BROADCASTS.com

b'On Friday, a Supreme Court majority voted to overturn Roe v. Wade. Nearly all abortions are already banned in at least nine states, home to 7.2 million women of reproductive age. And it is likely that other bans and restrictions will follow. As the court\\u2019s three liberal justices put it in their dissenting opinion, \\u201cOne result of today\\u2019s decision is certain: the curtailment of women\\u2019s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens.\\u201d\\n\\nBut this decision doesn\\u2019t just represent the end of abortion as a constitutional right; what we\\u2019re also witnessing, before our eyes, is a legal regime change \\u2014 one with striking implications for the future of the court and the country. In their majority opinion on the case, Dobbs v. Jackson Women\\u2019s Health Organization, the justices cast aside precedent, the court\\u2019s historical norms and evidence-based concerns about how this ruling will disrupt people\\u2019s lives. Even Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, argued in a concurring opinion that the decision went too far, writing, \\u201cThe court\\u2019s opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.\\u201d\\n\\nThe Dobbs ruling, in other words, isn\\u2019t just about abortion; it\\u2019s a conservative court majority flexing its newly unrestrained power.\\n\\nDahlia Lithwick is a reporter covering the Supreme Court for Slate, the host of the podcast \\u201cAmicus\\u201d and someone I turn to whenever I need to understand the court. We discuss what Roe did and what Dobbs changes; why the rights to abortion, contraception and same-sex marriage have a much firmer constitutional basis than conservatives argue; how the majority opinion implicitly threatens those latter two rights, even while claiming to uphold them; why the most revealing opinion in the case is Roberts\\u2019s scathing concurrence; why the majority\\u2019s absolute disregard for precedent is so terrifying for defenders of the court; the way Justice Samuel Alito\\u2019s constitutional originalism freezes past injustices into present law; what the current composition of the court means for the future of liberal governance in America; and more.\\n\\nMentioned: \\n\\n\\u201cDobbs v. Jackson Women\\u2019s Health Organization\\u201d\\n\\n\\u201cThere\\u2019s a Way to Outmaneuver the Supreme Court, and Maine Has Found It\\u201d by Aaron Tang\\n\\nBook recommendations:\\n\\nHope in the Dark by Rebecca Solnit\\n\\nMan\\u2019s Search for Meaning by Viktor E. Frankl\\n\\nYou Can\\u2019t Be Neutral on a Moving Train by Howard Zinn\\n\\nWe\\u2019re hiring a researcher! You can apply here or by visiting nytimes.wd5.myworkdayjobs.com/News\\n\\nThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.\\n\\nYou can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of \\u201cThe Ezra Klein Show\\u201d at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.\\n\\n\\u201cThe Ezra Klein Show\\u201d is produced by Annie Galvin and Rog\\xe9 Karma; fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Rollin Hu, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair; mixing and original music by Isaac Jones; additional engineering by Pat McCusker; audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Our executive producer is Irene Noguchi. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.'