Latest / Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps / Roe v Wade: When Josh & Joe Rogan Debated Abortion

Transcript

Roe v Wade: When Josh & Joe Rogan Debated Abortion · Uncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps

• 0:00
  Good day, humans. What a week in the United States at least is raising all kinds of questions
• 0:09
  about human rights, women's rights, women's right to choose. Obviously, I'm getting a lot
• 0:17
  of questions on social media about what I think about the leaked document from the Supreme
• 0:23
  Court. That alone is unprecedented. The idea that a draft decision would be leaked to the press
• 0:30
  to Politico, and I'm sure there will be all the necessary hunting down of whether or not that came
• 0:36
  from liberals inside the court, whether it may have come from a justice or a clerk, whether it
• 0:41
  could have come from the conservative side of the court trying to make this decision to fade a
• 0:45
  complete. If you're not across it, basically the constitutional decision, the Supreme Court decision,
• 0:51
  Roe vs. Wade, that has ensured a woman's right to have an abortion for decades, it seems
• 1:00
  is about to be overturned. I don't know whether or not there's that's a done deal yet.
• 1:07
  I have no special insight into the workings of the court and whether or not they could consider
• 1:11
  to wind it back, but this draft decision written by Samuel Alito certainly seems to be the writing
• 1:18
  on the wall for a conservative Christian really goal of the past half century to come to fruition
• 1:25
  this year, and this will be probably the biggest legacy of the Trump administration. Of Trump's
• 1:30
  first term, shall we say, in case he has another. I haven't wanted to talk about this on the
• 1:35
  year on my radio show. It's not really the place for it, but I do want to have, share a few thoughts
• 1:41
  here. So instead of releasing our scheduled episode, which is with the extraordinary individual
• 1:48
  Kurt Furnley, who you'll hear from next week, I thought we should just try to unwrap some of
• 1:54
  this and hopefully help you to think about it. I have long publicly held that courts are too
• 2:02
  overweighted in American democracy and that it's full-hardy to entrench rights too much in the
• 2:10
  justice system rather than in the legislative branch, which I think is where we and a democracy
• 2:16
  should come to decisions about big issues like abortion. What's scary about this decision for me,
• 2:25
  quite apart from the obvious fact that it's going to derange the lives potentially of millions and
• 2:33
  millions of American women and leave open the possibility of a future Republican administration
• 2:39
  with a Republican House and a Republican Senate conceivably imposing a ban on abortion in all
• 2:45
  states, not just the ones who choose to ban it now, is that the decision also throws into question,
• 2:53
  although it claims not to. All of the other constitutional decisions that the Supreme Court has
• 2:58
  arrived at, which are also based on the same premise in the Constitution. The right to game
• 3:05
  marriage is also obviously not written in the Constitution, it's a right that is discovered and
• 3:11
  that the Supreme Court has interpreted the 14th Amendment as implying, treating everybody equally.
• 3:21
  There are all kinds of potential ramifications if you wanted to think about the ripple effects
• 3:26
  of all this, that this court or future courts, which may yet be even more conservative, who knows,
• 3:32
  good undo. And it's a caution, retail, about what happens when conversation becomes so polarized,
• 3:43
  that you start using the umpires as a way of achieving legislative victories.
• 3:50
  It's the wrong place to locate our democratic disagreements, the control of the court. I think
• 3:59
  this has been clear for some years and now the chickens are coming home to roost.
• 4:04
  It's also worth noting that even when the legislative process is inadequate and laws are imperfect,
• 4:11
  the temperature of American democracy is so hot that it doesn't allow for the fuzzy edges that
• 4:17
  other democracies enjoy. It may sound a bit weird to say that fuzzy edges are something that you would
• 4:23
  enjoy, but there is a kind of don't ask, don't tell approach to these hot button issues and a lot
• 4:31
  of other democracies that doesn't seem to exist in the US because the moment you give anyone an
• 4:37
  inch, they will take a mile. So to articulate exactly what I mean, in the jurisdiction where I live,
• 4:42
  New South Wales, the most populated state in Australia, do you know when abortion became legal?
• 4:49
  Less than three years ago. Do you know how many people were getting abortions prior to that?
• 4:56
  Loads. I have two friends who have had abortions and they certainly didn't technically meet the
• 5:04
  requirements of the law. So just to fill you in a little bit, prior to 2019 in New South Wales,
• 5:12
  abortion was explicitly listed as a crime, but the interpretation of that law was subject to a
• 5:19
  ruling, a court ruling, the Levine ruling, which held an abortion to be legal if a doctor had an
• 5:25
  honest and reasonable belief that due to any economic, social or medical ground or reason,
• 5:31
  the abortion was necessary to, quote, preserve the woman involved from serious danger to her
• 5:36
  life or physical or mental health, which the continuance of the pregnancy would entail.
• 5:44
  Now, that language was big enough to drive a truck through or to drive thousands of abortion
• 5:50
  through as the case may be. And if we lived in a culture which was inclined to litigate everything
• 5:58
  and to push for our rights as far as is humanly possible and to test the very limit of every word
• 6:04
  in every statute, I can fully imagine a scenario in which any one of my friends who had gotten an
• 6:11
  abortion could have told someone else who might then sue their doctor, the question of whether
• 6:19
  they'd have standing, I suppose maybe they would have to be a partner or something like that who
• 6:23
  didn't want the abortion to go ahead, but you could, you know, if you were a conservative Christian
• 6:26
  lobby group, you could certainly find such a person with whom to launch such a case and you could
• 6:32
  say, well, hang on, what was the serious danger here? And the reality is that doctors just interpreted
• 6:40
  a serious danger to mental health as being the fact that the woman wants an abortion.
• 6:45
  And if she doesn't get it, that poses a serious danger to her mental health. Therefore,
• 6:50
  there were plenty of widely available abortions funded by the federal government,
• 6:55
  at least in part, depending on where you were. And on it went, and that was only codified into law
• 7:01
  in October of 2019, when abortions up to 22 weeks were legalized after 22 weeks, you need
• 7:08
  two doctors approval. That's the state in New South Wales, and now the law has caught up in every
• 7:13
  state and territory. But I just say that to point out those two points. One, there is room in a
• 7:21
  democracy for a little bit of closing our eyes to big culture war fights and just sort of allowing
• 7:28
  things to happen in the background. You could argue, make the same case against
• 7:32
  euthanasia, which, you know, physician assisted suicide is still illegal in New South Wales.
• 7:40
  It's the only state in Australia where it is still illegal, and it still takes place sometimes
• 7:46
  in the shadows. Now, I've argued in print in the past that that should cease to be the case,
• 7:50
  we should legalize it, we should have systems in place, we should make sure that it is
• 7:54
  codified. But that's largely so that you don't have abuses of the system where it takes place
• 7:59
  without the kinds of guardrails that you would have if there was a law governing how it can be done.
• 8:05
  That's largely to appease people who are opposed to euthanasia, to ensure that you have the
• 8:12
  necessary number of doctors signing off on it, and that it only takes place under certain conditions
• 8:17
  when the person is terminally ill and there are no other options. Because at the moment,
• 8:21
  it's a wild west, just like with the war on drugs. When you ban something entirely,
• 8:28
  it's essentially completely unregulated, and you're handing it over to the black market,
• 8:31
  you're handing it over to take place in the shadows. Now, in the case of the war on drugs,
• 8:36
  I think that's a calamity. In the case of abortion prior to 2019, it just kind of potted along,
• 8:42
  and it was just kind of okay. Now, I know that's not an ideal situation. I know that women's rights
• 8:48
  activists will think that that's an abomination that I would even suggest to that. I think it's
• 8:54
  good that it's now legal in New South Wales, but my point is simply that when things are very,
• 9:01
  very hot to touch, maybe it's just best not to touch them. Then the second point I would make
• 9:07
  is just that this should be located in Parliament. This should be located in Congress. See,
• 9:12
  the state congresses or federal congress. Ideally, people should have the right
• 9:19
  to form whatever political system they want to as close to home as they can, rather than having
• 9:23
  it far away and Washington DC making rules about what goes on in Wyoming. But if Washington DC is
• 9:29
  going to make rules about what's going on in Wyoming, then surely it should be the democratically
• 9:32
  elected representatives of the people who are making those rules, not a bunch of justices.
• 9:38
  I got into a chat about this a few years ago on Joe Rogan's show. As many of you will know,
• 9:49
  I've been on Joe's show seven times since 2014, and our discussion got a bit heated. I want to
• 9:56
  play you a little bit of it here, just so you can hear Joe and me fleshing out how we think about
• 10:04
  who has standing to talk about this, to think about this, to make rules about this sort of thing,
• 10:09
  and it'll articulate better than I can right now here by myself my thinking about this.
• 10:16
  Here is some of Joe Rogan and me from five years ago. That's where it gets weird, but isn't this
• 10:22
  like life in general? Yeah. It's slippery. Yeah. There's, I mean, it's like we're talking about
• 10:28
  with abortion. Like what is it? Is it killing a baby? Yeah. Or is it a medical procedure? You know,
• 10:32
  can we all just agree that it's both, but that like that? I don't understand why there is,
• 10:36
  especially in this country, like it's so, so polarizing here. No, this is not a debate. No.
• 10:44
  Oh, come on, man. No. Dawkins. Dawkins tweeted something about it that there's nothing that
• 10:51
  people like a human embryo was essentially the same thing as a pig embryo. It was like
• 10:56
  ridiculous comparison to abortion. Look, the religious right will always be
• 11:02
  crazy about the things that it's crazy about. And people will always get offended on Twitter
• 11:07
  when Rogan Dawkins tweets something that's unpopular. But I still affirm that in the state,
• 11:12
  in the states, the conversation around abortion is uniquely different from the way that it is
• 11:17
  in Europe and in Australia. It's much more of a, it's just much more of a fault line issue.
• 11:24
  And I wonder whether in hindsight, it wouldn't have been better for Rog the way it not to actually
• 11:30
  have been decided by the Supreme Court that way. What? Well, just because I don't know.
• 11:35
  People are going to hate this as well. You fucking cisgender piece of shit. I believe,
• 11:40
  I believe in abortion, I believe in abortion rights, but I don't believe that it's,
• 11:45
  that you can find in the constitution of the United States a right, so inalienable,
• 11:52
  that the Supreme Court, like where is it in the constitution? Well, the Supreme Court said there's
• 11:55
  a right to privacy. Therefore, there's a right to abortion because we don't want to interfere
• 12:02
  in women's affairs. But that presupposes that the embryo isn't a human. You don't have the right
• 12:10
  to privacy to kill somebody, right? I mean, if I go into a room, my right to privacy doesn't extend
• 12:16
  to me being able to get away with killing a baby. The question of whether or not it's a baby is
• 12:21
  the relevant question that's not addressed in row. So I think that it should be legal, but I think
• 12:28
  that it should be legal through the legislative process. I think that is a legitimate democratic
• 12:33
  aspiration for people to be able to, and if it means that it's not legal in Alabama because
• 12:38
  a majority of people in Alabama don't want it, I don't think the founding fathers would have a
• 12:41
  problem with that. Well, there's a strong amount of the large amount of people that don't want
• 12:46
  men talking about this at all. You should be able to discuss this. That is one of the main problems
• 12:54
  in female issue. I can understand a woman being upset that a man with no stake in the game
• 13:00
  is stepping up and saying that a woman's shooter should not be able to have an abortion.
• 13:04
  Well, how do I have stake in the game of whether or not for example murder should be legal?
• 13:10
  Okay, this is not that. This is, this is something different. This is someone, if there's
• 13:15
  like three cells in the body, it might be to you, but it might not be to them. If it's just having,
• 13:22
  like, okay, here's the morning after pill. Is that the same as an abortion?
• 13:28
  I don't care because I don't think there's a role with abortion. No, I don't think there's
• 13:31
  any wrong with abortion. But sure there is. If it's a nine-month-old baby, the baby's in there.
• 13:35
  It's about to come out the next day. You decide to open her up and stab it in the head.
• 13:38
  This is what I'm arguing for is a, is a kind of incrementalism, which you were just
• 13:42
  alluding to, right? It's not a black or white thing. Why can't we, why can't we all appreciate
• 13:46
  that it's both because it's become so polarized in the United States that both positions
• 13:51
  are bullshit. And people on both sides know that both positions are bullshit. It's bullshit
• 13:56
  to say that it is just a woman's health issue and has no ethical implications whatsoever. Even if,
• 14:03
  as you say, you're talking about cutting a woman open at nine months and stabbing the embryo
• 14:08
  in the head. It's also bullshit to say that the instant an egg is fertilized, that is a person
• 14:13
  that should have all of the rights to life that an adult should have and that it's murder to kill
• 14:19
  a blast assist that's smaller than the size of the head of a pin. Both of those positions are
• 14:23
  stupid. This is an incremental situation. Life evolves, it grows, a fetus grows, it becomes a human
• 14:30
  being. I mean, Peter Singer, the great philosopher, also on Australian, says that under certain conditions
• 14:35
  in fantaside, the killing of babies should be legal and could be ethical. Well, he's an animal
• 14:39
  in that. He loves animals more than the placebo. Yeah, but he makes a legitimate point, which is that,
• 14:44
  you know, why does it make a difference one day after the baby is born? Suppose you've got a
• 14:48
  premature baby that's born, you know, four weeks early. In fact, now we can already make babies
• 14:55
  survive at right around the point of viability, which is where abortion is still on the, on the
• 15:01
  fringe of. So say you've got a 22 or 23, 24 week old baby, not, not weak old baby after
• 15:08
  birth, you know, timing from the, from the moment of inception, conception. That could live outside
• 15:15
  the womb, but the moment it gets born, it becomes murder to kill it, but you could have killed exactly
• 15:20
  the same organism with exactly the same future and exactly the same prospects and exactly the same
• 15:25
  life. If it was inside the womb, in certain states, well, with unabortioned, I'm not talking about
• 15:33
  late term, I'm talking about the point of viability. What is the probability of a viability time?
• 15:39
  It's been interpreted as being like that 20 to 24 week. But does this specifically say that?
• 15:44
  I don't, I don't think I don't know whether or not that comes out of the actual ruling where
• 15:48
  they were writing it in Roe v Wade, but I do know that that is the way that it's been interpreted
• 15:52
  by lower courts since then. But maybe they actually spelled out the number of weeks. Either way,
• 15:57
  you know, he's pointing to a legitimate, an undramed sort of moral hypocrisy. It's a very
• 16:03
  complicated, slippery issue. It's not simple, black or white. Right. And the idea that we shouldn't
• 16:08
  be allowed to think and talk about the moral quandary of this because we can't have babies.
• 16:13
  Well, I'm not agreeing to that. I'm not agreeing to that. No, and I'm saying that is an argument
• 16:17
  that women want to take because they feel they feel like there's this unjust sort of male dominance
• 16:27
  on the female reproductive system. Look, when I see a bunch of white men,
• 16:31
  white old men sitting in Congress making rules against women, predominantly young women,
• 16:38
  predominantly young women of color who are in areas that have less the least amount of access
• 16:44
  to safe and legally women of color. How so? Because safe legal abortions are more difficult to
• 16:50
  obtain in places like rural Alabama than they are in places like New York City. Yeah, but there's a
• 16:55
  lot of white people in rural Alabama. I don't necessarily think it's a racial issue as much as
• 16:59
  a poverty issue. Yeah. Especially like things like Planned Parenthood and shutting down Planned
• 17:04
  Parenthood. They're just going to affect people that don't have much money. Yep. Who are disproportionately
• 17:07
  people of color as well? Disproportionately in terms of the actual numbers of human beings or
• 17:12
  percentage wise. In terms of percentage wise. Right, but the actual numbers of human beings,
• 17:17
  it's not. Right, but you can understand how it would look bad. If you're black woman,
• 17:21
  you add people of color to that. It accentuates the issue and makes it even more problematic. It
• 17:25
  makes it more of a big left-wing progressive issue. Right, they can't be argued against. Do you
• 17:30
  think the optics discrimination against people of color? Oh, don't want to do that? It's people.
• 17:35
  It's human beings. But do you think that the optics would look as bad if all of the old white
• 17:39
  men who were riding the laws were black? I think it all looked bad. I don't think it'd look
• 17:44
  as bad. Wait a minute. Hold on a second. You're saying that if old white men make these issues,
• 17:50
  it doesn't look as bad. No, I'm saying it looks worse. As bad as possible. It looks
• 17:54
  worse than if old black men were making this issue against all poor people. Yeah, because old white
• 17:59
  men just seem to drip privilege because every single check box they've got going for them. They're
• 18:05
  both male, they're white and they're all tortured argument. Anyway, very tortured argument.
• 18:10
  I think you understand that. You don't think it looks weird when Clarence Thomas votes against
• 18:13
  abortion. Yeah, I do. Yeah, so there you go. But I mean, my point, my point is simply,
• 18:20
  I take the optics as being a bad thing. I think the optics are worse if it's white people and if
• 18:25
  it's black people, but I'm happy to yield that point to concede that point if that's a sticking one.
• 18:31
  The point is we have to be able to have conversations about anything without allowing our identities
• 18:37
  to prevent us from being able to think. I agree with you by the time that I came on this show.
• 18:43
  It was because I was getting into an argument with an activist about whether or not I had a right
• 18:49
  to have an opinion about whether or not Stephen Colbert had been racist.
• 18:55
  Right. And she was claiming that I didn't have a right to have a conversation about it because I'm
• 19:00
  a white man. Well, that was just the way she tried to get out of the argument. You know, the whole
• 19:06
  thing before that was her not understanding the joke. And she didn't want to own up to the fact that
• 19:11
  she didn't understand the joke. And then when you sort of explained it to her, she was using the
• 19:15
  you as a white man thing to try to deny your opinion. But don't you think it happens all the time?
• 19:20
  I think we're both on the same page here in that I think we both agree that you should absolutely
• 19:27
  be able to have a conversation about this. The question is should a man be able to decide
• 19:33
  what a woman can and can't do with her body and should we be able to make the laws?
• 19:37
  But you just smuggled in the term with her body. Well, it is a baby if it's a plasticist and it
• 19:41
  is in her body. Right. It's a plasticist in her body. Right. So that is a decision that we're
• 19:47
  talking about that. So when it gets to be an embryo or a fetus along the way, somewhere along
• 19:52
  the way it ceases to be just her body. But an unrelated male human being, when should that person
• 19:58
  be able to make a decision and should a male human being be able to make a decision at all? Because
• 20:02
  if you can make a decision about the embryo or a fetus, can you make it about the plasticist?
• 20:07
  Like, when can you decide and why should a man be able to make that decision in the first place?
• 20:11
  Because he's got a brain as well. And we're all interested in. No, no, no, no, no. You're talking about
• 20:15
  controlling someone's body. You are talking about controlling a body. No, which a woman with a
• 20:20
  plasticist inside of her. You tell her she can't take care of that plasticist and remove it. She
• 20:24
  must make it viable and bring it to birth. We're talking about when a homocypian comes into existence.
• 20:29
  That's a philosophical and ethical question. No, it's not. If you're telling a woman, if you're
• 20:33
  telling a woman's body, no, no, no, because we're talking about the rights giving someone a right
• 20:37
  or stopping them and controlling them. Yeah. If you're talking about a plasticist inside a woman's
• 20:42
  body and you're a man and you decide, you don't even know this woman. You decide by your moral
• 20:46
  argument and judgment, she should not be able to terminate that plasticist. Then you are deciding
• 20:51
  what she can do with her body. No, you're deciding what she can do to the plasticist. It's in her body.
• 20:57
  It's inside her body. Sure. It's also inside her body when it's nine months old. So you're saying
• 21:02
  a man, unrelated man should be able to have input on whether a woman should be able to terminate a
• 21:07
  plasticist. No, I'm saying that the democratic institutions of the state should be able to
• 21:12
  decide that. I'm not talking about democratic institutions. We're talking very specifically about
• 21:16
  a man. What are you talking about? Well, if it's a dictatorship, then I don't agree with it. I
• 21:21
  do believe that people should be able to, I think this is something that people ought to be able to
• 21:25
  vote on. Yes. I personally, again, favor abortion rights, but I don't think that the gender of the
• 21:32
  person who is voted into power by the voting public is relevant in terms of whether or not the
• 21:38
  voting public thinks that embryos are human beings. I don't think that embryos have a right to life,
• 21:45
  but I don't think that it makes sense to say that an embryo is just the woman's body.
• 21:50
  We're not talking about an embryo. We're talking about the entire process, right? The entire process
• 21:54
  of conception to birth and that's somewhere along the line. What are you arguing? Are you arguing that
• 21:59
  if there are males in positions of power in Congress that they should have to abstain from ruling?
• 22:05
  Should the male justices on the Supreme Court have to abstain from voting on abortion cases?
• 22:10
  I'm arguing that it's problematic when a man decides, can I get pregnant? Decides when a baby
• 22:21
  is actually a baby. So should men not be allowed to vote for? I'm not saying that. I'm saying
• 22:25
  candidates that are anti-abortion. Don't you think it's problematic that a guy should decide whether
• 22:30
  like say if you're a hard-core right-wing person? Yeah, I've already said it looks bad.
• 22:33
  Like, it's not just the looks. It's the fuck looks man. But what does problematic mean other than looks?
• 22:37
  Well, it's not. It's a huge issue. It's not looks. It's a huge issue that someone who cannot get
• 22:43
  pregnant decides that another human being that they're totally unrelated to can't make the
• 22:47
  decision that five cells that have bundled together must be brought to life. They think that those
• 22:52
  five cells are a person. Well, they don't even know this. I mean, you're just a lot of cells.
• 22:56
  They don't even know this person. They don't know this person. Why should they have any power over
• 22:59
  this person? Well, why should they have any power? Are they determining whether or not are they
• 23:04
  controlling a person's body and when are they saving a baby? Well, that's precisely the question,
• 23:09
  isn't it? Right. It is the question. Should they should a male have the right to determine whether
• 23:13
  or not a woman can murder her newborn baby? It's a good question. I say no. At least she's consistent.
• 23:21
  Yeah. I don't think that you should be in one year old. I don't think anybody should be able to
• 23:26
  murder a baby. I don't think a man should have the right. I think we society as a society. No,
• 23:32
  collective. No, no, no, no. You were just I thought you were just saying that you you think
• 23:35
  that a man should not be able to prevent a mother from killing her baby. No, that's I said that
• 23:39
  wrong. What I mean is no because that is what you're saying with regard to the to abortion.
• 23:44
  You're saying that a man shouldn't have a should not have the right to prevent a woman from
• 23:48
  killing her baby. It's a very hot in the eye. It's not going to work. Okay. I know what you're
• 23:54
  saying. And I know that you're saying that we should all have a stake in this. We should all be
• 23:57
  able to discuss this. I just think that when you talk about like especially like a blastocyst
• 24:02
  eventually becoming an embryo, we have to agree in some way, shape or form that you and I don't
• 24:08
  have a stake in it. We're not going to get pregnant. No, it's a way bigger issue for a woman that
• 24:14
  it is for a man. Yes. So we agree. We agree that it's a way bigger issue for a woman that is
• 24:21
  for a man, but you should be able to discuss it. I just think we both agree that you should be
• 24:24
  able to discuss it. Yeah, I mean, you should be able to help us from here to be where I'm coming
• 24:28
  from here is that I feel like we use identity politics to deprive other people of standing
• 24:35
  to discuss questions that are actually universal because they're moral questions. Right. And I think
• 24:40
  we all have so I one thing that I try to do as much as possible is understand where people who I
• 24:45
  disagree with are coming from. And I know you do that as well. So I am pro abortion rights,
• 24:51
  but in order for me to understand where people who detest abortion are coming from, it's necessary
• 24:57
  for me to make the sort of leap of empathy and logic into their camp and see things from the way
• 25:03
  that they see them, which is that the instant egg is fertilized for them, that becomes a sacred
• 25:08
  a sacred question of a new life where it's no longer about the woman's body. It's now a moral
• 25:13
  and ethical question that we're all involved in because we're all involved in what our culture is
• 25:17
  allowed to do and who it's allowed to kill and how it's allowed to kill them. So it becomes a bit
• 25:21
  more like a death penalty question where you might say, well, I'm never going to be up for the
• 25:25
  death penalty because I'm never going to do anything that would require that would put me on death
• 25:29
  row. So what standing do I have to be in favor or against the death penalty? That's sort of a moot
• 25:35
  question like we're all in this society together. We'll have to figure out what's right and wrong.
• 25:40
  And if we've got a brain, we should have conversations about what's good or bad.
• 25:43
  And the fact that I'm unlikely to be in a specific scenario doesn't actually really give me
• 25:47
  less standing to have a conversation about it or even to write laws about it if people vote me
• 25:52
  into a position where I can write laws about it. Well, I certainly think it does when you're talking
• 25:56
  about a blasticist. I certainly think it does when you talk about the argument of conception and
• 26:00
  when something becomes alive. So there you have it. Jo and me arguing two white guys arguing
• 26:07
  about abortion five years ago. Look, my thoughts are with all women in America, especially who are
• 26:17
  trying to process this and trying to think about what this means for you and your kids and your
• 26:21
  grandkids. I hope that this doesn't open the door to the Supreme Court then striking down a whole
• 26:30
  bunch of rights that people have have here to fall been taking for granted on the basis that they
• 26:36
  were unjustly decided. But that is the risk that you pose when you fail to legislate these things
• 26:45
  as a community through your elected representatives and leave them in the hands of the courts. You never
• 26:50
  know how that court is going to be comprised. Now, the counterpoint to that is, of course, you never
• 26:54
  know what a future government is going to do either. Up until now, I think a lot of left-wing
• 26:59
  people have thought that the Supreme Court is more stable and more of a guarantor of rights than
• 27:05
  the whims of a democratic mob are. But this just goes to show that when the Supreme Court
• 27:11
  does shift its balance of power, that can then have implications that all of a sudden send
• 27:17
  shockwaves through the whole demos and the whole way that society thinks that it is structured
• 27:23
  in terms of what it can and can't do with the hottest button culture war issues. You have to be
• 27:28
  able to find ways of litigating these things in the place where they are supposed to be litigated
• 27:33
  in a democracy, which is in the democratic chamber itself. America is broken. America has all kinds
• 27:38
  of problems. I mean, the filibuster is a problem. The undemocratic representation in the Senate
• 27:43
  is a problem where you have a small minority of human beings in the smallest states holding
• 27:50
  the balance of power and carrying as much weight as such large populations in the big liberal
• 27:56
  states. You have the electoral college system, which itself is undemocratic. America needs democratic
• 28:01
  reform. America needs fundamental democratic reform to its institutions. You need a reform of the
• 28:08
  way that the Senate does its business. You need a reform of the norms about exactly how
• 28:14
  these things should get resolved. It's a shamozl, frankly. That's the technical term for it.
• 28:22
  It's a shamozl. You've got calls now from people on the left for Joe Biden to stack the court to
• 28:27
  add, you know, additional two or four justices to the court. That would be nuclear. I mean, yes,
• 28:34
  look, what Mitch McConnell did at the end of Donald Trump's term by, you know,
• 28:40
  quickly allowing Donald Trump to appoint a new Supreme Court justice after having said at the
• 28:46
  end of Obama's term that, you know, the end of a president's term is not a time to be able to
• 28:51
  do so and holding up the appointment that Obama rightly should have gotten for nine months.
• 28:57
  All of that was abysmal, but it was an abysmal breach of unwritten codes to actually rewrite
• 29:06
  the Supreme Court and pile in more justices would be, I think the beginning of a monumental
• 29:16
  political and cultural war in the United States, the likes of which we haven't seen since
• 29:21
  the early 1960s. And I'm not sure that that's the way to go. I can't tell you how to do business
• 29:28
  America, but at some point the left has to realize that with the way the system is, even though
• 29:36
  it's rigged against you, you're still losing. You're still losing way too much and you're going to
• 29:40
  lose again this year in the midterm elections and the Biden administration is going to massively
• 29:46
  lose the House of Representatives and you got to figure out why. I'm not going to go on a rant now
• 29:52
  about cancel culture and wokeness and all of the distractions that the left is playing around with,
• 29:57
  but something that the left is doing in America is not resonating with the heartland and you need
• 30:02
  the heartland to win and you need to win to get lasting change in the place where the change
• 30:07
  matters and that is Congress and the White House. It shouldn't always be. It never has been the
• 30:14
  Supreme Court. Have a wonderful week. I'll be back with regular programming next week. Take care,
• 30:21
  continue to strive as best you can to have conversations that are civil, but as much as possible,
• 30:27
  uncomfortable. Uncomfortable conversations is produced by Stefan Postuma. Follow me, Josh
• 30:37
  Epps on Twitter and Instagram for all the latest. May your day be fruitful, your mind humble,
• 30:43
  your enemies generous and your conversations perfectly, sparklingly, delectably, uncomfortable.