Yes. In addition, I say to my friend, have the lawyers who are familiar with the Stenberg case. This chart shows the differences between this bill and the Stenberg case in terms of the legalese. Basically, they are identical. What we have is the Stenberg case that ruled that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional because it placed an undue burden on women because the definition is vague and there is no exception to protect women's health. Lawyers and constitutional experts tell us that the same problem exists in S. 3. So my friend is right. We would bring the legal people together. We would bring the women back. We could have another debate and then, regardless of how one feels--and I know the Senator and I may come down differently on this in the end--that is fine. I do not expect my position to prevail, let's be clear. But I think the Senate should, at the minimum, have the humility to hold a hearing and find out how they ought to draft this bill.
Barbara Boxer: “Yes. In addition, I say to my friend, have the lawyers who are familiar with the Stenberg case. This chart shows the…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the legal implications of a bill in relation to the Stenberg case.
Share
More from Barbara Boxer
The way the Senate works, as you know, it’s a supermajority to get anything done. It has nothing to do with age.
I think we have to pay attention to David Axelrod. He is really brilliant when it comes to winning campaigns.
I thought if Clarence Thomas had been a senator, and his wife was texting the president, the president’s chief of staff about overturning democracy, Clarence Thomas, if he were a senator would have been thrown out of the Senate, if he knew…
I think what our governor is doing, he's saying to the president without so many words, this -- this is a moment we have to come together for the people who are hurting. And by the way, you don't attach strings about, you know, voting to…





