|
|
A Legal History of Roe v. Wade
listen:
 The 1973 Supreme Court ruling made abortion legal in the U.S. but the decision was criticized from the get-go as being on shaky constitutional grounds. Since then abortion opponents have tried vigorously to chip away at it and today those efforts are stronger than ever. We’ll look at how Roe v. Wade came to be, how it’s held up, and how it might fare in the face of future challenges. Laura's guests are Neil Siegel, Assistant Professor of Law and Political Science at Duke Law School and Mathew Staver, President of the Liberty Counsel.
|
Support FromHighlightsNavigationUser login | ||||
I am very disappointed in the show on Roe vs Wade - this is an issue about women't rights, and your two guests are MALE law scholars? Are there no female law professors? The whole discussion was stuck in the anti-abortion flypaper.
Unquestionning acceptance of the language of the anti-choice contingent (pro-life, partial birth abortion, etc), on and on.
You had the head of the Liberty Counsel on - this is a rabid anti-abortion, ant-gay organization in Florida, and you never disclosed these facts, which is a serious journalistic lapse.
You have a responsibility to give a clear airing of the issues, and Laura just never asked the tough questions, or the natural follow up questions, she needs to do her homework.
You completely accepted the vocabulary of the anti choice crowd. There is no such medical procedure as "partial birth abortion", they are ANTI ABORTIONISTS not PRO-LIFE. Most of them oppose birth control, too, so what do you make of that?
ed
I totally agree. I am a fan of the show, but on an issue as important of this I dont think the debate is fair if the one of the guests holds a strong anti choice and the other panel member is basically neutral. Where is the balance? Poor job Laura