existed before Roe. It’s not that we didn’t have abortion in the United States of America. It was simply illegal and unsafe in many parts of the country. And women, if they were determined to have an abortion, often would take things into their own hands. And I think that’s — those are the stories I fear will come out of Texas. And I know that medical providers are working overtime to try to keep women safe and keep them from harm’s way.

ISAACSON: You’ve talked about the Texas law and the unusual way it tries to circumvent the court and have an unusual mechanism for working, which is vigilante, you know, citizens can just sue an abortion provider. Governor Newsom in California said, all right, if you want to play that game, we’ll do that for guns. We’ll just allow people to start suing people on gun issues. Do you think that’s an interesting strategy? Is it a strategy you would support? Do you think that that might help change the nature of thought in Texas about this type of laws?

RICHARD: Well, I mean, I really applaud Governor Newsom for being creative and actually, frankly, just pointing out the — really insanity of this idea that somehow as opposed to the state enforcing a law and Justice Roberts said this in his — you know, when they refused to — when Supreme Court refused to intervene in Texas is, you can’t, you know, do this sort of evasion of state enforcement by just putting it to the people. I think it’s important that Governor Newsom has raised this so that people can begin to grapple with what would it look like if, in fact, we did have vigilantes all over the country enforcing all kinds of laws as opposed to having it go through a logical legal process. I don’t know that it’s going to — I don’t think it’s going to influence the Texas legislature. They seem to be, you know, sort of completely out of bounds. But I hope it influences the Supreme Court and justices will look at what’s happened in Texas and say, this is absolutely not sustainable across the country.

ISAACSON: Cecile Richards, thank you so much for joining us.

RICHARD: Thanks, Walter.