supreme shock. a leaked draft shows the supreme court poised to overturn roe v. wade. >> if this decision holds, it's quite a radical decision. >> after decades of abortion rights on to be protected, is it about to become illegal in the u.s.? i'll speak to mississippi governor tate reeves. battle cry.

the leak ignites outrage. democrats vow to fight for abortion rights. >> this is a life or death moment and we need to fight like it is. >> but will the court's decision affect how americans vote this november? democratic senator kirsten gillibrand joins me to discuss ahead. plus, proxy war? russia is set to celebrate victory day with signs putin could escalate his war strategy as reports suggests the u.s. is going further to help ukraine. i'll speak to the u.s. ambassador to the united nations, linda thomas-greenfield in moments. good morning, i'm jake tapper in washington where the state of our union is on the brink of a very different america. the nation is still reacting to this unprecedented leak from the u.s. supreme court revealing a draft majority opinion on a mississippi abortion case that would overrule the landmark 1973 ruling, roe v. wade. the majority draft was written by justice alito and supported by four other justices,

according to politico which obtained the draft and broke the story. while not final, the stakes of this decision have already spurred protests and celebrations across the country. and a new debate in washington. between those who want to nationalize the right to an abortion and those who want to ban it everywhere. new cnn polling shows a vast majority of the public, two-thirds, do not support overturning roe v. wade, but so much remains unclear what the final decision will actually be. what will happen in each state if the constitutional right to abortion is removed, if the supreme court overturns roe. right now there are 19 states that had abortion bans on the books before roe was decided or have passed so-called trigger laws that will ban abortion and snap into place if roe is overturned. let's begin with the governor of the state at the center of this supreme court case. republican tate reeves of mississippi. governor reeves, thank you for joining us this morning. mississippi is one of the states

that has a trigger law passed in 2007 that will ban all abortions except in cases of rape or in cases where the mother's life is at stake, with no exceptions for incest, if roe is overturned. this would require the state attorney general to certify that roe v. wade is no longer in effect. if the court rules as expected, is mississippi going to implement that trigger law and make all abortion except in those two narrow circumstances illegal? >> well, thank you for having me on this morning, jake. happy mother's day to all the moms and grand moms out there, including the first lady of mississippi, miss elee. mississippi has a trigger law in place, it was passed in 2007. that trigger law will go into effect if the draft opinion, which has been a bit of a bombshell this entire week, from a national conversation and political discussion, but, yes, our trigger law will go into effect. it does have an exception for rape. it does have an exception for the life of the mother. >> as this country saw before 1973,ing banning abortion does

not actually end abortion. it causes girls and women to seek out methods that are not as safe to end their pregnancies. methods that in the past resulted in mutilation or even death. now, mississippi, according to your state department of health, has about 3,500 abortions a year. has the state done any analysis of what the state thinks will happen to those women and girls if this law goes into effect, how many unwanted pregnancies will result in deliveries, how many will result in women and girls dying because they seek out unsafe methods? have you done an analysis that way? >> well, that's a great question, jake. and i really do appreciate it. and what i would say to you is this. not only have we done an analysis, we started doing the hard work of what a post-roe

mississippi will look like. in fact, we believe that if, in fact, this leaked opinion is accurate, and if, in fact, a majority of the justices of the supreme court are going to overturn roe, we must understand that while this is a great victory for the pro-life movement, it is not the end. in fact, it is just the beginning. the beginning is that we must show that being pro-life is not just about being anti-abortion. so, in our state the work that is being done goes in two directions. number one, we have to do everything we can to make it easier on those moms who may be in unwanted pregnancies. that's the reason that we -- this year just in the last couple of weeks i signed legislation to provide help and resources and money to the 37 pregnancy resource centers located in every region of our state. we want to make sure we get those individuals, ladies and women and expectant mothers the

help they need from a health care standpoint. it's not just about the health care. it's about other resources that are available to those moms. and the second piece of being prepared in the next phase of the pro-life movement is about what are we doing to help those babies that maybe are -- they do go to full term, that the moms do have? and what we're trying to do is focus on making adoption easier in mississippi. we're focusing on improving our foster care system. we've had challenges in the past and we recognize that. we admit that. but we're investing in that system. over $100 million to improve technology at the department of human services and in our child protection service. >> governor, you just said you did do an analysis. can you tell us more about president analysis? what did the state of mississippi conclude as to the 3,500 abortions that happen on average per year in mississippi, how many of those girls and women will seek unsafe

abortions, how many might die, how many might end up hurt, mutilated, whatever? what did the analysis reveal? >> well, jake, i can't predict for you exactly what's going to happen in the future. what i can tell you is what we're trying to do in mississippi is we're trying to provide those potential expectant mothers the resources that they need so that they can go to a full-term pregnancy if they choose to keep that child, that's a great outcome. we want to make sure we provide them the resources they need, provide them the help they need. but if they choose not to, we want to make sure we have plans in place to protect those babies once they're born. that's why we talk about foster care, we talk about adoptions and other things, creating forever homes for those babies. >> so, governor, you and i have talked about this before but mississippi, as you know, has

the highest rate of infant mortality in the united states, the highest rate of child poverty in the united states. your state has no guaranteed maternity leave that's paid. the legislature in mississippi just rejected extending postpartum medicaid coverage. your foster care system is also the subject of a long-running federal lawsuit over its failure to protect children from abuse. you and i have had this conversation before. i hear you. you say you want to do more to support mothers and children, but you've been in state government since 2004. you were the state treasurer, the lieutenant governor, and now the governor. based on the track record of the state of mississippi, why should any of these girls or moms believe you? >> well, look, as i've told you before and i'll tell you again, the reality is that when i got elected governor, my very first

speech in my inaugural address, i was very clear that i believe in my heart that i was elected not to try to hide our problems but to try to fix our problems. we have a long history of poor health outcomes due in large part to poverty. so, we are focusing every day on fixing the challenges that are before us. when you talk about things -- when you talk about these young ladies, the best thing we can do for them is to provide and improve educational opportunities for them. and we've worked extremely hard in our state to do that. we've got to continue to work to provide workforce opportunities, jobs. but to do that, they've got to improve the quality of their skills. we as a state are investing heavily in that. yes, you're right. we've got a number of years of poor outcomes. we're working every single day to improve that. and i think you'll see us make significant progress just as we have seen significant progress on the educational outcome front

in mississippi over the last ten years. >> so, the snap back law that was passed in 2007 has no exception for incest. so, assuming the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, the state of mississippi will force girls and women who are the victims of incest to carry those children to term. can you explain why that is going to be your law? >> well, that's going to be the law because in 2007, the mississippi legislature passed it. i will tell you, jake, this sort of speaks to how far the democrats in washington have come on this issue, but in 2007 when the trigger law was put in place, we had a democrat speaker of the house and we had a democrat chairman of the public health committee in the mississippi house of representatives. >> but why are you -- why is it acceptable in your state to force girls who are victims of incest to carry those children to term? >> well, as you know, jake, over 92% of all abortions in america are elective procedures. when you look at the number of those that actually are involved, incest is less than 1%. if we need to have that conversation in the future about

potential -- >> this is your law. >> -- in the trigger law, we can certainly do that. the reality is, again, that affects less than 1% of all abortions in america on an annual basis. >> but that is going to be the law of mississippi. let me ask you, what about a fetus that has serious or fatal abnormalities that will not allow that fetus to live outside the womb, is the state of mississippi going to force those girls and women who have this tragedy inside them to carry the child to term? are you going to force them to do that? >> well, jake, i'll tell you, i think that these questions illustrate exactly what we've been talking about. that is, you're dealing in examples that are rare and are very small percentage of the overall abortions. the reason for that is because when you talk to americans, regardless of what the polling says with respect to overturning roe v. wade, the vast majority of americans recognize that the abortion laws in america right now, that is what are extreme. america's abortion laws are extreme relative to the rest of the western world. you know that even if the court did not overturn roe, jake, even if the court did not overturn roe, even if they just decided to uphold mississippi's 15-week ban, that 39 out of 42 countries in europe would still have more restrictive abortion laws. the vast majority of americans support restrictions that are reasonable on abortions. the overturning of roe is simply going to return those decision-making processes -- >> back to the states. >> to the legislatures in all key states. >> i'm asking you about the law in your state and the exceptions that the law does not offer to mississippi women and girls who are victims of incest, who have

fetuses that have fatal or very serious abnormalities, which is not really all that rare, to be honest. i know plenty of women that has happened to and they had to -- they wanted to have a healthy child but they weren't able to. and your law would force them to carry the child to term. i want to ask you a philosophical question here because i know you've said you believe life begins at conception. just to be clear, does that mean the moment of fertilization or the moment of implantation? >> i believe that life begins at conception. as i've said repeatedly, and i know where this question is ultimately going with respect to the birth control and other measures, i want to be clear, my view is that the next phase of the pro-life movement is focusing on helping those moms that maybe have an unexpected, unwanted pregnancy. the next phase of the pro-life movement is making sure those babies once born have a productive life. and while i'm sure there will be

conversation around america regarding that, it's not something we spent a lot of time focused on. >> does that mean you believe that you believe conception is the moment of implantation, is that what you're saying? >> that -- that is not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is, again, this is a debate we can have once the actual court makes their ruling. once the actual words are on the page. that's what makes this whole topic so difficult. quite frankly, what makes the leak so wrong is that we don't have an opinion. we don't know what the court is actually going to say. and i would hope that the chief justice and others at the court would actually get this opinion out sooner rather than later so that those of us who deal with the laws and those of us who have to deal with the actual words on the page know exactly what they say and know what they allow and what they don't. there's no fundamental right to abortion in the u.s. constitution.

there is nothing in the u.s. constitution that precludes individual states from regulating or restricting abortions. and that's the ruling that the court should make. but again, all we have is a leaked draft. we don't have a final -- >> no, i agree. i agree. but just to be clear, the state of mississippi, you're not going to then target iud or plan b, which are methods of birth control that might not allow a fertilized egg to be implanted? this is not a theoretical construct, this is not -- the state of louisiana, which is a neighboring state, not your state, but they're talking about not only criminally charging girls and women who get abortions as, you know, as being -- committing homicide but they're also talking about defining the moment of conception as fertilization, which would theoretically, if this were to become the law of

louisiana, and it is not yet, mean murder if you use an iud, you're committing murder, theoretically. i'm not making this up. these are the conversations going on in legislatures in your area. but just to be clear, you have no intention of seeking to ban iuds or plan b? >> that is not what we are focused on at this time. we're focused on looking at, seeing what the court allows for, the bill that is before the court is a 15-week ban. we believe that the overturning of roe is the correct decision by the court. and so in mississippi, we don't have laws on the books that would lead to arresting individuals or anything along those lines. >> you mean not arresting girls or women, but you would arrest doctors? >> well, certainly -- i don't think that you're going to see doctors performing abortion if we have a state statute that says they're not allowed. >> one other topics legal experts discuss is the reasoning

justice alito uses in this draft opinion, as you point out, it's not an official opinion, just a draft opinion, but the legal reason he uses is that he says, as you say, abortion is not a right specifically enumerated in the constitution. legal experts point out that that could just as easily be applied to other landmark court decisions. for instance, same-sex marriage. alito even references the ruling that affirmed that right in his draft opinion. would you want the u.s. supreme court to overturn that precedent as well, that granted same-sex couples the right to get married in the united states? >> well, there are two differentiating factors with respect to the other cases that i think is important to point out. number one, that the fact is when you're dealing with abortion, unlike the other cases that you talk about, abortion

involves not only the mother in that particular life but it also involves the life of an unborn american child. an unborn american child that doesn't have the ability to speak for themselves. that's why it's important for folks like me to take this opportunity to stand up and speak on their behalf. so, that's a very important differentiating factor. but the second important factor is unlike those other areas, in my view, the abortion rights that roe v. wade chose to enact in our country wrongly, that particular -- those particular rights were never agreed upon and never really politically determined other than there's a 50/50 split at best on abortion rights. in the other instances, by and large, public opinion has come to support the decisions that were made by the court. and i think that justice alito in his alleged draft opinion that is agreed to by five judges addressed that. and i believe in that particular case he said that there is a

differentiating factor and is the fact there's the right of an unborn child when it comes to abortion. >> in fact, yes, it is true the american people support legal abortion with restrictions, but it is also true two-thirds of the american people consistently support keeping roe v. wade in place. in any case, we thank you for your time, governor reeves. you just heard from governor reeves. we have democratic senator kirsten gillibrand from new york to respond to him and the question of what lawmakers can do if roe is overturned. that's next. just, how far is the u.s. willing to go to help ukraine defeat russia? is that changing? we'll speak to the u.n. ambassador ahead. stay with us.

♪ ♪ ♪ voltaren. the joy of movement. ♪ with godaddy you can start a stunning online store for free. easily connect it to social platforms and marketplaces. and manage all your sales from one place. because if you've got it, we've got you. start for free at godaddy.com/startfree >> tech: when you have auto glass damage, trust safelite. this dad and daughter were driving when they got a crack in their windshield. [smash] >> dad: it's okay. pull over. >> tech: he wouldn't take his car just anywhere... ♪ pop rock music ♪ >> tech: ...so he brought it to safelite.

we replaced the windshield and recalibrated their car's advanced safety system, so features like automatic emergency braking will work properly. >> tech: alright, all finished. >> dad: wow, that's great. thanks. >> tech: stay safe with safelite. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ from prom dresses to workouts and new adventures you hope the more you give the less they'll miss. but even if your teen was vaccinated against meningitis in the past they may be missing vaccination for meningitis b. although uncommon, up to 1 in 5 survivors of meningitis will have long term consequences. now as you're thinking about all the vaccines your teen might need make sure you ask your doctor if your teen is missing meningitis b vaccination. check out this vrbo. oh man. ♪ come on. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ bonnie boon i'm calling you out. everybody be cool, alright? we've got bonnie right here on a video call. we don't take kindly to video calls. oh, in that case just tap to send a message. we don't take kindly to messages neither. in that case how 'bout a ringcentral phone call. we don't take kindly to no... would you can it eugene! let's just hear her out. ha ha ha, i've been needing a new horse. we've got ourselves a deal. ♪ ♪ ♪ ringcentral ♪ this is not the stallion i was imagining. my asthma felt anything but normal. ♪ it was time for a nunormal with nucala. nucala is a once monthly add-on treatment for severe eosinophilic asthma that can mean less oral steroids. not for sudden breathing problems.

allergic reactions can occur. get help right away for swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or trouble breathing. infections that can cause shingles have occurred. don't stop steroids unless told by your doctor. tell your doctor if you have a parasitic infection. may cause headache, injection site reactions, back pain, and fatigue. ask your asthma specialist about a nunormal with nucala.

i would like to speak to america's men for one minute. imagine you do not have authority over your own body for ten months. it is barbaric, it is inhumane, it is unacceptable. and i hope every human being in this country understands that when you take away a woman's right to make her decisions about her health and well-being, she's no longer a full citizen. >> welcome back to "state of the union." i'm jake tapper. that democratic senator kirsten gillibrand of new york reacting to that leaked draft of the supreme court opinion on abortion. democrats have been warning about this possibility for decades, frankly. the question is, is there anything lawmakers can do to stop it? senator gillibrand is joining us now. first of all, senator, happy mother's day. we appreciate you taking the time.

you heard tate reeves say, if this stands, mississippi will ban all abortions in the state with exceptions for rape, only if someone is prosecuted and charges are brought, or if the life of the mother is at stake. what was your reaction to governor reeves? >> well, i thought he was quite paternalistic towards women. he indicated during your conversation that all we need is more education for women. i was pretty offended by his remarks. and, you know, he doesn't look at women as full citizens. he's taken away their right to make these fundamental decisions

about when they're having children, under what circumstances they're having children, how many children they're having, at what point in their life they're having children. it's outrageous this governor and governors and legislatures across america are going to take this draft opinion when it is final and deny women these fundamental life and death decisions about their future and about their families. >> some democrats, including california governor gavin newsom, have responded, as you are responding, but newsom's also arguing that national democrats are not doing enough to fight this. take a listen. >> where the hell is my party? where's the democratic party? are you guys paying attention? why aren't we standing up more firmly, more resolutely? why aren't we calling this out? this is a concerted, coordinated effort. yes, they're winning. they are. they have been. we need to stand up. where's the counteroffensive? >> so, where is the counteroffensive, senator?

>> every one of us is standing up, speaking out, rallying, marching, talking to our constituents, lifting up their voices and their stories. this is the biggest fight of a generation, jake. and if america's people, america's women and men who love them do not fight right now, we will lose the basic right to make decisions, to have bodily autonomy and to decide what our futures look like. this is a fundamental moment for advocacy and for not giving up. so, what i'm doing and what many of my colleagues are doing are pushing for a vote next week. we are going to be aggressive with all our colleagues and with our republican allies to vote for codifying roe v. wade. we are not giving up. we will never give in and we'll keep fighting. if the america people are paying attention, this issue will also be on the ballot in november. we need to make sure that every single voter understands that the republican party and mitch mcconnell does not believe that their daughters, their mothers, that their sisters have rights to make fundamental life and death decisions. we are half citizens under this ruling. if this is put into law, it changes the foundation of america. >> as you note, the senate will vote wednesday on legislation that would codify roe v. wade.

as you know, democrats don't have the votes. you don't have 60 to get to a vote. and i don't even know if you have 50 to pass it because senator manchin, i believe, opposes it. you and others have called on the senate to eliminate the filibuster. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell said this weekend, he thinks a national abortion ban, so not sending it back to the states, but just banning it everywhere, banning it in new york, banning it in california, banning it in washington, d.c., he thinks a national abortion ban is possible. is it not true that if you eliminate the filibuster to pass this, and then republicans win control of congress down the road, they can ban abortion nationwide with just 50 votes? >> look, jake, the argument that if we take away the filibuster, mitch mcconnell and republicans across the country are going to do bad things.

those bad things are literally already happening. we have a supreme court that is unrelated to the normal process of the american people. when those supreme court justices say that precedent is the foundation of our legal system and said roe v. wade is precedent that's entitled to respect under the laws of and imply to every american they have no agenda to overturn roe v. wade and then go ahead and do it, we're treating our rights and privileges in america in a way that no person imagined would happen. and so i don't think the argument that mitch mcconnell will do bad things is persuasive at this point. they're already happening. he already took away justice from barack obama. he already stacked the court with ultraconservative justices. they already now have a ruling that may well be applied in many contexts. when you say life, liberty and pursuit of happiness does not create some right to privacy,

then every other right under right to privacy could be at risk, whether it's lgbtq equality, whether it's marriage equality, literally any right that's been decided over the past 50 years. four justices in the last hearings i've witnessed have said that precedent matters and that precedent is the foundation of our legal system. and so if they just feel they can just up-end this precedent because they don't like it today, well, that's inconsistent with what they promised the judges -- excuse me, what they promised the senators who voted for them. if you look at the statements of both susan collins and lisa murkowski, they truly believe their statements were inconsistent with what they told them. >> you said the five supreme court justices lied in their confirmation hearings when they

said roe v. wade was precedent. are you accusing them of committing perjury? >> you know, i come at this issue from the perspective of a lawyer who worked in fraud all the time. corporate fraud. if a corporation put these kind of statements in their quarterly filings, they would be seen to be purposefully misleading and deemed fraud. so, i think all their statements should be looked at very, very carefully. i think they misled the senate with the intention of getting their confirmation vote with the intention of overruling roe. and so, i'm very concerned these justices have crossed a line that no one believed would be crossed. that they would purposefully create the impression that they would not overrule settled precedent and that it was not only deserving of due weight and the important of precedent but reaffirmed it deserves more weight and then go ahead and overturn it, especially with the

reasoning that justice alito makes in his draft opinion. it's outrageous. so, jake, back to the point. i think we should get rid of the filibuster. i think we should vote for our values. i believe we should fight for everything we believe in at this moment. this is about basic equality. it's about whether women in america have a right to make these decisions. whether they have a right to decide who and when they have children with, under what circumstances. it's unconscionable. not only is the governor who you just had on outrageous in his views but there are governors and legislators like him that are going to undermine all access to any type of reproductive freedom. they are setting to criminalize abortion, to call it homicide. you look at what's happening in louisiana today. it is -- it's bone-chilling because it's taking away women's right for life, liberty and

pursuit of happiness. our right to be a full citizen. our right. and the point i made you played, america's men need to wake up. they are literally -- they have to imagine what it would be like for ten months to have zero bodily autonomy, to not know what's going to happen to your body, whether you're going to survive a pregnancy, whether you will be forever changed medically. these are the consequences of bringing a pregnancy to full term. and so when women make that decision to have a baby, it is a joyful decision that they are making. but if you take away that right and require forced pregnancies, you are literally undermining their basic civil rights, their basic human rights and their ability to decide what happens to their body. >> senator kirsten gillibrand of new york, thank you for your time today. appreciate it. tomorrow russia celebrates its victory day holiday but they haven't won in ukraine and reports say putin may issue a doomsday report.

okay everyone, our mission is to provide complete balanced nutrition for strength and energy. woo hoo! ensure, complete balanced nutrition with 27 vitamins and minerals. and ensure complete with 30 grams of protein. ♪ ♪ ready to turn your dreams into plans and your actions into achievements? explore over 75 programs and four-week classes at national university. your future starts today at nu.edu. there's a different way to treat hiv. it's every-other-month, injectable cabenuva. for adults who are undetectable, cabenuva is the only complete hiv treatment you can get every other month. cabenuva helps keep me undetectable. it's two injections, given by a healthcare provider every other month. it's one less thing to think about while traveling. hiv pills aren't on my mind. a quick change in my plans is no big deal. don't receive cabenuva if you're allergic to its ingredients or taking certain medicines,

which may interact with cabenuva. serious side effects include allergic reactions, post-injection reactions, liver problems, and depression. if you have a rash and other allergic reaction symptoms, stop cabenuva and get medical help right away. tell your doctor if you have liver problems or mental health concerns, and if you are pregnant, breastfeeding, or considering pregnancy. some of the most common side effects include injection-site reactions, fever, and tiredness. if you switch to cabenuva, attend all treatment appointments. every other month and i'm good to go. ask your doctor about every-other-month cabenuva.

you're a one-man stitchwork master. but your staffing plan needs to go up a size. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

[ sigh ] not gonna happen. that's it. i'm calling kohler about their walk-in bath. my name is ken. how may i help you? hi, i'm calling about kohler's walk-in bath. excellent! happy to help. huh? hold one moment please... [ finger snaps ] hmm. ♪ ♪ the kohler walk-in bath features an extra-wide opening and a low step-in at three inches, which is 25 to 60% lower than some leading competitors. the bath fills and drains quickly, while the heated seat soothes your back, neck and shoulders. kohler is an expert in bathing, so you can count on a deep soaking experience. are you seeing this? the kohler walk-in bath comes with fully adjustable hydrotherapy jets and our exclusive bubblemassage. everything is installed in as little as a day by a kohler-certified installer. and it's made by kohler- america's leading plumbing brand. we need this bath. yes. yes you do. a kohler walk-in bath provides independence with peace of mind. call... to receive 50% off installation and take advantage of our special offer of

no payments for 18 months. welcome back to "state of the union." i'm jake tapper. we have breaking news. first lady jill biden has made an unannounced visit to ukraine. the first lady made the mother's day visit at a southwestern border town touring a converted school that now serves as temporary housing for internally displaced ukrainians and she met with the first lady of ukrainian, who has not been in public since the start of the war in february. the visit, a strong sign of respect from the u.s. for ukraine as russia is preparing to celebrate victory day tomorrow, which marks the soviet union's defeat of the nazis. this part the whole victory part in ukraine is conspicuously missing. joining us, ambassador to ukraine, linda thomas-greenfield. tomorrow is may 9th, russian

holiday, where russia celebrates the defeat of nazi employer mane. reuters reports russia will have a flyover with the so-called doomsday plane that would protect top officials in the occurrence of a nuclear war. would the biden administration view that as an escalation? >> you know, the russians have escalated throughout this process. and part of that escalation has been a consequence of their failures. they have nothing to celebrate tomorrow. they have not succeeded in defeating the ukrainians. they have not succeeded in dividing the world or dividing nato. and they have only succeeded in isolating themselves internationally and becoming a pariah state around the globe.

so, what they're celebrating tomorrow is their own lack of success. >> a senior ukrainian official says a russian aircraft dropped a bomb on the school in the luhansk region. i think 90 people were sheltering and the ukrainian official says likely 60 of those 90 have been killed. is that a war crime? >> we have called out the russians very early on for committing war crimes, and this contributes to that. we're going to continue to work with the ukrainian prosecutors and others to document evidence of their war crimes so that they can be held accountable. this just adds to the long list that we already have. >> cnn has learned the u.s. provided intelligence that helped ukraine target the russian warship at the bottom of

the black sea. this comes after "the new york times" reports u.s. intelligence is helping ukraine locate russian generals that ukraine then kills. it does seem like the biden administration is in this weird dance of semantics in terms of this intelligence and in terms of what the u.s. and the biden administration acknowledge the intelligence is doing. so, the u.s. is supplying deadly weapons, financial aid, intelligence that allows ukraine to kill russians. at what point is this just a proxy war the u.s. is fighting against russia but the u.s. is not the one pulling the trigger? where is the line there? >> the line is where the russians start it. the russian government invaded ukraine. they started this war. they are attacking the ukrainian people. and we have been consistent since the start that we will support ukraine, we will provide

them with the wherewithal to fight this war. and they are on the ground and they are pushing back the russians. so, we will continue to provide the kinds of support they need. we provided intelligence but they make the decisions on what they will target and how they will target. again, i think russia has felt the consequences of our support for the ukrainians. >> right. but i guess what i'm getting at, is there's this reluctance to acknowledge that we are giving this intelligence to the ukrainians so they can do what they then do with it. we're not giving them the location of a russian general so they can order uber eats for them. it's with the express purpose of, here is where this russian general is. go do what you're going to do and the ukrainians kill them. >> we're providing them with the intelligence so they can defend themselves against russian aggression and also put them in a position where they're stronger at the negotiating

table against the russians. how they use that intelligence is up to them. what we want to make sure is they have the equipment and the information, the wherewithal to fight this war in a way that helps them to defend their own sovereignty. >> speaker pelosi has called for the biden administration to designate russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. she said, quote, if russia is not listed as a state sponsor of terrorism, tear up the list. will you do that -- not tear up the list, will you put russia on the list? >> well, i think russia has put itself on that list of state sponsors of terror. they are carrying out terror acts against the ukrainian people, against ukrainian civilians. you just mentioned they attacked a school with 90 people. imagine the terror that these people felt as the school was being attacked, so they have defined their role on that list. it's not necessary for us to put

them on. >> so you think they deserve to be on the list but you're not saying the biden administration is going to put them on the list? >> they certainly deserve to be called out for the acts of terror they are committing. we have said they've committed war crimes. we've indicated that they -- what they are doing is trying to destroy ukraine's actual existence and what we have seen, you and others reporting, is unconscionable. and they need to be held account for it. >> first lady jill biden made an unannounced trip to ukraine. you can see her greeting and hugging the ukrainian first lady. will we see president biden in ukraine some time soon? >> well, i can't preview what the president's travel is going to be, but i can say that the first lady's visit has to have given so much support and encouragement to the ukrainian women and children, and for her to go there on mother's day to meet with the ukrainian first lady, i think, sends a very strong, a very positive message. i met with ukrainian mothers on the border when i traveled to romania and moldova a few weeks ago. i see the strength these women have. so having the first lady there encouraging them, supporting them, actually in ukraine, i think sends a strong message of support and commitment that the u.s. government has to supporting ukrainians moving forward.

>> this weekend we learned a new decree from the taliban requires afghan women to cover their faces and publicly, especially -- especially pushing the traditional burqa. if women don't, they or their male guardian, that's what it's called, their male guardian can be fired from their jobs, jailed. doesn't this underline further the problem of the u.s. withdrawal without a competent government in place? >> you know, it shows again what

the taliban are capable of. we said from day one, we will judge them by their actions, not their words. these actions on mother's day, i think, sends a very chilling message across the world. we have done everything possible to support afghan women and we'll continue to call out the taliban for their actions both the united states but also in my role in security council as president of the security council. what they did today is unconscionable and i am sure that we can expect more from them. and it just redoubles our commitment to supporting afghan women moving forward. >> happy mother's day, madame ambassador. thank you for joining us. we appreciate it. if the supreme court does decide to overturn roe v. wade or other landmark decisions next, our panel is here to discuss. 1234507

one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health. i have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now, there's skyrizi. ♪ things are getting clearer, i feel free ♪ ♪ to bare my skin ♪ ♪ yeah, that's all me ♪ ♪ nothing and me go hand in hand ♪ ♪ nothing on my skin, that's my new plan ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ achieve clearer with skyrizi. 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. of those, nearly 9 out 10 sustained it through 1 year. and skyrizi is 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. ♪ i see nothing in a different way ♪ ♪ it's my moment so i just gotta say ♪ ♪ nothing is everything ♪ skyrizi may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. before treatment, your doctor should check you for infections and tuberculosis. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms such as fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches or coughs, or if you plan to or recently received a vaccine. ♪ nothing is everything ♪

talk to your dermatologist about skyrizi. learn how abbvie could help you save. godaddy payments offers fast and secure payments for customers at the lowest transaction fees. so you can keep more of the money you make and continue to grow your business. if you've got it, we've got you. start today at godaddy.com/payments

roe versus wade is an important precedent of the supreme court that's been on the books a long time. >> roe versus wade, decided in 1973, precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. >> it is an important precedent of the supreme court. by it i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey. >> welcome back to "state of the union." i'm jake tapper. our panel is here. hilary rosen and carrie, happy

mother's day to both of you. hilary rosen, senator gillibrand basically said those justices so she wouldn't go so far to say perjury, what do you think? >> first of all, nice to be here on mother's day and defend mothers but people who are not mothers and don't want to be mothers today. look, i think these justices have made senate confirmations to the supreme court a sham and that is too bad. i don't know what can be done about that other than senators have to pay much more attention in the future to what they're saying and have to hold them more accountable in these hearings. look, one of the problems we have is this general level of uncertainty and fear about not just this decision but how far it goes, and i think that's the unknown that we're worried about most and as we see the impact of this decision, like i would ask you, where are you going to go after this? once you get this decision, what are you going to do? are you going to go after other unenumerated rights like same-sex marriage? what's the plan? because you're taking away

people's personhood with this activity. >> first of all, we all heard what the said they know they can't rule on future cases and that is something the liberal judges have done as well. that's important. the court goes out of its way to say this doesn't impact other rights and the court made it clear. rather than going against the explicit text of that decision, let's talk about what the decision does. >> you're committed to not going after other rights after roe, is that what you're saying? >> this decision -- >> is that a yes? >> michael isn't going to go after one thing or another. michael has a court to follow the constitution and laws are passed. if they pass laws, the courts need to follow them faithfully. if you want to change the constitution, go ahead but the court needs to follow up. >> let's bring up the alito provision which is the constitution makes no such decision to the abortion and none of the other decisions

decided by roe and casey involved the moral question posed by abortion. the constitution does not converse its right or undermine them in any way. i know you don't buy it. >> respectfully, it's not that i don't buy it but it's intellectually dishonest. you talk about a right to privacy. marriage is not in the constitution. homosexuality is not in constitution. what we know is this court will take the next step. anybody who says they won't just not paying attention. this court is coming after same-sex marriage. this court is coming after brown v board. i mean, with all due respect, i think that's a nonstarter. the idea first of all clarence thomas wants to rule his own marriage is unconstitutional strikes me as implausible. second, loving is about more of a protection case which ruth bader ginsburg wanted roe in which was at a cost. if this decision ends up being a real decision, big if, it does philosophically threaten some

other rights like day marriage. it does not -- as a practical matter, there is no movement to ban international marriage in this country . there's no movement to overturn gay marriage. >> ben shapiro this week on his podcast, the largest youtube podcast, whatever it may be, talked about the next thing they will do is go after gay marriage. if hilary and i are afraid of what this court will do next, i think that is rooted in the history of this country. this is the first time. i don't think anybody can deny this is the first time the united states supreme court actually inherently took away a constitutional right.

>> that is not true. look, lochner versus the united states. the case that said there was a right to contract. it's a case that has been dissed by every judge ever. they overturned it. the court regularly overturned cases. >> i didn't say overturned. i said -- >> it takes away the constitutional contract. >> changing a business decision is a little bit different than taking away what women have depended on for 50 years. to manage their personal lives and personal health. what we will have here is a very divided united states. >> let's talk about that. >> between rich and poor, between where people live, and women like me, we're also going to have access to good health care and reproductive rights but poor women who can't move out of mississippi with their governor being so radical, who can't travel, who aren't working for corporations willing to subsidize their travel to get

reproductive support, they're not going to have that. >> let me come right to you what she's talking about with governor reeves in mississippi, he has a trigger law, snap-back law, whatever it's called, if roe is overturned, abortions will become illegal in mississippi. let's show the map here. 13 have trigger laws. six states have pre-roe bans to come back and six states abortion protection laws. it looks some of the country -- i think more than 50% in population, that will have no legal abortion and half the country or a little less that will have legal abortion. is that unfair to say? >> look, the role of the supreme court -- and a lot of the arguments in here today are policy arguments. you think it's a good idea to have more active abortion, more action for fetal life. that is not what the court is here to decide.

the court should only overturn laws that are elected by their elected representative that violates the constitution. that doesn't mean things that were emanations of the constitution. it's what what's in there. if americans want to pass a constitutional amendment, that's great. but there are a lot of states like california and new york that are doing the opposite. maybe more protection than roe provided the. the american people will be able to decide how to balance this. >> respectfully that comes with a certain privilege. the constitution doesn't discuss a lot of things. the constitution doesn't discuss me being a full human. the constitution doesn't discuss a lot of things. >> the amended constitution does. >> there's a certain privilege that goes along with this theory the constitution protects all of us and we should leave it alone. what hilary is talking good is so true, black and brown women, poor people who live in mississippi, louisiana and texas, not going to have access to quality health care. white women who have the ability

and means to travel across state lines will. abortions are not going to disappear. abortions are going to become less safe, and that's dangerous. >> that's a perfectly legitimate argument policy to make. i personally think you can be pro-choice and still think roe should be overturned because it's badly written, not grounded in the constitution. there are a lot of critics of roe as constitutional law. i think it's interesting how quickly oppose this draft, and i don't think it will be the final thing. >> i agree. >> and talking about the merits or lack thereof of roe and abortion rights, you know, like it's fine to be concerned about gay marriage and these other things but you think overturning roe would be enough yet president biden on down have all gone to these other arguments and i think that's interesting.

>> this is revisionist history, i'm sorry. all of those justices went there and said this is settled law. they didn't go and say this is wrongly decided. >> they said precedent -- >> not wrongly decided based on the wrong things, et cetera. i'm sorry, that's a red herring. so you can't go back and say oh, well, the only reason this is happening is because it was decided on the wrong amendment, it was wrongly decided. it had been happening because of a majority of the court making a moral decision for people against the country. >> alito said -- >> make a moral decision to send it back down to states and let legislatures make the decision. there's nothing that says you have to be pro-choice or pro-life in the decision. it says states should work it out for themselves. >> they're doing it for a moral and political reason. >> they do everything for moral and politics. >> i don't think we should be ranting at the supreme court. i think current leaders like president biden and people in the senate and congress and governors across the country have a responsibility. technology is actually ahead of the game on the court here with medications, with other things.

there should be education. there should be other ways to do this, and i think we can get there. >> we're hitting the clock. to be continued. great panel. we'll have you back again. this issue isn't going away. as you noted, this is not even officially the draft opinion or the official opinion. it is the draft opinion, not the official opinion. i cannot let you go, however, without recognizing a few amazing moms on this mother's day. to my wife jennifer, my mom and stop mom, mother-in-law, sister, sisters in law, co-anchor dana bash, three anchors who help run this show while also dealing with toddlers and babies, not including me. to all of the moms who watch, we love you, appreciate you and so grateful for you every day. fareed zakaria picks up right now. this is "gps," the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming to you live from new york. on the