Pedigree for determining probability of exhibiting sex linked recessive trait

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.350 --> 00:00:01.920
- [Instructor] We are
told the pedigree chart

00:00:01.920 --> 00:00:04.130
represents the inheritance
of color blindness

00:00:04.130 --> 00:00:05.650
through three generations.

00:00:05.650 --> 00:00:06.830
And we see this here.

00:00:06.830 --> 00:00:08.600
The standard convention is a square

00:00:08.600 --> 00:00:11.160
is male, circle is female.

00:00:11.160 --> 00:00:13.960
If it's colored in, that means
that they exhibit the trait,

00:00:13.960 --> 00:00:15.650
in this case it's color blindness.

00:00:15.650 --> 00:00:17.720
So Bill exhibits color blindness.

00:00:17.720 --> 00:00:19.530
His phenotype is color blind,

00:00:19.530 --> 00:00:22.800
while Bonnie does not
exhibit color blindness.

00:00:22.800 --> 00:00:26.400
Color blindness is an
X-linked recessive trait.

00:00:26.400 --> 00:00:28.970
If Barbara is expecting another child,

00:00:28.970 --> 00:00:30.680
so this is Barbara right here,

00:00:30.680 --> 00:00:34.170
what is the probability
that it will be colorblind?

00:00:34.170 --> 00:00:35.870
So pause this video and see if you can

00:00:35.870 --> 00:00:37.890
figure that out on your own.

00:00:37.890 --> 00:00:40.040
All right, now let's work
through this together.

00:00:40.040 --> 00:00:43.320
So they're asking us about
their next child here.

00:00:43.320 --> 00:00:46.220
What is the probability that
it is going to be colorblind?

00:00:46.220 --> 00:00:47.800
And to help us with that,

00:00:47.800 --> 00:00:51.670
we can try to figure out the
genotypes of Tom and Barbara.

00:00:51.670 --> 00:00:53.730
So Tom is pretty straightforward.

00:00:53.730 --> 00:00:56.360
He is male, we know that
'cause there's a square there.

00:00:56.360 --> 00:01:00.400
So X, he has an X chromosome
and he has a Y chromosome.

00:01:00.400 --> 00:01:04.800
And color blindness is an
X-linked recessive trait.

00:01:04.800 --> 00:01:06.910
And so let me just make
clear what's going on.

00:01:06.910 --> 00:01:11.710
So I'll do lowercase C for
colorblind, colorblind.

00:01:11.710 --> 00:01:14.780
And I could do a capital
C for the dominant trait,

00:01:14.780 --> 00:01:16.420
which is not colorblind,

00:01:16.420 --> 00:01:17.670
but since they look so similar,

00:01:17.670 --> 00:01:21.780
I'll just use a plus for not colorblind,

00:01:21.780 --> 00:01:24.960
not color, not colorblind.

00:01:24.960 --> 00:01:28.210
And so Tom, his phenotype,
he is colorblind,

00:01:28.210 --> 00:01:30.783
and he only has one X chromosome,

00:01:31.820 --> 00:01:34.330
what the colorblind trait is linked to.

00:01:34.330 --> 00:01:37.900
And so that must have the
recessive allele right over there.

00:01:37.900 --> 00:01:39.730
So this is Tom's genotype.

00:01:39.730 --> 00:01:41.090
But what about Barbara?

00:01:41.090 --> 00:01:42.310
Well, we know Barbara's going to have

00:01:42.310 --> 00:01:45.520
two X chromosomes because
Barbara is female.

00:01:45.520 --> 00:01:49.100
And we know that both of
them can't be lowercase C

00:01:49.100 --> 00:01:51.860
because then Barbara would
exhibit color blindness,

00:01:51.860 --> 00:01:54.800
but how can we figure
out her actual genotype?

00:01:54.800 --> 00:01:56.670
Well, we could look at her parents.

00:01:56.670 --> 00:01:58.750
So Bill over here is going to have

00:01:58.750 --> 00:02:01.200
the same genotype as Tom,

00:02:01.200 --> 00:02:03.410
at least with respect to color blindness.

00:02:03.410 --> 00:02:07.400
He is male, so he has an X
chromosome and a Y chromosome.

00:02:07.400 --> 00:02:09.300
And because he exhibits color blindness,

00:02:09.300 --> 00:02:12.940
that X chromosome must have the recessive

00:02:12.940 --> 00:02:15.680
colorblind allele associated with it.

00:02:15.680 --> 00:02:17.910
Now, Bonnie, we do not know.

00:02:17.910 --> 00:02:21.990
She will be XX, will
have two X chromosomes.

00:02:21.990 --> 00:02:23.990
Like Barbara, we know that both of these

00:02:23.990 --> 00:02:25.450
can't have the recessive allele

00:02:25.450 --> 00:02:27.150
because then Bonnie would be filled in,

00:02:27.150 --> 00:02:28.990
she would exhibit color blindness.

00:02:28.990 --> 00:02:32.160
But we don't know whether she is a carrier

00:02:32.160 --> 00:02:33.840
or whether she isn't.

00:02:33.840 --> 00:02:34.840
But let's just think about where

00:02:34.840 --> 00:02:37.370
Barbara got her chromosomes from.

00:02:37.370 --> 00:02:39.883
One of her X chromosomes
comes from her father.

00:02:41.280 --> 00:02:43.640
And the other one comes from her mother.

00:02:43.640 --> 00:02:46.360
So if she got this X
chromosome from her father,

00:02:46.360 --> 00:02:48.860
her father only has one
X chromosome to give,

00:02:48.860 --> 00:02:51.710
the one that has the colorblind allele.

00:02:51.710 --> 00:02:53.170
So if this is from her father,

00:02:53.170 --> 00:02:55.800
it must have the colorblind allele here.

00:02:55.800 --> 00:02:58.140
And we know that the one from her mother

00:02:58.140 --> 00:02:59.680
does not the colorblind allele

00:02:59.680 --> 00:03:01.480
because if it was like this,

00:03:01.480 --> 00:03:03.950
then Barbara would be
colorblind, and she isn't.

00:03:03.950 --> 00:03:05.970
So we know that this must be a plus here.

00:03:05.970 --> 00:03:08.750
It is the dominant non-colorblind allele.

00:03:08.750 --> 00:03:11.360
And so now we know both of their genotypes

00:03:11.360 --> 00:03:13.730
and we can use those to then figure out

00:03:13.730 --> 00:03:16.530
the possible outcomes for their offspring.

00:03:16.530 --> 00:03:21.300
So for example, Tom can contribute

00:03:21.300 --> 00:03:24.620
a X chromosome that has
a colorblind allele,

00:03:24.620 --> 00:03:26.710
or a Y chromosome.

00:03:26.710 --> 00:03:29.970
And Barbara, right over here,

00:03:29.970 --> 00:03:31.860
can contribute an X chromosome

00:03:31.860 --> 00:03:33.580
that has the colorblind allele,

00:03:33.580 --> 00:03:37.810
or an X chromosome that has
the non-colorblind allele.

00:03:37.810 --> 00:03:39.570
Barbara is a carrier.

00:03:39.570 --> 00:03:42.973
And so let me just draw a
little Punnett square here.

00:03:43.890 --> 00:03:47.620
And so we have four possible
outcomes for their children

00:03:47.620 --> 00:03:49.600
and they're all equally likely.

00:03:49.600 --> 00:03:54.600
So you can get the X
chromosome from Barbara

00:03:55.700 --> 00:03:57.740
that has the colorblind allele

00:03:57.740 --> 00:04:00.790
and the X chromosome from Tom

00:04:00.790 --> 00:04:02.820
that has the colorblind allele.

00:04:02.820 --> 00:04:05.240
You could have the X chromosome

00:04:05.240 --> 00:04:07.880
from Barbara with the colorblind allele,

00:04:07.880 --> 00:04:11.280
and the Y chromosome from Tom.

00:04:11.280 --> 00:04:16.030
You could have the
non-colorblind X chromosome

00:04:17.880 --> 00:04:21.300
that does not have the
colorblind allele on it,

00:04:21.300 --> 00:04:25.863
and get the colorblind
X chromosome from Tom.

00:04:27.140 --> 00:04:31.490
Or you could have the
non-colorblind X chromosome

00:04:31.490 --> 00:04:35.540
and the Y chromosome from the father.

00:04:35.540 --> 00:04:38.050
So there's four equal scenarios.

00:04:38.050 --> 00:04:39.850
And so in how many of these scenarios

00:04:39.850 --> 00:04:41.493
is the offspring colorblind?

00:04:42.410 --> 00:04:45.870
Well, here we have a colorblind female.

00:04:45.870 --> 00:04:49.050
She has two of the recessive alleles,

00:04:49.050 --> 00:04:51.760
so that female will be colorblind.

00:04:51.760 --> 00:04:53.300
This is a female carrier,

00:04:53.300 --> 00:04:56.840
but they will not show the
phenotype of being colorblind.

00:04:56.840 --> 00:04:59.430
This over here is a colorblind male,

00:04:59.430 --> 00:05:00.910
has only one X chromosome

00:05:00.910 --> 00:05:04.600
and it has the colorblind allele on it.

00:05:04.600 --> 00:05:07.360
And this is a non-colorblind male.

00:05:07.360 --> 00:05:09.290
So out of four equal outcomes,

00:05:09.290 --> 00:05:11.760
two of them have the
offspring being colorblind.

00:05:11.760 --> 00:05:15.920
So two out of four, that
would be a 50% probability

00:05:15.920 --> 00:05:17.820
that the offspring will be colorblind.


Example punnet square for sex-linked recessive trait

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.140 --> 00:00:02.790
- [Instructor] Hemophilia is
an X-linked recessive trait

00:00:02.790 --> 00:00:04.130
that affects blood clotting.

00:00:04.130 --> 00:00:07.030
If someone has hemophilia, their
blood has trouble clotting.

00:00:07.030 --> 00:00:10.780
If a carrier woman and a
hemophiliac man have a daughter,

00:00:10.780 --> 00:00:13.380
what is the percent chance
that she, the daughter,

00:00:13.380 --> 00:00:15.400
will have hemophilia?

00:00:15.400 --> 00:00:17.750
So, if you're so inspired,
pause this video,

00:00:17.750 --> 00:00:20.320
and try to work through this on your own.

00:00:20.320 --> 00:00:22.000
All right, now let's work
through this together.

00:00:22.000 --> 00:00:23.790
And to do this, let's
think about the genotypes

00:00:23.790 --> 00:00:24.990
of both the mother and the father.

00:00:24.990 --> 00:00:27.150
So, let's start with the mother.

00:00:27.150 --> 00:00:30.380
And since it is an
X-linked recessive trait,

00:00:30.380 --> 00:00:32.420
we're going to be dealing
with the sex chromosomes.

00:00:32.420 --> 00:00:34.440
So, let's just remind
ourselves that the mother,

00:00:34.440 --> 00:00:36.760
because she's female, is going to be XX,

00:00:36.760 --> 00:00:38.380
have two X chromosomes.

00:00:38.380 --> 00:00:39.620
The father,

00:00:39.620 --> 00:00:42.540
the father is going to
have an X chromosome

00:00:42.540 --> 00:00:44.490
and a Y chromosome.

00:00:44.490 --> 00:00:46.480
But now let's think about the hemophilia.

00:00:46.480 --> 00:00:49.320
They say it's a carrier woman.

00:00:49.320 --> 00:00:53.940
So, a carrier woman means that
one of her two X chromosomes

00:00:53.940 --> 00:00:56.340
would have the hemophilia allele,

00:00:56.340 --> 00:00:58.050
and the other one wouldn't.

00:00:58.050 --> 00:01:00.840
Carrier implies that she
doesn't show the trait.

00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:04.300
She doesn't have hemophilia,
but she's carrying one of these

00:01:04.300 --> 00:01:07.700
X-linked recessive hemophilia alleles.

00:01:07.700 --> 00:01:11.600
So, we could say that
one of her chromosomes,

00:01:11.600 --> 00:01:14.510
one of her X chromosomes
does not have hemophilia.

00:01:14.510 --> 00:01:18.000
I use capital H for the dominant allele,

00:01:18.000 --> 00:01:20.293
which you would say is no hemophilia.

00:01:22.300 --> 00:01:24.740
We tend to use the
capital for the dominant.

00:01:24.740 --> 00:01:26.890
And then the lowercase h,

00:01:26.890 --> 00:01:28.850
well, this would be the X chromosome

00:01:28.850 --> 00:01:30.580
that has the hemophilia allele.

00:01:30.580 --> 00:01:33.890
And I did it lowercase h
because it is a recessive trait.

00:01:33.890 --> 00:01:34.723
And so this is

00:01:36.448 --> 00:01:37.365
hemophilia.

00:01:38.200 --> 00:01:40.050
And now, what about the father?

00:01:40.050 --> 00:01:41.140
Well, it's X-linked,

00:01:41.140 --> 00:01:43.940
and the father only has one X chromosome.

00:01:43.940 --> 00:01:46.720
And they say it's a hemophiliac man.

00:01:46.720 --> 00:01:48.750
And so that one X chromosome

00:01:48.750 --> 00:01:52.320
is going to have the hemophilia allele.

00:01:52.320 --> 00:01:55.840
And so the reason why
he exhibits hemophilia

00:01:55.840 --> 00:01:58.010
is that there is no other X chromosome

00:01:58.010 --> 00:02:01.090
with the dominant allele to be dominant

00:02:01.090 --> 00:02:03.450
over the hemophilia allele.

00:02:03.450 --> 00:02:06.960
But now let's cross these
two with a Punnett square.

00:02:06.960 --> 00:02:10.010
So, the father to the
offspring could contribute

00:02:10.010 --> 00:02:13.600
the X chromosome that
has the hemophilia allele

00:02:13.600 --> 00:02:15.393
or a Y chromosome.

00:02:16.290 --> 00:02:19.400
And the mother can
contribute the X chromosome

00:02:19.400 --> 00:02:21.850
that doesn't have the hemophilia allele

00:02:21.850 --> 00:02:25.690
or the X chromosome that does
have the hemophilia allele.

00:02:25.690 --> 00:02:28.863
And now I'll draw my
little Punnett square here.

00:02:29.870 --> 00:02:31.720
So, there you go.

00:02:31.720 --> 00:02:34.650
And so what are the different scenarios?

00:02:34.650 --> 00:02:38.250
Well, this top-left scenario
would be I get the X chromosome

00:02:38.250 --> 00:02:41.100
from the mother that does not
have the hemophilia allele,

00:02:41.100 --> 00:02:43.240
and I get the X chromosome from the father

00:02:43.240 --> 00:02:45.400
that does have the hemophilia allele.

00:02:45.400 --> 00:02:48.120
This scenario is the X
chromosome from the mother

00:02:48.120 --> 00:02:50.930
with the hemophilia allele
and the X chromosome

00:02:50.930 --> 00:02:53.320
from the father with
the hemophilia allele.

00:02:53.320 --> 00:02:56.460
This scenario is the X
chromosome from the mother

00:02:56.460 --> 00:02:59.710
without the hemophilia
allele, so no hemophilia,

00:02:59.710 --> 00:03:01.970
or with the non-hemophilia allele,

00:03:01.970 --> 00:03:04.620
and the Y chromosome from the father.

00:03:04.620 --> 00:03:07.230
And this is the X
chromosome from the mother

00:03:07.230 --> 00:03:09.020
that has the hemophilia allele

00:03:09.020 --> 00:03:11.670
and the Y chromosome from the father.

00:03:11.670 --> 00:03:14.040
Now, what is the percent chance that she,

00:03:14.040 --> 00:03:16.530
that a daughter would have hemophilia?

00:03:16.530 --> 00:03:18.930
So, which of these
scenarios show a daughter?

00:03:18.930 --> 00:03:22.600
Well, the daughters are
going to be the XX scenarios.

00:03:22.600 --> 00:03:24.220
So, these are the two scenarios

00:03:24.220 --> 00:03:25.620
in which they have a daughter.

00:03:25.620 --> 00:03:27.430
These two, because there's a Y chromosome,

00:03:27.430 --> 00:03:29.260
these would be them having a son.

00:03:29.260 --> 00:03:32.370
So, out of the two scenarios
where they have a daughter,

00:03:32.370 --> 00:03:34.300
one of those scenarios

00:03:34.300 --> 00:03:37.550
you have two of the recessive alleles.

00:03:37.550 --> 00:03:40.973
And so this is a situation
where you have a daughter,

00:03:41.840 --> 00:03:45.083
daughter with hemophilia,

00:03:45.083 --> 00:03:47.150
hemophilia,

00:03:47.150 --> 00:03:48.010
right over here.

00:03:48.010 --> 00:03:49.860
And so, if we know they have a daughter,

00:03:49.860 --> 00:03:52.770
what is the percent chance
that she will be a hemophiliac?

00:03:52.770 --> 00:03:54.550
Well, one out of two,

00:03:54.550 --> 00:03:57.290
so there is a 50% chance.

00:03:57.290 --> 00:03:59.520
Now, what's useful about
this Punnett square

00:03:59.520 --> 00:04:01.340
is you could answer
all sorts of questions.

00:04:01.340 --> 00:04:03.610
You could say what is the percent chance

00:04:03.610 --> 00:04:05.980
that they have a hemophiliac son?

00:04:05.980 --> 00:04:10.270
Well, one out of these four
scenarios is a hemophiliac son.

00:04:10.270 --> 00:04:12.100
Then you would say there's a 25% chance

00:04:12.100 --> 00:04:14.090
that they have a hemophiliac son.

00:04:14.090 --> 00:04:16.790
Similarly, there is a 25% chance

00:04:16.790 --> 00:04:19.090
that they have a non-hemophiliac son.

00:04:19.090 --> 00:04:21.650
If someone said what is the percent chance

00:04:21.650 --> 00:04:24.020
that they have a hemophiliac offspring?

00:04:24.020 --> 00:04:27.090
Well, that would be these two
scenarios right over here.

00:04:27.090 --> 00:04:30.780
So, two out of the four scenarios
are hemophiliac offspring,

00:04:30.780 --> 00:04:32.750
so that would be 50%.

00:04:32.750 --> 00:04:35.280
If you said, given that they had a son,

00:04:35.280 --> 00:04:38.620
what is the percent chance that
they don't have hemophilia?

00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:42.370
Well, you would say, given
that they have a son,

00:04:42.370 --> 00:04:44.390
so that would be those two scenarios,

00:04:44.390 --> 00:04:45.647
one out of those two scenarios,

00:04:45.647 --> 00:04:47.690
the son does not have hemophilia.

00:04:47.690 --> 00:04:50.180
So, that would again be a 50%.

00:04:50.180 --> 00:04:52.313
So anyway, hopefully this was useful.


Asexual and sexual reproduction

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.540 --> 00:00:03.780
- [Instructor] Let's talk a
little bit about reproduction.

00:00:03.780 --> 00:00:07.300
Now, on earth, and who knows
if we go to other planets

00:00:07.300 --> 00:00:11.010
we might find new ways that
organisms can reproduce.

00:00:11.010 --> 00:00:13.360
But on earth, there's two primary

00:00:13.360 --> 00:00:15.550
ways that organisms reproduce.

00:00:15.550 --> 00:00:18.010
The first is, is that,
let's say this is some type

00:00:18.010 --> 00:00:21.260
of unicellular organism,
it essentially just makes

00:00:21.260 --> 00:00:22.830
a copy of itself.

00:00:22.830 --> 00:00:26.520
So that's it there, and
then that's its copy.

00:00:26.520 --> 00:00:29.820
And in this situation they have
identical genetic material.

00:00:29.820 --> 00:00:31.260
So let's say this is the
genetic material of the

00:00:31.260 --> 00:00:33.820
first one, and this is the
first one to begin with,

00:00:33.820 --> 00:00:36.330
and now you have the second one.

00:00:36.330 --> 00:00:39.300
Now this type of reproduction,
where one organism

00:00:39.300 --> 00:00:42.900
by itself can turn into two
organisms, this is known

00:00:42.900 --> 00:00:47.740
as asexual, asexual reproduction.

00:00:47.740 --> 00:00:51.910
Or another way to interpret
asexual is it is not sexual.

00:00:51.910 --> 00:00:55.940
So the next question is,
what is sexual reproduction?

00:00:55.940 --> 00:00:58.300
This is where two
organisms, or at least cells

00:00:58.300 --> 00:01:01.650
from two organisms, need
to get together in order

00:01:01.650 --> 00:01:04.180
to produce a third organism.

00:01:04.180 --> 00:01:07.360
Here's a cell from one of
the organisms, let's say that

00:01:07.360 --> 00:01:10.040
cell is from the mother,
it could be an egg cell.

00:01:10.040 --> 00:01:12.960
Here's a cell from the
other organism, let's call

00:01:12.960 --> 00:01:15.940
that organism the father,
this would be a sperm cell.

00:01:15.940 --> 00:01:19.360
And when the egg and the sperm
get together, when they fuse

00:01:19.360 --> 00:01:23.050
together, they have genetic
information from both parents.

00:01:23.050 --> 00:01:26.900
And that new cell can
become the offspring.

00:01:26.900 --> 00:01:30.450
And if sexual reproduction
sounds familiar, it's because

00:01:30.450 --> 00:01:32.610
that's how you came to be.

00:01:32.610 --> 00:01:35.530
Now, to make this a little
bit more tangible, let's look

00:01:35.530 --> 00:01:37.390
at some cases of asexual

00:01:37.390 --> 00:01:40.210
reproduction and sexual reproduction.

00:01:40.210 --> 00:01:44.870
So right over there we
see a diagram of a type

00:01:44.870 --> 00:01:49.086
of asexual reproduction
known as binary fission.

00:01:49.086 --> 00:01:52.060
In general, if you hear the
word fission we're talking

00:01:52.060 --> 00:01:53.680
about splitting something,
if people are talking

00:01:53.680 --> 00:01:55.850
about nuclear fission they're
talking about splitting

00:01:55.850 --> 00:01:58.400
of the atom, but binary
fission we're talking about

00:01:58.400 --> 00:02:01.380
one organism splitting into two organisms.

00:02:01.380 --> 00:02:03.970
And you can see that you
have its genetic material,

00:02:03.970 --> 00:02:07.740
the genetic material it
replicates, and then the organism

00:02:07.740 --> 00:02:11.590
splits into two identical
organisms, or at least identical

00:02:11.590 --> 00:02:13.760
from a genetic point of view.

00:02:13.760 --> 00:02:16.150
Now binary fission applies to prokaryotes

00:02:16.150 --> 00:02:18.170
that we talk about in other videos.

00:02:18.170 --> 00:02:22.570
These are organisms that don't
have organelles, that don't

00:02:22.570 --> 00:02:24.830
have a nuclear membrane,
they don't tend to have

00:02:24.830 --> 00:02:26.340
multiple chromosomes.

00:02:26.340 --> 00:02:29.300
When we talk about eukaryotes
things that do have

00:02:29.300 --> 00:02:31.630
nuclear membranes, things that
have multiple chromosomes,

00:02:31.630 --> 00:02:34.350
things that have membrane-bound
organelles, you have

00:02:34.350 --> 00:02:36.620
a similar type of reproduction.

00:02:36.620 --> 00:02:38.659
This right over here, and
we'll study it in depth in

00:02:38.659 --> 00:02:41.907
biology, this is mitosis.

00:02:41.907 --> 00:02:46.500
And mitosis you can view it as
the analog of binary fission

00:02:46.500 --> 00:02:49.990
but we're now dealing
with eukaryotic cells.

00:02:49.990 --> 00:02:52.930
Eukaryotic cells are more
complex, so this process

00:02:52.930 --> 00:02:54.110
is more complex.

00:02:54.110 --> 00:02:58.310
But at a high level, they're
both asexual reproduction.

00:02:58.310 --> 00:03:02.700
In both cases, one cell or
one organism in some cases,

00:03:02.700 --> 00:03:06.940
has turned into two organisms
that have the same genetic

00:03:06.940 --> 00:03:07.910
information.

00:03:07.910 --> 00:03:10.980
And it's worth calling out
when you take one organism

00:03:10.980 --> 00:03:13.030
and you produce another
organism with the same

00:03:13.030 --> 00:03:16.320
genetic information, it has
a word associated with it,

00:03:16.320 --> 00:03:18.350
and that is a clone.

00:03:18.350 --> 00:03:21.380
And you might be familiar
with the term clone from

00:03:21.380 --> 00:03:24.400
science fiction movies,
and they usually use it

00:03:24.400 --> 00:03:26.310
in a somewhat related context.

00:03:26.310 --> 00:03:28.950
In Star Wars when they
talk about the clone wars

00:03:28.950 --> 00:03:31.160
all of those clones they all have the same

00:03:31.160 --> 00:03:34.070
genetic information as
the original bounty hunter

00:03:34.070 --> 00:03:36.580
from which they were derived.

00:03:36.580 --> 00:03:39.730
Now mitosis might also
seem familiar to you

00:03:39.730 --> 00:03:42.130
because this is how most of your cells

00:03:42.130 --> 00:03:43.800
in your body divide.

00:03:43.800 --> 00:03:46.210
And this is how you grow,
this is how you went from

00:03:46.210 --> 00:03:49.850
being a unicellular organism
to being a multicellular

00:03:49.850 --> 00:03:50.900
organism.

00:03:50.900 --> 00:03:52.950
Now you might be a little
bit confused at this point.

00:03:52.950 --> 00:03:54.850
I just told you that most of your cells

00:03:54.850 --> 00:03:57.910
have experienced or are
experiencing mitosis, but you're

00:03:57.910 --> 00:04:00.860
also the outcome of sexual reproduction.

00:04:00.860 --> 00:04:03.540
Well what we'll see in a
second is, as soon as sexual

00:04:03.540 --> 00:04:07.080
reproduction occurs, then
this newly formed cell

00:04:07.080 --> 00:04:10.493
right over here, through
mitosis forms the multicellular

00:04:10.493 --> 00:04:14.464
organisms, the types that
are you and me, but we also

00:04:14.464 --> 00:04:18.510
as we grow and develop, we
also produce what are known

00:04:18.510 --> 00:04:22.380
as gametes, that each have half
of our genetic information.

00:04:22.380 --> 00:04:25.220
For human beings, this
would be the egg produced

00:04:25.220 --> 00:04:28.090
by a female, and this
would be the sperm produced

00:04:28.090 --> 00:04:30.870
by a male, and when they
get together, the sperm

00:04:30.870 --> 00:04:34.270
fertilizes the egg, well
then, they can produce

00:04:34.270 --> 00:04:39.130
a viable cell that can
turn into an offspring.

00:04:39.130 --> 00:04:41.850
Now along the lines of binary
fission, you have another

00:04:41.850 --> 00:04:45.660
type of asexual reproduction
in which case a mother

00:04:45.660 --> 00:04:50.310
cell produces buds off
a smaller daughter cell.

00:04:50.310 --> 00:04:54.380
So like binary fission, it has
to replicate all of its DNA

00:04:54.380 --> 00:04:57.670
and then that DNA gets
inserted into the daughter cell

00:04:57.670 --> 00:04:59.850
but the end product you have a bigger cell

00:04:59.850 --> 00:05:01.130
and a smaller cell.

00:05:01.130 --> 00:05:03.568
And we would say that the
smaller cell has budded

00:05:03.568 --> 00:05:05.240
off of this larger one.

00:05:05.240 --> 00:05:08.900
And so this we call budding.

00:05:08.900 --> 00:05:13.610
Another form of asexual reproduction.

00:05:13.610 --> 00:05:16.750
When we think about
multicellular organisms there are

00:05:16.750 --> 00:05:20.050
some typical types of
asexual reproduction.

00:05:20.050 --> 00:05:23.085
For example, starfish are
famous for their ability

00:05:23.085 --> 00:05:26.890
to form a new organism
from a piece of an original

00:05:26.890 --> 00:05:28.610
organism, so let's say
you were to cut that part

00:05:28.610 --> 00:05:32.510
off of the starfish for
many species of starfish

00:05:32.510 --> 00:05:35.360
that could then grow into a new starfish.

00:05:35.360 --> 00:05:37.830
The original starfish
would grow that back.

00:05:37.830 --> 00:05:42.683
And so this type of reproduction
is known as fragmentation.

00:05:43.910 --> 00:05:48.080
It's pretty easy to,
fragmentation, it's pretty easy

00:05:48.080 --> 00:05:50.510
to remember, you take a
fragment of it and it grows

00:05:50.510 --> 00:05:53.420
into another organism and
that's how it reproduces.

00:05:53.420 --> 00:05:56.290
Now another fascinating
type of reproduction

00:05:56.290 --> 00:06:00.595
is known as parthenogenesis,
that's a fancy word,

00:06:00.595 --> 00:06:01.763
partheno, parthenogenesis.

00:06:05.570 --> 00:06:08.870
And what happens here is
is you have an organism,

00:06:08.870 --> 00:06:11.720
and this is a baby komodo
dragon right over here,

00:06:11.720 --> 00:06:15.210
that can develop from an unfertilized egg.

00:06:15.210 --> 00:06:18.260
Remember in sexual
reproduction we talk about

00:06:18.260 --> 00:06:21.310
how a sperm from a father organism

00:06:21.310 --> 00:06:24.320
needs to fertilize an egg
from a mother organism

00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:28.880
and then once they fuse together
then that fertilized egg

00:06:28.880 --> 00:06:33.576
can go through mitosis to
produce a multicellular organism.

00:06:33.576 --> 00:06:38.576
But in parthenogenesis,
you have an egg on its own

00:06:38.720 --> 00:06:42.230
that can, that does not need
to be fertilized, that can turn

00:06:42.230 --> 00:06:47.230
into a multicellular organism,
like a baby komodo dragon.

00:06:47.330 --> 00:06:49.690
Now you might ask, well how can this be?

00:06:49.690 --> 00:06:53.407
Well, sometimes these mother,
these eggs, don't have

00:06:53.407 --> 00:06:55.860
half the genetic material
like we're used to

00:06:55.860 --> 00:06:58.640
with the eggs from sexual reproduction.

00:06:58.640 --> 00:07:02.950
For parthenogenesis, many times
this egg has a complete set

00:07:02.950 --> 00:07:05.100
of genetic information
and then it can just go

00:07:05.100 --> 00:07:07.950
and start doing mitosis
and turn to an organism

00:07:07.950 --> 00:07:11.210
or there's even situations
where the egg does have

00:07:11.210 --> 00:07:13.890
half the genetic information,
we'll talk about this

00:07:13.890 --> 00:07:16.240
in future videos, this
would be a haploid cell,

00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:18.830
it has half the genetic
information of its parent,

00:07:18.830 --> 00:07:21.400
but the haploid cell in
certain cases can develop

00:07:21.400 --> 00:07:22.940
into a full organism.

00:07:22.940 --> 00:07:25.860
And there are organisms
like komodo dragons that can

00:07:25.860 --> 00:07:28.340
reproduce both with
parthenogenesis which would

00:07:28.340 --> 00:07:32.710
be asexual, and in certain
cases with sexual reproduction.

00:07:32.710 --> 00:07:35.780
So I'll leave you there, two
big categories, I'll draw

00:07:35.780 --> 00:07:38.450
a dividing line here so
we don't get confused.

00:07:38.450 --> 00:07:41.620
All the stuff that I drew
on the left, to the left

00:07:41.620 --> 00:07:42.920
of this yellow line, these

00:07:42.920 --> 00:07:46.470
are forms of asexual reproduction.

00:07:46.470 --> 00:07:49.340
Where for the most part,
one organism can make a copy

00:07:49.340 --> 00:07:52.870
of itself that has the
same genetic information.

00:07:52.870 --> 00:07:56.350
On the right we have sexual
reproduction where in order

00:07:56.350 --> 00:08:00.110
to produce a new organism,
an egg cell and a sperm cell

00:08:00.110 --> 00:08:01.570
need to get together.

00:08:01.570 --> 00:08:04.280
The sperm cell needs to
fertilize the egg cell

00:08:04.280 --> 00:08:06.700
and each of them would
have a sample of half the

00:08:06.700 --> 00:08:10.130
genetic information from their parents.

00:08:10.130 --> 00:08:12.020
Now, I'll leave you with a
final question, we should

00:08:12.020 --> 00:08:14.730
always be asking this in
biology, is why do we think

00:08:14.730 --> 00:08:16.570
sexual reproduction emerged?

00:08:16.570 --> 00:08:20.400
It actually emerged much later
in our evolutionary history

00:08:20.400 --> 00:08:22.670
than asexual reproduction.

00:08:22.670 --> 00:08:25.670
Well one argument for it
is is it produces much more

00:08:25.670 --> 00:08:27.350
variation in its offspring.

00:08:27.350 --> 00:08:29.470
And if you have more
variation in your offspring,

00:08:29.470 --> 00:08:31.770
and if you have more
variation in a population,

00:08:31.770 --> 00:08:34.570
you have a higher likelihood
that certain variations

00:08:34.570 --> 00:08:37.150
will be better suited for the environment

00:08:37.150 --> 00:08:38.890
that you are in.

00:08:38.890 --> 00:08:41.290
I'll let you think about
that a little bit more.


Generational and lifecycle effects on political ideology

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.450 --> 00:00:02.040
- [Lecturer] What we're gonna
talk about in this video

00:00:02.040 --> 00:00:06.028
is how political and cultural events

00:00:06.028 --> 00:00:11.028
might have an influence on
someone's political ideology.

00:00:12.300 --> 00:00:14.510
So let's make this a little bit concrete

00:00:14.510 --> 00:00:16.330
and political scientists
will sometimes have

00:00:16.330 --> 00:00:19.990
various classifications
for these types of effects.

00:00:19.990 --> 00:00:23.710
So for example, there is
something known as generational

00:00:23.710 --> 00:00:27.300
effects, and these would
be events that affect an

00:00:27.300 --> 00:00:30.480
entire generation, that
could influence how an entire

00:00:30.480 --> 00:00:34.600
generation thinks about their
position on different issues.

00:00:34.600 --> 00:00:37.850
An example of that might
be if you were to grow up

00:00:37.850 --> 00:00:39.890
or if you were an adult
during the Great Depression

00:00:39.890 --> 00:00:43.060
in the 1930s, well that might
affect you in many, many

00:00:43.060 --> 00:00:43.893
different ways.

00:00:43.893 --> 00:00:45.890
You would start to maybe be
a little bit conservative

00:00:45.890 --> 00:00:48.690
with your own personal finances
realizing that a rainy day

00:00:48.690 --> 00:00:50.080
might come one day.

00:00:50.080 --> 00:00:52.390
Many people who grew up
during the Great Depression

00:00:52.390 --> 00:00:55.820
viewed FDR, Franklin
Roosevelt, as a major factor

00:00:55.820 --> 00:00:57.820
in taking the country out
of the Great Depression.

00:00:57.820 --> 00:01:00.190
Other folks might disagree
with that position.

00:01:00.190 --> 00:01:03.600
But if you were one of those
folks who believed that FDR

00:01:03.600 --> 00:01:05.960
through the expansion of
government helped bring

00:01:05.960 --> 00:01:09.190
the country out of the Great
Depression, and if you believe

00:01:09.190 --> 00:01:11.730
that FDR was a good leader
for the United States

00:01:11.730 --> 00:01:15.730
during World War Two, well
then, you might lean Democrat.

00:01:15.730 --> 00:01:20.170
You might lean Democrat
the rest of your life.

00:01:20.170 --> 00:01:22.560
And it indeed seems to be
the case that many people

00:01:22.560 --> 00:01:24.690
who grew during the Great
Depression did indeed

00:01:24.690 --> 00:01:28.460
lean Democrat because
of their belief that FDR

00:01:28.460 --> 00:01:30.180
was good for the country.

00:01:30.180 --> 00:01:33.000
Similarly, if you grew
up during the Cold War

00:01:33.000 --> 00:01:35.774
or if you were an adult during
the Cold War you had this

00:01:35.774 --> 00:01:39.240
thing hanging over you
in the 60s, 70s, and 80s

00:01:39.240 --> 00:01:43.480
of what would a nuclear war
with the Soviet Union look like?

00:01:43.480 --> 00:01:46.190
And so many of those folks
might look at someone

00:01:46.190 --> 00:01:49.830
like a Ronald Reagan, who
many people would argue

00:01:49.830 --> 00:01:52.240
helped bring about the
end of the Cold War.

00:01:52.240 --> 00:01:55.100
And so many of these folks
who did view Ronald Reagan

00:01:55.100 --> 00:01:58.753
as a major actor there
might lean Republican.

00:01:59.990 --> 00:02:02.160
Or even if they don't lean Republican

00:02:02.160 --> 00:02:05.030
they might say, hey, the
type of strong muscular

00:02:05.030 --> 00:02:09.180
military presence with
diplomacy that Ronald Reagan did

00:02:09.180 --> 00:02:12.480
well, that's a type of point
of view that I support.

00:02:12.480 --> 00:02:15.970
Now these two things were
big, macro events that would

00:02:15.970 --> 00:02:19.580
have happened over many,
many years, if not decades.

00:02:19.580 --> 00:02:21.500
But there could also be particular events

00:02:21.500 --> 00:02:23.660
and sometimes particular political events

00:02:23.660 --> 00:02:26.710
that might influence
someone's political ideology.

00:02:26.710 --> 00:02:29.297
So let me write this
down, political events.

00:02:32.580 --> 00:02:37.000
And so an example of that
might be the Watergate Scandal

00:02:37.000 --> 00:02:38.560
under Richard Nixon.

00:02:38.560 --> 00:02:41.150
Many of the people who were
adults then and understood

00:02:41.150 --> 00:02:43.970
what was going on, it
might have led to a general

00:02:43.970 --> 00:02:46.110
distrust in government.

00:02:46.110 --> 00:02:49.900
It might have led to a more
of a belief that people

00:02:49.900 --> 00:02:52.770
in high office do things
without telling us.

00:02:52.770 --> 00:02:55.460
Once again, these are not,
it's not gonna be everyone

00:02:55.460 --> 00:02:58.070
who lived in that time
period, but it might make some

00:02:58.070 --> 00:03:00.540
folks lean one direction or another.

00:03:00.540 --> 00:03:02.560
Now everything I've talked
about has been in the realm

00:03:02.560 --> 00:03:05.190
of politics, but there is
also a lot that happens

00:03:05.190 --> 00:03:07.900
in culture that could
affect your ideology.

00:03:07.900 --> 00:03:11.170
If you see more of a certain
point of view on television

00:03:11.170 --> 00:03:14.211
for example or in movies,
that might make you more

00:03:14.211 --> 00:03:17.010
sympathetic to that point of view.

00:03:17.010 --> 00:03:20.670
You also have effects over
the course of your life

00:03:20.670 --> 00:03:22.160
that affect your ideology.

00:03:22.160 --> 00:03:25.990
And so these are often
known as lifecycle effects.

00:03:25.990 --> 00:03:27.523
Lifecycle effects.

00:03:30.050 --> 00:03:33.680
And this is the idea that
as you go from being young

00:03:33.680 --> 00:03:37.470
to getting older, just
different things in your life

00:03:37.470 --> 00:03:39.637
might make you lean in
one direction or another.

00:03:39.637 --> 00:03:41.653
And these are going to
be broad generalizations

00:03:41.653 --> 00:03:44.930
but let's say you are
young, you are in college,

00:03:44.930 --> 00:03:47.764
you have a lot of student
debt, you might lean

00:03:47.764 --> 00:03:51.356
maybe toward a more progressive
candidate or have liberal

00:03:51.356 --> 00:03:54.180
leanings if a candidate
says hey, the government's

00:03:54.180 --> 00:03:56.800
going to try to reduce
student debt or provide more

00:03:56.800 --> 00:03:58.860
support for young students.

00:03:58.860 --> 00:04:01.860
But then as you get older and
maybe you become a homeowner

00:04:01.860 --> 00:04:04.870
maybe you have more wealth,
you have a higher income,

00:04:04.870 --> 00:04:07.540
you might say, hey, these
taxes really hurt more

00:04:07.540 --> 00:04:09.810
than I suspected and they're
quite large, or maybe you're

00:04:09.810 --> 00:04:12.244
starting a business or you're
saying, hey, these regulations

00:04:12.244 --> 00:04:15.200
really aren't as good as an
idea as I thought they were

00:04:15.200 --> 00:04:18.140
when I was young, well then
maybe you might, and I'd

00:04:18.140 --> 00:04:21.940
stress might, you might start
leaning more conservative.

00:04:21.940 --> 00:04:23.180
So I'll leave you there.

00:04:23.180 --> 00:04:25.910
The big picture is is that
your political ideology

00:04:25.910 --> 00:04:30.910
isn't just driven by your
genetics or your family

00:04:31.020 --> 00:04:32.670
and we've talked about
these in other videos,

00:04:32.670 --> 00:04:34.850
or where you grew up.

00:04:34.850 --> 00:04:38.855
So not just driven by geography,
it's driven by a whole

00:04:38.855 --> 00:04:41.860
set of things, many of the
things that might happen

00:04:41.860 --> 00:04:45.730
to you individually, let's
say you had a bad incident

00:04:45.730 --> 00:04:49.500
with crime that might
make you tougher on crime.

00:04:49.500 --> 00:04:52.170
Or maybe you were on the
other side, you got arrested

00:04:52.170 --> 00:04:54.100
for something you didn't
do, that might change your

00:04:54.100 --> 00:04:58.340
point of view, and things
that happen on a bigger scale,

00:04:58.340 --> 00:05:00.890
things that might happen
to your entire generation.


McDonald v. Chicago

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.150 --> 00:00:02.450
- [Kim] Hi, this is Kim from Kahn Academy

00:00:02.450 --> 00:00:03.820
and today we're learning more

00:00:03.820 --> 00:00:08.700
about McDonald versus Chicago,
a 2010 Supreme Court case

00:00:08.700 --> 00:00:12.360
challenging a handgun ban
in the city of Chicago.

00:00:12.360 --> 00:00:14.320
The question at issue was whether

00:00:14.320 --> 00:00:17.870
the 14th Amendment's due
process or privileges

00:00:17.870 --> 00:00:21.560
or immunities clause means
that the 2nd Amendment right

00:00:21.560 --> 00:00:24.990
to keep and bear arms for
the purposes of self defense

00:00:24.990 --> 00:00:28.450
is applicable to the states
or, put more plainly,

00:00:28.450 --> 00:00:30.780
the 2nd Amendment says
the federal government

00:00:30.780 --> 00:00:34.470
can't infringe on citizens'
rights to keep and bear arms,

00:00:34.470 --> 00:00:36.150
but can state governments?

00:00:36.150 --> 00:00:38.256
To learn more about
McDonald versus Chicago,

00:00:38.256 --> 00:00:40.130
I talked to two experts.

00:00:40.130 --> 00:00:43.860
Alan Gura is a lawyer who
argued McDonald versus Chicago

00:00:43.860 --> 00:00:45.430
before the Supreme Court.

00:00:45.430 --> 00:00:48.390
Elizabeth Wydra is a
Supreme Court litigator and

00:00:48.390 --> 00:00:51.730
the president of the Constitutional
Accountability Center.

00:00:51.730 --> 00:00:54.760
So, Miss Wydra, could
you set the stage for us?

00:00:54.760 --> 00:00:57.050
Who were the challengers
in this case and why

00:00:57.050 --> 00:00:58.260
did they decide to sue?

00:00:58.260 --> 00:01:02.231
- [Elizabeth] The lead plaintiff
is or was Otis McDonald,

00:01:02.231 --> 00:01:05.860
then 76 year old African American retired

00:01:05.860 --> 00:01:09.199
maintenance engineer who
lived in a part of Chicago

00:01:09.199 --> 00:01:12.980
and wanted to have a gun
for self defense, a handgun,

00:01:12.980 --> 00:01:16.350
to protect himself and
his family in his home.

00:01:16.350 --> 00:01:18.320
He lived in a neighborhood that had grown

00:01:18.320 --> 00:01:22.320
increasingly troubled with
gang and drug related violence

00:01:22.320 --> 00:01:24.400
and he felt that he
wanted to have a handgun

00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:26.760
to protect his wife and
his family after his home

00:01:26.760 --> 00:01:29.400
had been broken into several times.

00:01:29.400 --> 00:01:32.198
But because the city of
Chicago had strict rules

00:01:32.198 --> 00:01:37.198
barring handguns, he and
three other Chicago residents

00:01:37.680 --> 00:01:40.180
brought their case into
court asking the court

00:01:40.180 --> 00:01:43.560
to find that the individual
right to keep and bear arms,

00:01:43.560 --> 00:01:46.090
including a handgun for
self defense in the home

00:01:46.090 --> 00:01:48.704
that had been recognized
just a few years earlier

00:01:48.704 --> 00:01:51.680
by the Supreme Court with respect
to the federal government,

00:01:51.680 --> 00:01:55.520
also applies to the states
and cities like Chicago.

00:01:55.520 --> 00:01:59.249
- [Alan] In 2008, the
Supreme Court had held

00:01:59.249 --> 00:02:02.590
that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution

00:02:02.590 --> 00:02:05.680
guarantees Americans
the right to have guns

00:02:05.680 --> 00:02:08.445
for the purpose of self
defense, but that case

00:02:08.445 --> 00:02:12.320
took place in Washington
D.C., and Washington D.C.

00:02:12.320 --> 00:02:14.670
is sort of a unique creature in our law.

00:02:14.670 --> 00:02:17.030
It's a federal city, it's not located

00:02:17.030 --> 00:02:21.010
in any particular state, and so everything

00:02:21.010 --> 00:02:24.950
that the city of Washington
does is essentially

00:02:24.950 --> 00:02:28.470
done by the federal government or a unit

00:02:28.470 --> 00:02:31.280
of the federal government
to which the Bill of Rights

00:02:31.280 --> 00:02:35.700
applies directly, but
historically, the Bill of Rights

00:02:35.700 --> 00:02:39.700
was never thought to
apply directly to limit

00:02:39.700 --> 00:02:42.320
what cities and states could do.

00:02:42.320 --> 00:02:45.130
- [Kim] So what were some
of competing interpretations

00:02:45.130 --> 00:02:47.300
that were at issue in this case?

00:02:47.300 --> 00:02:49.221
- [Alan] Well, there were
a number of interpretations

00:02:49.221 --> 00:02:51.370
that were at issue.

00:02:51.370 --> 00:02:54.390
The 14th Amendment has
several parts to it.

00:02:54.390 --> 00:02:56.680
In the first section
of the 14th Amendment,

00:02:56.680 --> 00:03:00.397
it states that, "no state
shall make or enforce

00:03:00.397 --> 00:03:03.397
"any law which shall
abridge the privileges

00:03:03.397 --> 00:03:06.900
"or immunities of citizens
of the United States."

00:03:06.900 --> 00:03:09.660
And then it also says, among other things,

00:03:09.660 --> 00:03:12.730
that "states can't deprive
people of due process

00:03:12.730 --> 00:03:17.730
"when it comes time to
regulating their life, liberty,

00:03:19.007 --> 00:03:19.840
"or property."

00:03:19.840 --> 00:03:22.650
States may not deprive anyone
of life, liberty, or property

00:03:22.650 --> 00:03:24.490
without due process of law.

00:03:24.490 --> 00:03:27.830
When it comes to your basic civil rights,

00:03:27.830 --> 00:03:29.980
the question had always
been whether or not

00:03:30.970 --> 00:03:34.306
the states are bound not to
violate your civil rights

00:03:34.306 --> 00:03:38.570
because they are told not
to abridge the privileges

00:03:38.570 --> 00:03:43.470
or immunities of American
citizens or are your rights

00:03:43.470 --> 00:03:46.250
not to be violated because
the states can't deprive you

00:03:46.250 --> 00:03:47.970
of due process of law.

00:03:47.970 --> 00:03:50.430
- [Elizabeth] So when the
drafters of the 14th Amendment

00:03:50.430 --> 00:03:52.630
were coming together to
think about what rights

00:03:52.630 --> 00:03:54.535
would be protected in the 14th Amendment,

00:03:54.535 --> 00:03:59.120
they looked at a lot of the
abuses by state governments

00:03:59.120 --> 00:04:01.810
of key rights that had
been previously protected

00:04:01.810 --> 00:04:04.363
against federal government
action in the Bill of Rights.

00:04:04.363 --> 00:04:07.830
And when they were debating
what rights would be included

00:04:07.830 --> 00:04:10.519
in these protections against state action,

00:04:10.519 --> 00:04:13.750
they talked repeatedly
about the importance

00:04:13.750 --> 00:04:17.020
of the right to keep and bear arms.

00:04:17.020 --> 00:04:19.250
But the way they talked
about it was very different

00:04:19.250 --> 00:04:20.870
from the way that we think

00:04:20.870 --> 00:04:25.050
about the 18th century
revolutionary founders talking

00:04:25.050 --> 00:04:26.810
about the right to keep and bear arms.

00:04:26.810 --> 00:04:29.230
In that case, it was very
much about the militia

00:04:29.230 --> 00:04:31.440
and preventing the tyranny
of government action.

00:04:31.440 --> 00:04:33.944
In the 14th Amendment
context, the right to keep

00:04:33.944 --> 00:04:37.410
and bear arms was very
much an individual right.

00:04:37.410 --> 00:04:41.850
They were concerned about
freed persons being subject

00:04:41.850 --> 00:04:44.480
to white militia violence and being able

00:04:44.480 --> 00:04:47.000
to protect themselves
with a gun in their house,

00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:50.120
and so that was really
one of the ways in which

00:04:50.120 --> 00:04:52.980
they wanted to protect the
individual right to keep

00:04:52.980 --> 00:04:55.660
and bear arms, different
from the way that I think

00:04:55.660 --> 00:04:57.330
the founders thought about
it when they were drafting

00:04:57.330 --> 00:04:58.987
the 2nd Amendment.

00:04:58.987 --> 00:04:59.960
- [Kim] Yeah, this is a
really interesting point

00:04:59.960 --> 00:05:04.140
because you can kind of
see how these things evolve

00:05:04.140 --> 00:05:07.110
over time and particularly in the 1860s

00:05:07.110 --> 00:05:11.862
after the Civil War, there are
many local or state statutes

00:05:11.862 --> 00:05:15.530
known as the Black Codes
that specifically prevented

00:05:15.530 --> 00:05:18.760
newly free African Americans
from owning firearms

00:05:18.760 --> 00:05:20.150
or any kind of weapon.

00:05:20.150 --> 00:05:22.690
- [Elizabeth] Exactly,
and that was a concern

00:05:22.690 --> 00:05:25.840
because, one, it was a
right that they considered

00:05:25.840 --> 00:05:28.980
to be a right of citizenship,
but two, and more practically

00:05:28.980 --> 00:05:30.900
and more immediately of
concern for the people

00:05:30.900 --> 00:05:33.518
who were being targeted
by this racial violence,

00:05:33.518 --> 00:05:36.660
it was something that was a question

00:05:36.660 --> 00:05:40.940
of life or death for them,
and the debates on this

00:05:40.940 --> 00:05:43.930
by the drafters of the 14th
Amendment were very clear

00:05:43.930 --> 00:05:45.000
and very colorful.

00:05:45.000 --> 00:05:47.821
Senator Samuel Pomeroy
described how indispensable

00:05:47.821 --> 00:05:50.185
the right to keep and bear arms was

00:05:50.185 --> 00:05:52.530
and how important it was
that the 14th Amendment

00:05:52.530 --> 00:05:53.560
protect that right.

00:05:53.560 --> 00:05:56.657
He said during the debates,
"every man should have

00:05:56.657 --> 00:05:59.387
"the right to bear arms
for the defense of himself,

00:05:59.387 --> 00:06:01.267
"and family, and his homestead.

00:06:01.267 --> 00:06:04.617
"And if the cabin door of
the freedman is broken open,

00:06:04.617 --> 00:06:07.677
"and the intruder enters
for purposes as vile

00:06:07.677 --> 00:06:11.077
"as were known to slavery, then
should a well-loaded musket

00:06:11.077 --> 00:06:14.007
"be in the hand of the occupant,
to send the polluted wretch

00:06:14.007 --> 00:06:16.077
"to another world, where his wretchedness

00:06:16.077 --> 00:06:18.100
"will forever remain complete."

00:06:18.100 --> 00:06:20.420
- [Kim] So going back
to the McDonald case,

00:06:20.420 --> 00:06:23.610
how did the court rule in this case?

00:06:23.610 --> 00:06:25.570
- [Alan] In McDonald,
we made two arguments

00:06:25.570 --> 00:06:26.930
for why we should win.

00:06:26.930 --> 00:06:29.362
The first argument we
made was the historically

00:06:29.362 --> 00:06:32.350
more obvious one, although
it's one that the courts

00:06:32.350 --> 00:06:36.000
had not often entertained,
and that's the argument

00:06:36.000 --> 00:06:38.750
that says that when the
14th Amendment provided

00:06:38.750 --> 00:06:42.466
that the people cannot be
deprived of the privileges

00:06:42.466 --> 00:06:44.560
or immunities of American citizenship.

00:06:44.560 --> 00:06:46.090
That means they couldn't be deprived

00:06:46.090 --> 00:06:48.980
of their basic fundamental rights.

00:06:48.980 --> 00:06:50.510
Right there in the text
of the 14th Amendment

00:06:50.510 --> 00:06:54.260
it tells you that you can't
be deprived of the rights

00:06:54.260 --> 00:06:55.820
of American citizenship.

00:06:55.820 --> 00:06:59.980
Secondly, we made the
argument that, and this is

00:06:59.980 --> 00:07:02.200
the argument that the courts
have been more open to

00:07:02.200 --> 00:07:05.310
over the years, we made the
argument that where the state

00:07:05.310 --> 00:07:08.610
is prohibited from depriving Otis McDonald

00:07:08.610 --> 00:07:12.560
and other Chicago residents
of due process of law,

00:07:12.560 --> 00:07:14.650
and you can't deprive
someone of due process.

00:07:14.650 --> 00:07:16.240
That means not just that the state

00:07:16.240 --> 00:07:19.470
can do things arbitrarily,
not just that Otis McDonald

00:07:19.470 --> 00:07:22.700
is entitled to some procedural protections

00:07:22.700 --> 00:07:24.320
in the way that he's regulated,

00:07:24.320 --> 00:07:26.700
but also that there's
some results, some things

00:07:26.700 --> 00:07:29.550
that simply cannot be
done, and taking away

00:07:29.550 --> 00:07:34.550
someone's firearms in violation
of the 2nd Amendment rights

00:07:34.640 --> 00:07:38.200
is not something that the state can do.

00:07:38.200 --> 00:07:41.710
There's no procedure that
the state could create

00:07:41.710 --> 00:07:42.820
to achieve that.

00:07:42.820 --> 00:07:44.770
They would still be considered to be

00:07:44.770 --> 00:07:47.150
giving somebody due process of law.

00:07:47.150 --> 00:07:49.640
- [Elizabeth] So the court
said what we have done

00:07:49.640 --> 00:07:51.940
when we've looked at individual rights

00:07:51.940 --> 00:07:54.810
under the 14th Amendment,
and whether or not

00:07:54.810 --> 00:07:57.270
original Bill of Rights
rights that were initially

00:07:57.270 --> 00:07:59.350
understood to limit the federal government

00:07:59.350 --> 00:08:02.140
applied to the states,
is look at whether or not

00:08:02.140 --> 00:08:05.660
they are part of what
we generally talk about

00:08:05.660 --> 00:08:09.440
as fundamental to our
scheme of ordered liberty,

00:08:09.440 --> 00:08:12.448
or stated another way, the
question is whether the right

00:08:12.448 --> 00:08:16.930
is firmly rooted in this
nation's history and tradition,

00:08:16.930 --> 00:08:18.900
and when they looked at
that question with respect

00:08:18.900 --> 00:08:20.760
to the right to keep and
bear arms, they looked at

00:08:20.760 --> 00:08:22.730
a lot of the Reconstruction
history and said

00:08:22.730 --> 00:08:26.110
this was clearly something
that the drafters

00:08:26.110 --> 00:08:30.410
of the 14th Amendment considered
to be very fundamental

00:08:30.410 --> 00:08:32.466
to ordered liberty and
thought that, indeed,

00:08:32.466 --> 00:08:37.466
the freedmen, the African
American people of the South

00:08:37.710 --> 00:08:40.420
who had been subject to the slave power

00:08:40.420 --> 00:08:43.610
and people across the
country who'd been subject

00:08:43.610 --> 00:08:46.470
to discrimination from
the states should be able

00:08:46.470 --> 00:08:48.860
to look to the Constitution
to protect the right

00:08:48.860 --> 00:08:50.910
to keep and bear arms as
their individual right,

00:08:50.910 --> 00:08:54.530
just as the court had
held in the Heller case,

00:08:54.530 --> 00:08:56.260
they could be able to
look to the Constitution

00:08:56.260 --> 00:08:57.410
for protection of that right

00:08:57.410 --> 00:08:59.020
against the federal government.

00:08:59.020 --> 00:09:01.510
- [Kim] So in the McDonald
case, how did the majority

00:09:01.510 --> 00:09:02.810
of the court rule?

00:09:02.810 --> 00:09:06.210
- [Alan] The justices broke
down in multiple different ways.

00:09:06.210 --> 00:09:08.923
There were four justices,
led by Justice Alito,

00:09:08.923 --> 00:09:12.890
who refused to look any
further at the privileges

00:09:12.890 --> 00:09:14.440
or immunities clause.

00:09:14.440 --> 00:09:18.600
They thought it was old, it
was water under the bridge.

00:09:18.600 --> 00:09:21.410
They were not interested in looking to see

00:09:21.410 --> 00:09:25.122
whether or not the courts
erasing of that provision

00:09:25.122 --> 00:09:28.771
was legitimate, even it's widely agreed

00:09:28.771 --> 00:09:30.040
to be illegitimate today, but the court

00:09:30.040 --> 00:09:32.850
didn't wanna go there, and
instead those four justices,

00:09:32.850 --> 00:09:37.850
led by Justice Alito, held
that the due process clause

00:09:37.974 --> 00:09:41.820
incorporates the 2nd Amendment
right to keep and bear arms

00:09:41.820 --> 00:09:44.950
as against the states because
it is a fundamental right.

00:09:44.950 --> 00:09:47.710
It's deeply rooted in our
nation's history and traditions.

00:09:47.710 --> 00:09:50.500
It's something that's very
basic to our understanding

00:09:50.500 --> 00:09:53.230
of our civil and political institutions.

00:09:53.230 --> 00:09:56.000
The four justices thought the
right to keep and bear arms

00:09:56.000 --> 00:09:57.040
is fundamental.

00:09:57.040 --> 00:09:59.010
- [Elizabeth] There was actually
a debate among the members

00:09:59.010 --> 00:10:02.410
of the majority who all
believe that there was a right

00:10:02.410 --> 00:10:05.340
to have a handgun in the
house for self defense

00:10:05.340 --> 00:10:07.320
that was protected against state

00:10:07.320 --> 00:10:11.349
and local government
regulations, but Justice Thomas

00:10:11.349 --> 00:10:15.500
would have found that right
through another means.

00:10:15.500 --> 00:10:20.300
He would have looked at the
privileges or immunities clause

00:10:20.300 --> 00:10:25.300
of the 14th Amendment, instead
of the now accepted method

00:10:25.520 --> 00:10:29.800
of looking at due process liberty clause

00:10:29.800 --> 00:10:32.710
of the 14th Amendment, which
is how these other provisions

00:10:32.710 --> 00:10:34.980
of the Bill of Rights
have been incorporated

00:10:34.980 --> 00:10:36.200
against the states.

00:10:36.200 --> 00:10:38.890
There were many arguments,
including, I should say,

00:10:38.890 --> 00:10:41.403
a brief that I filed on behalf of scholars

00:10:41.403 --> 00:10:44.530
from across the ideological spectrum

00:10:44.530 --> 00:10:47.360
who said that, in fact, the
privileges or immunities clause

00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:49.958
of the 14th Amendment is the part

00:10:49.958 --> 00:10:54.720
of that constitutional
amendment that was intended

00:10:54.720 --> 00:10:57.790
to protect this particular
substantive right

00:10:57.790 --> 00:11:00.259
as well as the other substantive rights

00:11:00.259 --> 00:11:04.150
of the Bill of Rights
against state infringement,

00:11:04.150 --> 00:11:08.130
just as Thomas'
concurrence did not get any

00:11:08.130 --> 00:11:10.200
of the other votes,
whether from the people

00:11:10.200 --> 00:11:11.910
who were against the right
to keep and bear arms

00:11:11.910 --> 00:11:15.710
or those who didn't, but it
is an important contribution

00:11:15.710 --> 00:11:19.058
to thinking about how we understand rights

00:11:19.058 --> 00:11:23.030
and where they are protected
in the Constitution.

00:11:23.030 --> 00:11:25.840
- [Alan] Justice Thomas'
opinion in McDonald

00:11:25.840 --> 00:11:27.890
is groundbreaking.

00:11:27.890 --> 00:11:31.230
It represents the first time since 1868

00:11:31.230 --> 00:11:34.064
that the original meaning
of the 14th Amendment's

00:11:34.064 --> 00:11:37.430
privileges or immunities
clause, the basic protection

00:11:37.430 --> 00:11:39.750
that we have for civil
rights in this country

00:11:39.750 --> 00:11:43.020
against state and local
governments was decisive

00:11:43.020 --> 00:11:45.150
in a case at the Supreme Court.

00:11:45.150 --> 00:11:50.150
It's been that long since a
true original understanding

00:11:50.530 --> 00:11:54.410
of the 14th Amendment's
language has finally proven

00:11:54.410 --> 00:11:56.260
to be decisive.

00:11:56.260 --> 00:11:58.210
- [Elizabeth] There
were, of course, justices

00:11:58.210 --> 00:12:00.960
who thought that there is
not an individual right

00:12:00.960 --> 00:12:04.493
to have a handgun in the
home for self defense.

00:12:05.426 --> 00:12:08.760
These were the same
justices, not surprisingly,

00:12:08.760 --> 00:12:10.922
who thought there wasn't
a 2nd Amendment right

00:12:10.922 --> 00:12:14.850
to be protected against
federal government action

00:12:14.850 --> 00:12:16.840
to keep a handgun in the
home for self defense.

00:12:16.840 --> 00:12:19.668
They would've thought that
this was much more a right

00:12:19.668 --> 00:12:22.610
in the 2nd Amendment
context that had to do

00:12:22.610 --> 00:12:24.530
with militia service, military service,

00:12:24.530 --> 00:12:27.260
and therefore did not extend
to an individual right

00:12:27.260 --> 00:12:29.140
to have a gun in the
home for self defense.

00:12:29.140 --> 00:12:30.970
- [Alan] McDonald's really
a 14th Amendment case.

00:12:30.970 --> 00:12:34.560
I mean, guns happen to be
the thing that was in it,

00:12:34.560 --> 00:12:39.172
but I'd always seen as primarily
is a 14th Amendment case.

00:12:39.172 --> 00:12:40.960
It's not really a case
that tells you anything

00:12:40.960 --> 00:12:42.933
about the scope of the 2nd Amendment.

00:12:43.980 --> 00:12:45.440
In fact, it doesn't say
anything about the scope

00:12:45.440 --> 00:12:47.420
of the 2nd Amendment, very little.

00:12:47.420 --> 00:12:49.510
- [Elizabeth] There are many
issues left to be resolved

00:12:49.510 --> 00:12:51.380
in the 2nd Amendment context.

00:12:51.380 --> 00:12:54.250
The Heller case itself,
which first articulated

00:12:54.250 --> 00:12:58.860
that there was a right for
individuals to keep and bear arms

00:12:58.860 --> 00:13:01.610
in their homes for self defense made clear

00:13:01.610 --> 00:13:05.700
that it wasn't saying that there
could be no gun regulation.

00:13:05.700 --> 00:13:08.110
That case, even though it was
written by Justice Scolia,

00:13:08.110 --> 00:13:09.740
and certainly in the McDonald case,

00:13:09.740 --> 00:13:12.518
Justice Alito's majority
opinion reiterated this,

00:13:12.518 --> 00:13:15.600
said that while there were certain laws

00:13:15.600 --> 00:13:18.420
that would be struck
down as unconstitutional

00:13:18.420 --> 00:13:20.560
because they prohibited
the possession of handguns

00:13:20.560 --> 00:13:23.210
in the home, they
recognized at the same time

00:13:23.210 --> 00:13:25.380
that the right to keep and
bear arms is not a right

00:13:25.380 --> 00:13:28.400
to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever

00:13:28.400 --> 00:13:31.760
in any manner whatsoever,
and for whatever purpose,

00:13:31.760 --> 00:13:33.457
so given that the court itself,

00:13:33.457 --> 00:13:36.807
and even very conservative
justices recognize

00:13:36.807 --> 00:13:41.000
that there could be and perhaps should be

00:13:41.000 --> 00:13:45.970
common sense limitations
on both the types of guns

00:13:45.970 --> 00:13:50.260
that are allowed, the manner
in which they are allowed,

00:13:50.260 --> 00:13:53.230
and where they can be
taken and in what manner,

00:13:53.230 --> 00:13:57.550
then a lot of the gun
regulations that are being passed

00:13:57.550 --> 00:14:02.100
are still very much a part
of the constitutional debate.

00:14:02.100 --> 00:14:05.240
We've seen, frankly, most
of the laws, thus far,

00:14:05.240 --> 00:14:08.870
be upheld as constitutional
laws, that, for example,

00:14:08.870 --> 00:14:12.788
target assault weapons,
high capacity magazines,

00:14:12.788 --> 00:14:16.790
and certain licensing and
registration requirements.

00:14:16.790 --> 00:14:21.000
So I think we will see more
cases to define the contours

00:14:21.000 --> 00:14:24.796
of the individual right
to keep and bear arms

00:14:24.796 --> 00:14:27.296
as these gun regulations get passed

00:14:27.296 --> 00:14:32.250
and as the courts get to pass
upon their constitutionality.

00:14:32.250 --> 00:14:35.180
- [Kim] So we've learned
that the Supreme Court ruled

00:14:35.180 --> 00:14:38.360
that the 14th Amendment's
due process clause

00:14:38.360 --> 00:14:41.780
that no state can deprive
a citizen of life,

00:14:41.780 --> 00:14:44.500
liberty, or property
without due process of law,

00:14:44.500 --> 00:14:47.653
did incorporate the 2nd
Amendment into the states

00:14:47.653 --> 00:14:50.910
under the reasoning that the
right to keep and bear arms

00:14:50.910 --> 00:14:54.630
for self defense is fundamental
to the nation's scheme

00:14:54.630 --> 00:14:56.090
of ordered liberty.

00:14:56.090 --> 00:14:58.820
According to Alan Gura,
even though this case

00:14:58.820 --> 00:15:02.420
was about guns, it was
really a 14th Amendment case

00:15:02.420 --> 00:15:06.170
concerning whether states can
restrict citizens' liberty.

00:15:06.170 --> 00:15:09.320
Elizabeth Wydra, however,
cautions that the decision

00:15:09.320 --> 00:15:13.340
in McDonald didn't preclude any
restriction on gun ownership

00:15:13.340 --> 00:15:15.880
and she suspects that
new cases will continue

00:15:15.880 --> 00:15:19.280
to define the individual
right to keep and bear arms.

00:15:19.280 --> 00:15:20.679
To learn more about this case,

00:15:20.679 --> 00:15:23.240
visit the National Constitution Center's

00:15:23.240 --> 00:15:25.966
interactive Constitution,
and Kahn Academy's resources

00:15:25.966 --> 00:15:28.483
on US Government and Politics.


Roe v. Wade

WEBVTT
Kind: captions
Language: en

00:00:00.250 --> 00:00:02.420
- [Kim] Hi, this is Kim from Khan Academy.

00:00:02.420 --> 00:00:07.420
Today you are Roe versus
Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court

00:00:07.450 --> 00:00:09.980
case that ruled that the right of privacy

00:00:09.980 --> 00:00:13.200
extends to a woman's
decision to have an abortion.

00:00:13.200 --> 00:00:15.090
To learn more about Roe versus Wade,

00:00:15.090 --> 00:00:17.310
I spoke to two experts on the case.

00:00:17.310 --> 00:00:20.670
Clarke Forsythe is Senior
Counsel for Americans

00:00:20.670 --> 00:00:24.150
United for Life and the
author of Abuse of Discretion:

00:00:24.150 --> 00:00:26.460
The Inside Story of Roe V. Wade.

00:00:26.460 --> 00:00:29.910
Melissa Murray is the Alexander
F. and May T. Morrison

00:00:29.910 --> 00:00:32.500
Professor of Law at Berkeley Law School,

00:00:32.500 --> 00:00:35.020
where she also serves
as the Faculty Director

00:00:35.020 --> 00:00:37.740
for the Center for Reproductive
Rights and Justice.

00:00:37.740 --> 00:00:41.190
Mr. Forsythe, could you set
the stage for us a little bit.

00:00:41.190 --> 00:00:43.350
What was going on at this time period?

00:00:43.350 --> 00:00:46.100
- [Clarke] Well, there
were efforts in the 1960s

00:00:46.100 --> 00:00:49.880
to repeal abortion laws in the states

00:00:49.880 --> 00:00:54.880
and when abortion
activists were dissatisfied

00:00:55.040 --> 00:00:58.140
with those efforts, they
decided to go into the courts.

00:00:58.140 --> 00:01:03.140
And around 1969, they took
some cases into the courts

00:01:04.660 --> 00:01:08.280
and ultimately, there
were 20 or more cases

00:01:08.280 --> 00:01:11.480
challenging state laws in the courts

00:01:11.480 --> 00:01:16.480
between 1969 and 1973 and Roe versus Wade

00:01:20.140 --> 00:01:22.290
was the case from Texas.

00:01:22.290 --> 00:01:25.240
- [Melissa] Roe was
litigated in the early 1970s.

00:01:25.240 --> 00:01:28.360
It was a period of enormous
change in the United States.

00:01:28.360 --> 00:01:31.220
We were beginning to see
beginnings of the women's

00:01:31.220 --> 00:01:33.790
rights movements, the
beginning of the gay rights

00:01:33.790 --> 00:01:35.707
movement, and of course,
the civil rights movement

00:01:35.707 --> 00:01:40.380
of the 1960s was moving in a
lot of different directions.

00:01:40.380 --> 00:01:44.190
At the time, the question
of abortion was very much

00:01:44.190 --> 00:01:47.460
on the minds of lots of
different state legislatures

00:01:47.460 --> 00:01:50.750
because there had been moves to liberalize

00:01:50.750 --> 00:01:52.650
much of the criminal law that dealt

00:01:52.650 --> 00:01:56.871
with matters of sex and
sexuality, including abortion.

00:01:56.871 --> 00:02:00.990
At the time, four
states, New York, Alaska,

00:02:00.990 --> 00:02:04.140
Hawaii, and I believe
Washington, had actually

00:02:04.140 --> 00:02:08.580
taken steps to repeal their
laws criminalizing abortion.

00:02:08.580 --> 00:02:11.680
And about 13 other
states had taken efforts

00:02:11.680 --> 00:02:15.240
to liberalize their laws
criminalizing abortions,

00:02:15.240 --> 00:02:17.930
but in number of other states, around,

00:02:17.930 --> 00:02:21.850
at least 20 or more, there
remained on the books,

00:02:21.850 --> 00:02:24.610
laws that absolutely
criminalized abortion,

00:02:24.610 --> 00:02:28.030
except in situations where
it would be necessary

00:02:28.030 --> 00:02:30.850
to preserve the woman's health or life,

00:02:30.850 --> 00:02:35.090
or in cases of rape,
incest, or fetal anomaly.

00:02:35.090 --> 00:02:38.010
- [Clarke] Abortion
rights attorneys sought

00:02:38.010 --> 00:02:42.040
plaintiffs who could
challenge the Texas law

00:02:42.040 --> 00:02:43.150
and the Georgia law.

00:02:43.150 --> 00:02:46.570
There were two attorneys from Texas

00:02:46.570 --> 00:02:51.570
who found Norma McCorvey,
who they gave the pseudonym

00:02:51.950 --> 00:02:56.060
of Jane Roe, for purposes
of protecting her privacy.

00:02:56.060 --> 00:02:59.283
And she became the nominal plaintiff.

00:03:00.162 --> 00:03:03.560
- [Melissa] And so Norma
McCorvey brought this case.

00:03:03.560 --> 00:03:07.680
She was a 22 year old woman
living in Dallas County, Texas,

00:03:07.680 --> 00:03:10.460
who found herself pregnant
for the third time.

00:03:10.460 --> 00:03:13.860
She was unmarried, her
first child had been born,

00:03:13.860 --> 00:03:16.530
a daughter, and she had ultimately signed

00:03:16.530 --> 00:03:19.470
over custody of her daughter
to her mother to raise,

00:03:19.470 --> 00:03:22.510
because she was having
a bit of itinerant life,

00:03:22.510 --> 00:03:24.750
was unable to take care of her child.

00:03:24.750 --> 00:03:28.510
The second child that she
bore, she gave up for adoption.

00:03:28.510 --> 00:03:30.030
And so when she found herself pregnant

00:03:30.030 --> 00:03:32.460
for a third time, she wasn't willing to do

00:03:32.460 --> 00:03:35.020
either of these things
again and wanted to safely

00:03:35.020 --> 00:03:37.040
and legally terminate her pregnancy.

00:03:37.040 --> 00:03:40.100
But this was impossible
under the Texas law.

00:03:40.100 --> 00:03:43.450
Texas had, since the
19th century absolutely

00:03:43.450 --> 00:03:45.770
criminalized abortion except in cases

00:03:45.770 --> 00:03:47.320
where it was necessary for the health

00:03:47.320 --> 00:03:48.720
and safety of the mother.

00:03:48.720 --> 00:03:51.600
And so she then was
faced with the question

00:03:51.600 --> 00:03:53.160
of what was she going to do.

00:03:53.160 --> 00:03:55.110
And the only thing she
could think to do then,

00:03:55.110 --> 00:03:57.130
was to actually challenge the law.

00:03:57.130 --> 00:04:00.520
So she was put in contact
with Sarah Weddington

00:04:00.520 --> 00:04:02.870
and Linda Coffee, two young women who had

00:04:02.870 --> 00:04:04.560
recently graduated from law school.

00:04:04.560 --> 00:04:07.070
Sarah Weddington was only 26 years old

00:04:07.070 --> 00:04:10.590
at the time she helped Norma
McCorvey bring this case.

00:04:10.590 --> 00:04:13.550
But they decided to sue the State of Texas

00:04:13.550 --> 00:04:15.691
to challenge the constitutionality

00:04:15.691 --> 00:04:18.300
of Texas' criminal abortion ban.

00:04:18.300 --> 00:04:21.390
- [Clarke] But as the history shows,

00:04:21.390 --> 00:04:25.000
there was no trial, there was no evidence,

00:04:25.000 --> 00:04:26.830
there were no expert witnesses.

00:04:26.830 --> 00:04:28.880
Jane Roe never testified.

00:04:28.880 --> 00:04:31.420
As you know, she never got an abortion.

00:04:31.420 --> 00:04:35.420
She gave birth and placed
her child for adoption.

00:04:35.420 --> 00:04:40.270
- [Kim] Okay, so Roe was
Norma McCorvey, who was Wade?

00:04:40.270 --> 00:04:43.510
- [Clarke] Henry Wade
was the District Attorney

00:04:43.510 --> 00:04:48.500
for Dallas, Texas,
where the case was filed

00:04:48.500 --> 00:04:50.860
in Federal District Court.

00:04:50.860 --> 00:04:54.410
- [Kim] So this case,
I assume kind of wends

00:04:54.410 --> 00:04:58.470
it's way through the courts and how did

00:04:58.470 --> 00:04:59.880
the Supreme Court rule?

00:04:59.880 --> 00:05:04.730
- [Clarke] The Justices
declared the Texas and Georgia

00:05:04.730 --> 00:05:09.660
laws unconstitutional and then rewrote

00:05:09.660 --> 00:05:14.660
a national law, a national abortion law,

00:05:14.740 --> 00:05:17.650
in which they said that the states could

00:05:17.650 --> 00:05:21.220
not regulate or limit abortion
in the first trimester.

00:05:21.220 --> 00:05:24.840
They could regulate more
in the second trimester,

00:05:24.840 --> 00:05:27.380
the second three months of pregnancy,

00:05:27.380 --> 00:05:30.970
to protect maternal health
and they could regulate

00:05:30.970 --> 00:05:34.610
in the last three months of
pregnancy, the last trimester,

00:05:34.610 --> 00:05:37.780
to protect maternal health or fetal life.

00:05:37.780 --> 00:05:40.200
The attorneys for the plaintiffs claimed

00:05:40.200 --> 00:05:44.160
that abortion fell within
the right to privacy,

00:05:44.160 --> 00:05:46.080
even though privacy is not in the text

00:05:46.080 --> 00:05:49.190
of the Constitution,
they said it was derived,

00:05:49.190 --> 00:05:52.310
or based in the language
of the 14th amendment

00:05:52.310 --> 00:05:55.080
of the Constitution even
though the 14th amendment

00:05:55.080 --> 00:05:56.639
doesn't say anything about abortion,

00:05:56.639 --> 00:06:00.750
or the unborn child, it
just uses the term liberty.

00:06:00.750 --> 00:06:03.610
And ultimately the Court
said that the right

00:06:03.610 --> 00:06:06.260
to abortion is part of
the right to privacy

00:06:06.260 --> 00:06:07.950
based on the 14th amendment.

00:06:07.950 --> 00:06:08.890
- [Kim] That's very interesting.

00:06:08.890 --> 00:06:11.010
So I've learned through
many of these interviews,

00:06:11.010 --> 00:06:12.558
that this right to privacy is something

00:06:12.558 --> 00:06:15.084
that is never actually explicitly stated

00:06:15.084 --> 00:06:19.584
throughout the Bill of
Rights, but there's a penumbra

00:06:19.584 --> 00:06:22.670
of privacy that you see in a few ways.

00:06:22.670 --> 00:06:25.330
What was the Court's
reasoning that it was abortion

00:06:25.330 --> 00:06:28.620
that could fall under
this zone of privacy?

00:06:28.620 --> 00:06:30.790
- [Clarke] If you read the Roe opinion,

00:06:30.790 --> 00:06:35.560
on page 152 of the Roe
opinion, Justice Blackmun

00:06:35.560 --> 00:06:38.820
starts out by saying
that, he cites a string

00:06:38.820 --> 00:06:42.460
of cases since about 1910, a string

00:06:42.460 --> 00:06:44.900
of Supreme Court cases
and says that these lead

00:06:44.900 --> 00:06:48.930
to the right of privacy
and we think abortion,

00:06:48.930 --> 00:06:51.180
or that the right of
privacy is broad enough

00:06:51.180 --> 00:06:52.680
to encompass abortion.

00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:56.450
But then four pages later, on page 156,

00:06:56.450 --> 00:06:59.150
Blackmun turns around
and says, but abortion

00:06:59.150 --> 00:07:02.100
because it involves the taking of a life,

00:07:02.100 --> 00:07:06.199
is inherently different
from all those other cases

00:07:06.199 --> 00:07:08.490
that make up the right of privacy.

00:07:08.490 --> 00:07:10.240
- [Melissa] So the
right of privacy doesn't

00:07:10.240 --> 00:07:12.550
actually come from Roe versus Wade,

00:07:12.550 --> 00:07:16.360
it comes from a case decided
about eight years earlier,

00:07:16.360 --> 00:07:19.471
in 1965 called, Griswold
versus Connecticut.

00:07:19.471 --> 00:07:23.590
In Griswold, at issue was
a Connecticut state statute

00:07:23.590 --> 00:07:26.270
that made it a crime to use contraception

00:07:26.270 --> 00:07:30.250
or even to counsel patients
about contraception.

00:07:30.250 --> 00:07:33.450
Planned Parenthood League
of Connecticut opened up

00:07:33.450 --> 00:07:36.680
a birth control clinic in
New Haven, Connecticut.

00:07:36.680 --> 00:07:38.990
They were promptly arrested and the clinic

00:07:38.990 --> 00:07:41.563
was closed and then they
were able to bring this case.

00:07:41.563 --> 00:07:44.960
And they argued that the right to be able

00:07:44.960 --> 00:07:47.620
to use contraception was
the right of the individual.

00:07:47.620 --> 00:07:49.460
The right of the doctor to advise patients

00:07:49.460 --> 00:07:52.180
about contraception was
also an individual right.

00:07:52.180 --> 00:07:54.150
And the Court, in an opinion authored

00:07:54.150 --> 00:07:57.290
by William O. Douglas agrees with them.

00:07:57.290 --> 00:08:00.710
And the Court articulates
for the first time

00:08:00.710 --> 00:08:03.670
this right of privacy and this is a right

00:08:03.670 --> 00:08:07.210
that the majority in
Griswold says is actually

00:08:07.210 --> 00:08:10.500
been percolating in the Court's
decisions for some time.

00:08:10.500 --> 00:08:12.520
- [Kim] Did any of the Justices dissent

00:08:12.520 --> 00:08:15.400
in the Roe decision and if so, why?

00:08:15.400 --> 00:08:17.920
- [Clarke] Well there were two dissents

00:08:17.920 --> 00:08:22.430
by Justice White and by Justice Rehnquist

00:08:22.430 --> 00:08:26.500
and Justice White said that the Court

00:08:26.500 --> 00:08:30.684
was engaging in raw judicial power

00:08:30.684 --> 00:08:35.684
and that the Justices
did not have the right

00:08:38.128 --> 00:08:41.780
or the authority to strike
down the abortion laws

00:08:41.780 --> 00:08:45.690
of the States and could not rely upon

00:08:45.690 --> 00:08:48.410
a doctrine called,
substantive due process.

00:08:48.410 --> 00:08:53.407
Justice Rehnquist said that
there is clear historical

00:08:54.670 --> 00:08:58.490
evidence that many states
passed abortion limits

00:08:58.490 --> 00:09:01.000
and prohibitions precisely at the time

00:09:01.000 --> 00:09:05.040
of the framing of the 14th
amendment in the 1860s

00:09:05.040 --> 00:09:09.150
leading up to 1868 and
that the evidentiary

00:09:09.150 --> 00:09:11.090
history, this history of state limits

00:09:11.090 --> 00:09:13.590
and prohibitions on abortion contradicted

00:09:13.590 --> 00:09:15.680
any proposition that the 14th amendment

00:09:15.680 --> 00:09:18.320
was intended to include
a right to abortion

00:09:18.320 --> 00:09:21.830
and that was kind of the
heart of his dissent.

00:09:21.830 --> 00:09:25.040
- [Kim] So Roe was not the last word

00:09:25.040 --> 00:09:26.990
on abortion in the United States.

00:09:26.990 --> 00:09:28.530
There have been several later cases

00:09:28.530 --> 00:09:29.950
that were important to this as well,

00:09:29.950 --> 00:09:31.940
like Planned Parenthood versus Casey,

00:09:31.940 --> 00:09:34.330
or Whole Woman's Health
versus Hellerstedt.

00:09:34.330 --> 00:09:36.500
Can you talk a little
bit about how those cases

00:09:36.500 --> 00:09:38.900
have altered the scope
of the right to abortion?

00:09:38.900 --> 00:09:42.530
- [Melissa] As soon as
Roe is decided in 1973,

00:09:42.530 --> 00:09:45.210
there is an effort to sort of roll it back

00:09:45.210 --> 00:09:47.100
and hem it in a little bit.

00:09:47.100 --> 00:09:49.550
Frank Church, who's a Senator from Idaho,

00:09:49.550 --> 00:09:52.900
announces the Church
amendment, which basically says

00:09:52.900 --> 00:09:56.471
that physicians don't
have to perform abortions

00:09:56.471 --> 00:09:59.700
if doing so would conflict
with their conscience

00:09:59.700 --> 00:10:01.050
or conscientious beliefs.

00:10:01.050 --> 00:10:04.060
So, again, that's one
opportunity to sort of limit

00:10:04.060 --> 00:10:06.210
the reach of this right,
by limiting the number

00:10:06.210 --> 00:10:09.820
of providers who are
available to offer abortions.

00:10:09.820 --> 00:10:13.490
- [Clarke] In fact the
Court has kind of cut back

00:10:13.490 --> 00:10:18.130
on Roe versus Wade in
four cases over the years.

00:10:18.130 --> 00:10:21.090
Harris versus McRae
involving abortion funding.

00:10:21.090 --> 00:10:24.597
Planned Parenthood versus
Casey and in other cases,

00:10:24.597 --> 00:10:26.810
they've given more
deference to the states,

00:10:26.810 --> 00:10:30.690
allowed the states to
pass more and more limits

00:10:30.690 --> 00:10:34.220
at least around the
margins, even though they've

00:10:34.220 --> 00:10:37.540
continued holding to the basic right

00:10:37.540 --> 00:10:40.840
that Roe created, that there
was a right to abortion

00:10:40.840 --> 00:10:44.380
for virtually any reason,
at any time of pregnancy.

00:10:44.380 --> 00:10:46.920
That's still the scope of the right,

00:10:46.920 --> 00:10:48.623
but they've allowed marginal regulations,

00:10:48.623 --> 00:10:51.360
like limits on public
funding, parental notice

00:10:51.360 --> 00:10:53.559
and consent, informed consent laws.

00:10:53.559 --> 00:10:57.900
But then the Court flip flopped in 2016,

00:10:57.900 --> 00:11:01.550
in June of 2016 in Whole Woman's
Health versus Hellerstedt.

00:11:01.550 --> 00:11:05.477
- [Melissa] The case makes
its way to the Supreme Court

00:11:05.477 --> 00:11:07.620
and in an opinion that's authored

00:11:07.620 --> 00:11:10.050
by Justice Stephen Breyer
and it's only an eight

00:11:10.050 --> 00:11:13.170
person Court because
Justice Scalia passes away

00:11:13.170 --> 00:11:16.750
in February of 2016, so just
eight people on the Court.

00:11:16.750 --> 00:11:19.100
In this decision, it's a
five to three decision,

00:11:19.100 --> 00:11:23.090
Justice Stephen Breyer
notes that the provisions

00:11:23.090 --> 00:11:25.280
that were challenged do not offer

00:11:25.280 --> 00:11:27.960
the medical benefits that
they claimed to offer,

00:11:27.960 --> 00:11:31.240
sufficient to justify
the burdens on access

00:11:31.240 --> 00:11:33.410
that each of those provisions imposes.

00:11:33.410 --> 00:11:36.460
- [Kim] What do you see as
the future of Roe versus Wade?

00:11:36.460 --> 00:11:37.450
- [Clarke] Well, the Court has failed

00:11:37.450 --> 00:11:39.460
as the national abortion control board.

00:11:39.460 --> 00:11:42.490
It can not monitor abortion.

00:11:42.490 --> 00:11:45.570
It can't intervene, it can't regulate

00:11:45.570 --> 00:11:48.100
or legislate itself, it can't act

00:11:48.100 --> 00:11:49.748
as public health administrators

00:11:49.748 --> 00:11:54.748
It can't investigate and
I believe it's absolutely

00:11:56.050 --> 00:11:57.890
certain that the Court, sooner or later,

00:11:57.890 --> 00:12:01.370
will have to overturn the
Roe versus Wade decision

00:12:01.370 --> 00:12:03.340
because of this failure
and return the issue

00:12:03.340 --> 00:12:04.320
to the states.

00:12:04.320 --> 00:12:06.600
- [Melissa] When we are
talking about repealing

00:12:06.600 --> 00:12:10.300
or reforming these laws
in the 1960s and 70s,

00:12:10.300 --> 00:12:12.610
it's also around a social movement

00:12:12.610 --> 00:12:14.690
where one of the critical questions is,

00:12:14.690 --> 00:12:17.550
what will be the role of women going forth

00:12:17.550 --> 00:12:19.460
in a modern society.

00:12:19.460 --> 00:12:21.520
When the questions of contraception

00:12:21.520 --> 00:12:23.360
come before the Court,
one of the questions is

00:12:23.360 --> 00:12:25.219
whether women will be allowed to choose

00:12:25.219 --> 00:12:27.610
when and how to have
children, whether they can

00:12:27.610 --> 00:12:31.107
space the timing of births
to accommodate careers.

00:12:31.107 --> 00:12:34.000
It's the same issue that
comes up in abortion,

00:12:34.000 --> 00:12:37.260
like this allowing
women freedom to be able

00:12:37.260 --> 00:12:38.940
to go into the workforce, to determine

00:12:38.940 --> 00:12:40.690
when and how they will become mothers.

00:12:40.690 --> 00:12:44.640
And so, it's not surprising
that the same questions

00:12:44.640 --> 00:12:46.930
that arose in 19th century about the place

00:12:46.930 --> 00:12:49.190
of women, about what happens in a society

00:12:49.190 --> 00:12:51.850
that's undergoing change,
whether its immigration

00:12:51.850 --> 00:12:54.480
or changes in the
demography of the country,

00:12:54.480 --> 00:12:57.590
are also coming up in the 1960s and 1970s

00:12:57.590 --> 00:12:59.289
at a time of incredible social change.

00:12:59.289 --> 00:13:02.970
And I think abortion and
these rights involving

00:13:02.970 --> 00:13:05.240
a woman's role really do come to the fore

00:13:05.240 --> 00:13:06.970
and are incredibly controversial.

00:13:06.970 --> 00:13:08.910
- [Kim] So we've learned that the decision

00:13:08.910 --> 00:13:11.770
to legalize abortion in Roe versus Wade

00:13:11.770 --> 00:13:13.830
was based on the right of privacy,

00:13:13.830 --> 00:13:16.630
which the court has inferred
from the due process

00:13:16.630 --> 00:13:18.490
clause of the 14th amendment.

00:13:18.490 --> 00:13:21.270
Since the Roe decision,
a number of other cases

00:13:21.270 --> 00:13:24.150
have set limits on abortion
and abortion clinics.

00:13:24.150 --> 00:13:26.670
Clarke Forsythe argues
that the Supreme Court

00:13:26.670 --> 00:13:28.670
has failed in regulating abortion

00:13:28.670 --> 00:13:31.050
and that the issue should
be returned to the states.

00:13:31.050 --> 00:13:33.421
Melissa Murray, by contrast, suggests

00:13:33.421 --> 00:13:36.660
that the decision in Roe
is crucial to giving women

00:13:36.660 --> 00:13:38.390
the freedom to join the workforce

00:13:38.390 --> 00:13:40.620
and make decisions about
when to have children.

00:13:40.620 --> 00:13:42.320
To learn more about his case,

00:13:42.320 --> 00:13:44.370
visit the National Constitution Center's

00:13:44.370 --> 00:13:46.790
Interactive Constitution
and Khan Academy's

00:13:46.790 --> 00:13:49.423
resources on US Government and Politics.