Source: https://openargs.com/tag/abortion/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:54:56+00:00

Document:
Today’s special, hangover-free New Years’ episode follows up on some of the things we discussed during our Episode 238 interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast, including the never-controversial subject of libertarianism. Strap in; it’s been an interesting year!
After that, Andrew further explains the “Are You A Cop?”-style segment from Episode 238 regarding whether Brett Kavanaugh “voted with the liberals” in an abortion case. (Hint: no.) You’ll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood… as well as getting a deep dive into Clarence Thomas’s dissent and an explainer on the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a!
After all that, it’s time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #107 regarding defamation. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
We first discussed libertarianism back in Episode 22.
You can click here to read Clarence Thomas’s blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court’s denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases; click here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue; and click here to read the Washington Examiner article discussed on the show.
Today’s special holiday episode features a long interview with Matt Donnelly of the Ice Cream Social podcast! Matt talks with the guys about growing up the son of a lawyer and the grandson of a judge… and along the way the guys talk about the Supreme Court, the state of the law, and have a ton of fun.
Integrated in the episode is an “Are You A Cop?”-style segment in which Andrew explains that no, Brett Kavanaugh did not “vote with the liberals” in an abortion case. You’ll figure out all you need to know about the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Gee v. Planned Parenthood and Andersen v. Planned Parenthood… and maybe you’ll learn something about newly-minted “swing” justice John Roberts along the way.
After the lengthy interview with Matt, it’s time for the answer to Thomas (and Matt) Take The Bar Exam #106 regarding judicial notice of the difference between Kansas City and Chicago. As always, remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
And click here to read Clarence Thomas’s blistering (and inaccurate) dissent from the Court’s denial of cert in the Planned Parenthood cases and here to check out 42 USC § 1396a(a)(23), the statute at issue.
Today’s episode — at long last — brings us some good news from two rather unlikely sources: first, from the state of Iowa (regarding abortion rights), and second, from the Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee. You won’t believe your ears!
We begin, however, with a segment that’s good news for everyone except Andrew: yes, it’s the ever-popular Andrew Was Wrong. This time, Andrew owns up to a serious mistake regarding the fingerprinting regulations at the border, and an almost-as-serious mistake regarding the bustling metropolis of Olathe, Kansas.
In the main segment, Andrew breaks down Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, a recent state supreme court opinion invalidating a 3-day waiting period (with other onerous restrictions on abortion) that provides optimism and a way forward for progressives as we prepare for decades of a right-wing federal judiciary. Find out how states can protect reproductive freedom and abortion rights separate from the U.S. Supreme Court.
After that, it’s time for a return trip to Yodel Mountain, where we check in on the Senate Intelligence Committee’s endorsement of the joint agency report from January 2017 concluding that the Russian government deliberately interfered in the US elections with a strong preference for Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton.
Finally, we end the answer to Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #83 regarding the tort of assault and an unloaded firearm. Remember to follow our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and like our Facebook Page so that you too can play along with #TTTBE!
Andrew was just a guest co-host on Episode 75 of the Skepticrat podcast; go check it out! And if you’d like to have either of us as a guest on your show, drop us an email at openarguments@gmail.com.
Click here to read the Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds opinion.
For future activism, click this link to determine whether your state has elected or appointed state supreme court judges.
The Intelligence Community Assessment is here; you can also read the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report validating that assessment here.
OA187: Lowering the Lukumi Bar?
Today’s Bonus Episode asks if there’s a way to make sense of the Supreme Court’s Lukumi jurisprudence in light of this week’s rulings in Trump v. Hawaii (the Travel Ban), Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the somewhat surprising decision to remand the Arlene’s Flowers case back to the state of Washington.
We begin, however, by checking in with the Southern District of New York’s Order approving the Taint Team’s review of documents seized from Michael Cohen’s offices by the Department of Justice. How many documents did the Team recommend the Court withhold as privileged? The answer may surprise you!
After that, we revisit the thesis advanced by Andrew Seidel in Episode 180 that the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop might result in a more vigorous application of its 1993 decision in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993).
After all that, we end with an all new Thomas Takes The Bar Exam #82 involving the legality of a search for heroin. If you’d like to play along, just retweet our episode on Twitter or share it on Facebook along with your guess and the #TTTBE hashtag. We’ll release the answer on next Tuesday’s episode along with our favorite entry!
Check out the Southern District of New York’s Order regarding Cohen’s meager haul of privileged documents.
Andrew Seidel set forth his “Lukumi bar” thesis in Episode 180; you can read Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) for yourself and then compare it with both Trump v. Hawaii and Masterpiece Cakeshop.
We discussed Planned Parenthood v. Casey at length in a two-part series: Episode 27 and Episode 28; you might want to compare the statute approved in that case with the one struck down by the Court in NIFLA v. Becerra.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1396
 § 1396
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1396
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.