miss northup, nancy, it's nice to see you. thanks so much for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> am i seeing this in overly stark terms? is this case what i described? is this what they have been aiming at in terms of trying to undermine this right once and for all? >> oh, this case is exactly what you have been describing, rachel. i mean, mississippi passed this 15-week ban in open defiance of supreme court precedent. they passed this ban as a test case to overturn roe v. wade. it was easily struck down in the trial court and the court of appeals because they wanted to get to the supreme court to make the arguments that they'll be making tomorrow. but we are very pleased and excited to be in the court tomorrow to make the case that you have been talking about. that this is actually about individual liberty. it's protected in the constitution. in fact, the court itself has said that the right to make the decision about one's body with respect to abortion is within the zone of liberty that the government can't ente

solomon northup was never paid. but in 1878, after eight long years of litigation that included the removal of the suit to a federal court, wood finally got a verdict in the case of wood v. ward. and the jury decided in her favor. when the verdict came, 25 years had passed sense wood was kidnapped across the ohio river and back into slavery. her son arthur, born into slavery because of that act, was now a 22-year-old man and stood in the courtroom that day when the jury filed in to read the verdict. both must have taken some satisfaction in the outcome, though it would have been tinged with disappointment too. after all, wood had sued ward for $20,000, but in its verdict the jury awarded her only $2,500, a tiny fraction of her claim. plus, ward immediately objected to the verdict and move for a new trial which forced wood to wait another year to learn whether the verdict would stand. in fact, wood was still waiting in 1879 when she gave the newspaper interview where i first encountered her story. in that article she

nancy northup is president of the center for reproductive rights, a non-profit law firm which argued this case before the supreme court. it's complicated procedurally. kate was breaking it down for me, my wife, who was a supreme court clerk and is a scholar in this area. and it's complicated. how should we think about what the court did today? >> well, let me just start with that we should think of it as a really disgraceful opinion, as you were saying at outset. i mean the court is allowing the state of texas to basically nullify the supreme court's guarantee of the right to abortion. and it's done so by this scheme that really the court green-lit today. so the effect of today's decision is that the law is still in effect. it goes back to the district court. it is said that we can proceed in this case only against the medical licensing authorities. and while that is important and we'll pursue it, we do not want doctors in the state of texas to lose their medical licenses or the nurses to lose their nursing licenses for providing constitutionally protected services. but that isn't go

joining us now is nancy northup, president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. i'm happy that she's able to join us again now that it's happened. nancy, nice to see you, thanks for making time to be with us tonight. >> thank you. it's been an intense day in and outside the courtroom. >> how do you think it went? >> i'm pleased that both julie rikelman and the solicitor general of the united states made exceptional arguments, very strong arguments that made two things unassailably clear. one is that if the court does overturn roe v. wade, the impact, in the words of the solicitor general, would be swift and severe. this is about women's bodily autonomy. it is about control over their health and lives in the future. and second, as you talked about just a few moments ago, the legitimacy of the court is on the line. nothing has changed since roe in any appreciable way. nothing has changed since they looked at all of this 30 years ago and reaffirmed roe in planned parenthood versus casey. so today was an intense day, because it is an existential one in this argument

joining us now is nancy northup, president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. nancy, nice to see you. thanks so much for being here tonight. >> thanks for having me. >> am i seeing this in overly stark terms? is this case what i described? is this what they have been aiming at in terms of trying to undermine this right once and for all? >> oh, this case is exactly what you have been describing, rachel. i mean, mississippi passed this 15-week ban in open defiance of supreme court precedent. they passed this ban as a test case to overturn roe v. wade. it was easily struck down in the trial court and the court of appeals because they wanted to get to the supreme court to make the arguments that they'll be making tomorrow. but we are very pleased and excited to be in the court tomorrow to make the case that you have been talking about. that this is actually about individual liberty. it's protected in the constitution. in fact, the court itself has said that the right to make the decision about one's body with respect to abortion is within the zone of liberty that t

nancy: i'm nancy northup, i'm the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. today was the fourth time that the center for reproductive rights lawyers have argued before the supreme court in the past six years on abortion rights. everyone of, we have been before the courts because states have passed laws that are doing every thing they can to restrict abortion access and are in open defiance of laws. mississippi is no different, in clear defiance of the standard of roe v. wade. that was the argument today in the landmark case, in which the steaks on abortion rights could not be clearer. julie rikelman, our senior director of litigation, made our case before the court today, making clear that there's only one outcome in this case which is consistent with the rule of law, gender equality, and the constitutional protection for individual liberty. if roe were to fall, and likely in half the , including large swaths of the south and midwest,it would be a radical taking away all along protected rights. it is not just roe, it is a threat not just of abortion rights,

nancy northup is with a nonprofit law firm which argued this case before the supreme court. it's complicated procedurally. kate was breaking it down for me, my wife, who was a supreme court clerk and is a scholar in this area. and it's complicated. how should we think about what the court did today? >> well, let me just start with we should think about it as a really disgraceful opinion, as you were saying at the outset. i mean the court is allowing the state of texas to basically nullify the supreme court's guarantee of the right to abortion. and it's done so by this scheme that really the court green lit today. so the effect of today's decision is that the law is still in effect. it goes back to the district court. it is said that we can proceed in this case only against the medical licensing authorities. and while that is important and we'll pursue it, we do not want doctors in the state of texas to lose their medical licenses or the nurses to lose their nursing licenses for providing constitutionally protected services. but that isn't going to stop the lawsuits under sb

like northup, would would never accept the enslavement. only hours after her kidnapping she spoke in secret to a sympathetic innkeeper in kentucky who believed her story that she had been wrongfully enslaved. a lawyer in lexington was engaged to help and a lawsuit was even filed in a kentucky court alleging that wood was a free woman. that case proved to be important later on and its outcome was not a foregone conclusion. some kentucky courts had sometimes ruled that a person who had established this in a free state as would had in her five years of freedom in cincinnati remained free even if brought into kentucky. woods case, however, failed to convince the court who dismissed the freedom suit. woods lawyer appealed the decision to kentucky state supreme court, but they are the case failed again in 1855. not a foregone conclusion, but outcome was also not surprising. the willingness of southern state courts and legislatures to grant freedom and freedom suits wanes to a vanishing point in the decades before the civil war. the legal system

nancy: i'm nancy northup, i'm the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. today was the fourth time that the center for reproductive rights lawyers have argued before the supreme court in the past six years on abortion rights. everyone of, we have been before the courts because states have passed laws that are doing every thing they can to restrict abortion access and are in open defiance of laws. mississippi is no different, in clear defiance of the standard of roe v. wade.