Skip to main content

tv   PBS News Hour  PBS  June 24, 2022 3:00pm-4:01pm PDT

3:00 pm
>> good evening. i'm judy woodruff. on the "newshour" tonight. the end of roe in a historic move, the supreme court overturns roe v. wade, almt a half century after it guaranteed women the right to an abortion. we take an in-depth look at the justices' momentous decision and the ramifications it will have now, and for years come. >> i can't even remember when the supreme court last revoked a right that an american citizen held. >> and it's friday. jonathan capehart anmichael gerson weigh in on the supreme court's ruling and the passage of bipartisan gun safety legislation in congress. all that and more on tonight's
3:01 pm
"pbs newshour." >> major funding provided by pediatric surgeon, volunteer, topiary artist. a financial advisor taylor's advice to help you live your life. life well planned. the john s and james l knight foundation fostering infmed and engaged communities. friends of the newshour.
3:02 pm
this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and for yr contributions to your pbs station. >> it's a tectonic shift on abortion rights. the u-s supreme court today remade the legal landscape, throwing out the precedent laid down 50 years ago in "roe versus wade." we'll be dedicating most of tonight's program to the decision and the praise and protest that it touched off. john yang begins our coverage. >> outside the supreme court, jubilation and celebration for some >> "our body, our choice" >> for others, rage coupled with resolve >> "bye roe, bye roe, bye roe" >> today's decision has been
3:03 pm
much anticipated since early may when justice samuel alito's draft opinion was leaked >> "rise up, rise up" >> the court's ruling, ends the constitutional right to an abortion a right that had been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. alito wrote the majority opinion, joined by justices clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. the liberal justices stephen breyer, sonia sotomayor and elena kagan dissented. chief justice john roberts did not join his conservative colleagues in overturning roe saying there was no need to do that in order to uphold a 15 week mississippi abortion ban that was the subject of the case. at the white house, president biden quickly condemned the decision and urged congress to act. >> the court has done what it has never done before, expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that had already been recognized. the court's decision to do so will have real and immediate consequences.
3:04 pm
the only way we can secure a woman's right to choose, and the balance that existed, is for congress to restore the protections of roe v wade as federal law. >> in a statement, former president trump called this "the biggest win for life in a generation" he went on to take credit for it, saying it was "only made possible because i delivered everything as promised." house speaker nancy pelosi weighed in at her weekly news conference. >> american women today have less freedom than their mothers. for 50 years, it was a constitutional right for women to have the right to choose. the hypocrisy is enraging, but the harm is endless. >> house republican leader kevin mccarthy claimed a win. >> the people have won a victory. the right to life has been vindicated. the voiceless will finally have a ice. this
3:05 pm
great nation can now live up to its core principle that all are created equal, not born equal, created equal. >> today's ruling is likely to lead to abortion bans in about half of the states. some have laws triggered by the overturning of roe or pre-roe laws still on the books. michigan attorney general dana nessel said her state's 1931 law is unenforceable. >> in the event that the court of appeals or later the michigan supreme court were to overturn that then the 1931 law would spring back into effect. but, as of right now, it is unenforceable. so, everything remains the same as it was yesterday at this time, but just for now." >> corporate america also responded. the walt disney company announced it pay for employees' travel if it was needed to access family planning and reproductive care. citigroup, jp morgan chase,
3:06 pm
netflix and amazon among others, had already pledged to offer similar benefits. from overseas, leaders weighed in on the historic ruling. british prime minister boris johnson >> i think it's a big step backwards. i've always believed in a woman's right to choose. i stick to that view and that's why the uk has the laws that it does. >> canadian prime minister justin trudeau tweeted it was "horrific" and french prime minster emanual macron wrote "abortion is a fundamental right for all women"pas the day wore d outside the supreme court grew. gatherings were expected in cities across the country later tonight. for the pbs newshour, i'm john yang. >> to unpack today's supreme court opinion, including its conservative majority and the liberal dissent, we turn now to marcia coyle of the national law journal.
3:07 pm
welcome back. put this in context. in the pantheon of major supreme court decisions, where does this one fit? >> this is huge. i can't even remember when the supreme court last revoked a right. that an american citizen held. this one was nearly 50 years old. it had also been reaffirmed multiple times. >> rolling the clock essentially. is that right? >> absolutely it does. there will be a patchwork of laws around the nation either having abortion legal or illegal. will we see some of the deaths and injuries that occurred pre-roe v. wade when desperate woman may have gone to back alley type abortions? >> we had an inkling this was
3:08 pm
coming. leaked draft opinion written by justice alito that came out in may. we see some of that same language in this opinion. i want to quote from part of today's decision. we hold that roe and casey must be overruled. no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision including the ones that the defenders of the decisions now rely. that includes some rights not mentioned by the constitution but any such right must be deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. the right to abortion does not fall within this category. explain what justice alito was getting at. >> the conservative majority on this court approaches the constitution and constitutional
3:09 pm
rights by looking at the text of the constitution, tradition, and history. there are many respected american historians who disagree and also challenge the ability of the court and judges in general to do the kind of historical research is required to reach these kinds of conclusions. the court -- the majority to do that analysis and found that as i said, abortion did not fall in that category. >> as we see the chief justice john roberts doesn't sign onto the majority opinion he also writes a separate concurring opinion saying the court erred by overruling roe and casey. saying it is not necessary to decide more to dispose of the case than it is necessary not to decide more. we should adhere closely to
3:10 pm
principles of judicial restraint where the broader path the court chooses includes repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. what do you see the chief justice saying? >> he wanted to only deal with the line that roe and casey drew about abortion bans that you could not ban abortion before viability at 22 to 24 weeks. he felt that that was not a clearly justified line. he's concerned about the court's legitimacy and making this ruling at this time. he agreed with that part of e majority opinion that did get rid of the viabily line, but he would not as you said go so far as to overrule the entire decisions.
3:11 pm
>> there was a strongly worded dissent by the three liberal justices. here is part of what they wrote. >> there's a matter of constitutional substance, the majority's opinion has all of the flaws its method would suggest because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their bodies. the majority approves states doing so today. today's decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrs is a contested and contestable oral issue. it forces her to carry out the states will whatever the circumstances and whatever the harm it will wreak on her and her family. in the 14th amendment's terms, it takes away her liberty. >> the dissent had a lot of problems with majority opinion. first, the history. the point the justices made very clearly was that the history that the majority relied upon, the laws that they looked at
3:12 pm
were all made by men. did not have rights basically any rights at all. the other very important flaw they felt was that the majority failed to stand by now all precedents. that is known as stare decisis. they felt the majority did not properly apply the factors that the court has generally applied when determining whether to overrule an earlier precedent. factors like reliance and workability. i think those were the two main takeaways. one other thing i would add about the majority opinion that i think is kind of important is going forward, how will courts judge abortion regulations and restrictions? the majority opinion says that all estate has to do is justify th regulation by a rational reasonable basis and that is
3:13 pm
considered the easiest form of constitutional scrutiny. >> what does that mean for the state courts? >> state and federal courts will be probably upholding many more abortion regulations and restrictions and they have done in the past. >> beginning to digest this most historic and important decision handed down today. today's decision is set to reshape where women may able to access abortion services. john yang has more on how potential future legal battles could play out at the state level. >> judy, now that the right to an abortion has been overturned, an estimated 26 states are certain or likely to ban the procedure. that's according to the guttmacher institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. so what's next in the legal battle over abortion? mary ziegler is a law professor at the university of california,
3:14 pm
davis. her most recent book is "dollars for life: the anti-abortion movement and the fall of the republican establishment." mary, thanks for being with us. we just showed that map from the guttmacher institute. what does this decision mean for women? who may let's say in the coming days, when she's pregnant and decide she wants to terminate it, >> at the moment, that person wod in many of these states only have the option to avel out of state or to try to self manage an abortion. so essentially, what had been a constitutional right in all 50 states is now going to be protected in less than half. >> what happens now to the legal battle over abortion. what's the next step? what's the next phase? >> there are state constitutional battles on place unfoldg in places like michigan, at is already in the sight of a struggle about whether there's a state constitutional right to abortion. there will be knocked down political battles in states like florida and north carolina that have yet to commito having outright bans on
3:15 pm
abortion. and of course, there'll be legal battles as well as conservatives will probably come back to the us supreme court and ask for protection for fetal rights. states may try to regulate out of state conduct right either preventing people from traveling to get abortions or preventing doctors in blue states from performing abortions on people from red states. those fights of course, raise very complicated legal questions that could well and back up at the supreme court. >> you talked about abortion where it's coming back to the abortion mentor, abortion rights opponents coming back to the supreme court to talk about fetal rights talk about that, what will they be pressing for? >> the idea that and this has really been the main constitutional premi of the anti abortion movement from the inception is that the word person in the 14th amendment which of course guarantees equality under the law and due process as the law applies before as well as after birth. so these advocates are going to be pressing the supreme court to recognize that claim. and of course, if the supreme court were to do that, that
3:16 pm
would have the effect of banning abortion everywhere, not just of course, in states that may choose to do so. >> so in other words, thisould be a federal right a constitutional right. but on the other side. >> exactly. right. i mean, i don't anticipate that happening soon. i mean, brett brett kavanaugh, who's obviously would be a key vote on this. i was trying, i think, to telegraph in his concurrence today, essentially that the constitution is neutral. the supreme court should be neutral, so i don't think there are five votes at the moment for the recognition of fetal personhood, but of course, if you had asked me as little as two years ago, there weren't the votes to overturn roe v. wade. so this is a fast moving topic where things can rapidly change >> you're a historian of movement. give us some context on where it stands today >> well, i think it's a fairly unprecedented moment. there have been times when the supreme court has reversed decisions that discuss constitutional rights, but nothing exactly like this really, i think in modern history. it's also really
3:17 pm
remarkable of course, that the supreme court has done this involving the most well known supreme court decision right. so the supreme court in this decision quite clearly says this may damage the courts legitimacy. this may upset the american people but you know, that's not our problem, essentially. and that's a markable thing to see as well for a court that historically had been constrained by fears of public reaction. clearly, this court is unconstrained. so this is a historic moment when it comes to the protections that are enjoyed by women and pregnant people. and sit historical moment in terms of the role of the supreme court and in our democracy >> mary ziegler of the university of california davis law school. thk you very much. >> thanks, john. >> we are going to hear from leaders on both sides of this issue about what comes next. firs i'm joined by marjorie dannenfelser. she is the president of the susan b. anthony pro-life america.
3:18 pm
what is your reaction of the antiabortion movement? how much of a victory is this? >> for pro-life, this is the culmination of the greatest human rights movement of our time. and every abortion, there are two that must beerved. in 1973 when they wereold this has been -- this would be the great liberator, it has not been. now when the states and congress, every elected body will be able to discuss this issue in the plic square. the merit of the arguments will be made out in a way that was not required 50 years ago and the will of the people will make its way into the law and women will be served in ways that they
3:19 pm
deserve. >> you told another reporter today, you said that you and others will work to ban abortion in every state and every legislature including the congress. is your goal to ban abortion nationwide? >> if you look at what i said, you would see that i will work and so will pro-life movement well all of the legislators and democrats don't like abortion after the first trimester to work to be as ambitious as possible in every single legislature that will be different state to state. north carolina will be different from alabama from from vermont and california. the state law will reflect the will of the people. >> public opinion polls have been done. the newshour itself has commissioned polls in the last couple of months that show still that a majority of americans think roe v. wade --. that roe
3:20 pm
v. wade should not be overturned. most people believe american women should have our right to an abortion. how does that public view square with what we are seeing today? >> i have to believe that you have looked at the rest of those polls. when you look at the rest of those polls, you see the democrats, this is not a partisan issue, think that abortion should at least be restricted in the second and third trimester. this seems reasonable to most people. it doesn't please both sides, but it is deftly something that is a consensus in this nation. it doesn't reflect the pole that you just communicated and it's because people that want restrictions and limits that roe v. wade never would have allowed and that has never been understood. the other piece is the service to women is vital. it has been going on and this is a moment flourishing to serve
3:21 pm
them in a way that original women who got us into publix -- politics in the first place saw as serving women not allowing them to be exploited by the so-called abortion liberators who would liberate them by trying to build their rights on the broken rights of their children. >> one other question, one that comes up from the antiabortion movement. that is the fundamental unfairness of saying to women who don't have the financial means who live in states where abortion will no longer be legal that they are in effect either going to have to give birth to a child they are not -- prepared to give birth to whereas women who have financial means will be able to travel somewhere if they want an abortion to get it. what about that? >> that would be unfair if that were true. pro-life not antiabortion is
3:22 pm
pro-life at birth and throughout life. it is my personal commitment every leader that i know and not just that small number of people, but the governors i have spoken to, 22 so far in the states that are most likely to limit abortion very early on, that commitment to those who are perceived as outliers, people who are perceived as who can't manage to allow their children to be born, those are the people we go to first, those are the people who we love. love is at the center of this movement and it is exactly what makes us flourish and why we will succeed. >> thank you very much. now, to alexis mcgill johnson.
3:23 pm
thank you for joining us. what is your reaction to this historic decision? >> i am devastated. it is so challenging to have lost faith and hope in the institution that controls literally our bodies our freedom. the fact that they came out this decision even though we saw a leak version, it feels even harder to see it come to fruition. >> what do you think the practical effect will be? >> people will have to go to great lengths to get out of there states to get access to care. 26 states ban or restrict
3:24 pm
access. 36 million women, non-binary and trans folk will be affected by this decision. people most impacted are lucky to be low income, rural, background indigenous communities who may lack the resources to get out of state. it means that many people will be forced into pregnancy and that will have a devastating consequence for the families they are currently caring for much less themselves and their communities. >> what does it mean for planned parenthood and other organizations like yours that support abortion rights? what do you do now? >> i have lost hope in the court, but i have a lot of hope in the people. now is the time for us to fight back and that is exactly what we are planning to do. we are mobilizing people across the country to ensure that they know what is at stake. to ensure that every lawmaker,
3:25 pm
every corporation, every university understands the impact that this will have on their constituents, their workforce, their communities, their students and to ensure that no one gets to stay neutral in this moment. no one gets to say that's a complicated controversial issue i don't want to touch. when it starts to impact your community, you have to take a stand and we will force everyone who is in every community to have that conversation. >> the antiabortion movement, many of its leaders are saying they are not stopping with this, they are going to look to try to ban abortion nationwide. how will you respond to that? >> they have been forecasting this for so long. we can see how readily important -- emboldened they are that they're showing their entire playbook. not only do they want to push for a nationwide six week and --
3:26 pm
ban, they are for opportunities to amend the constitution. we have to fight back and be just as relentless to fight their extremism and that's what we're going to do. >> finally, what is your message to young women, to families o are out there listening to this, listening to you right now who are questioning what it means for them and what they should do now? what is your message? >> my message is the same i give to my daughter. my 13-year-old daughter, my 10-year-old daughter. both of whom are going to grow up with less rights than i have enjoyed for my last 49 years. i told them we are going to fight this at every turn. now is the time to be engaged in the fight. now is the time to ensure that
3:27 pm
future generations maintain and hold rights. have to make sure that every movement understands that we have to make it relevant for every single generation and we want young women to grow up in a world where they are able to pursue their own freedom, their own imagination, and we will continue to fight with them and for them until they take the baton so they can fight along with us. >> the president of the planned parenthood action fund. thank you so much. for a closer look on how this impas americans. >> we'll get two perspectives. i'm joined first by michael gonidakis, president of the group "ohio right to life." he's been with the organization for more than 14 years. you have been working toward this decision for 14 years.
3:28 pm
help me understand what is this moment like for you? >> never in my lifetime that i believe it would come to this. today we have a monumental task ahead of us. our work has just begun. we need to ensure we have the greatest social service safety net here in ohio to help all women. >> let me ask you about the work ahead and your resources. women in ohio lived through a pandemic, they were disproportionately affected when it comes to workforce participation. rental prices have been soaring like everywhere else. you are a nonprofit. how can you support these women? do you have the resources and funding you need? >> we have our tax dollars through the legislature and our governor is pro-life as well. what we have done in the budget is find dollars or take dollars that we currently have two help with wit, snap, to help women
3:29 pm
with prenatal care or their own health care. we think every woman should have access to a doctor no matter what. if we continue these commonsense approaches at our city, county, and a state level the resources are there to ensure that every woman will have everything they need to have a healthy baby. >> you are confident those resources are already there? >> they are already there. we have $7 billion rainy day fund. our coffers are full and we are spending the money now. our governor continues to provide extra money for women for diverse formulas, parenting classes and the like and he's doing a great job. ask the governor signed a heartbeat bill effectively manning abortions at around six weeks. it has been held up in a court and it is liquid to go into place. with that, if a woman in ohio becomes pregnant, she can still
3:30 pm
order medication abortion or travel out-of-state. how do you approach that? >> we are in a new frontier. we are dealing with decisions we have seen for the first time. on the heartbeat bill, the federal judge just lifted the injunction so 10 minutes ago, the law and ohio is the heartbeat standard. as it relates to mail-order prescriptions, we can't regulate the internet this time. who have to sit down and tackle these issues together as a nation and as a state about how to ensure women aren't ordering unsafe medications from china or anywhere else. >> how worried are you that women will turn to unsafe means? >> we are confident that we can demonstrate to women that they
3:31 pm
have the health care they need in ohio that they will have that access and it is there today. >> for your time. joining me now to talk about how her group will respond to today's decision is kelly davis, executive director for new voices for reproductive justice. a non-profit working in ohio and pennsylvannia to help black women, girls, and trans people. thank you for joining us. tell me about what this decision means specifically for the people you serve and what are they telling you? >> today is a devastating day, but if there is a price haven't been paying attention. folks have been working in concert across this nation to limit human rights including access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care which includes abortion.
3:32 pm
across the two states we represent, we know that those were most impacted by abortion restrictions are black women and gender expansive folks. >> tell me about ohio and pennsylvania where you also work because a lot of folks predict because of the tightening rules in ohio and the heartbeat bill just going into effect, pennsylvania providers will see a surge of women coming in other stat. can you handle that? do you have the resources? >> for the states where abortion is still legal to absorb the influx of patients from states where abortion is now illegal because of trigger bands, we know that that can't possibly be the case. not eveone has the means to be able to travel. folks who are disabled, who are living in poverty who don't have access to sick leave or
3:33 pm
childcare are having challenges traveling. also to ask a health care system which has been plagued by infectious disease and record numbers of resignations and ill health care workforce to absorb even more of an influx of patients is morally and epidemiological he unconscionable. >> our other guest just said he is confident there are resources in ohio they will support these women. you believe that will happen? >> no, it hasn't happened. states have had horrible budget deficits because of covid-19 pandemic. in ohio, we have children today living in poverty. we have infant formula shortage. worsening black maternal morbidity and mortality crisis. that was with roe v. wade being
3:34 pm
the law of the land. without it, we note the sins are going to skyrocket causing widespread death and disability which names community's of color the most. >> now that abortions are essentially banned in ohio, if a woman becomes pregnant and wants to end her pregnancy, what her options? >> a six-week abortion ban is effectively 100% because the vast majority of people do not know they are pregnant within six weeks of pregnancy. now, this hypothetical person this is the real life for tens of thousands of people across the state have to secure childcare, have to take off of work, have to travel to neighboring states that require
3:35 pm
multiple doctors visits, have to pay out-of-pocket. all of those things we know securely marginalized groups do not have access to. but that is what we are committed thin reproductive justice movement to giving folks access they need wherever abortion is legal today. >> how does this change the work you do? >> it doesn't change anything. we are just working smarter, harder, faster with more commitment and passion now more than ever. >> think you for joining us. -- thank you for joining us. >> the u.s. house of representatives gave final approval to a gun violence bill,
3:36 pm
the first of its kind in nearly three decades. it had passed the senate last night with if teen republicans joining all 50 democrats. today's debate and vote in the house was much more down party lis. >> to those who lack the courage to join in this work, i say your survival is insignificant compared to the survival of our children. johnson: congress isoving full steam ahead to restrict the right of self defense of law abiding gun owners and the right to due process for all americans. this legislation is the wrong approach and we ought to oppose it. >> the measure curbs gun sales to those convicted of mastic violence. in ukraine: government forces conceded control of the eastern city of sevro-donetsk a major milestone in russia's advance across the "luhansk" region.
3:37 pm
the regional governor said fighters were pulling back to avoid being encircled. >> "now, we're in the situation where it makes no sense to stay in the positions that have been smashed to pieces during many months of fighting, because the number of casualties in these poorly fortified areas will grow every day. >> russian forces are also advancing on lussy-shansk, across a river from sevro-donetsk. it now becomes the last major pocket of ukrainian resistance in the region. >> the official earthquake death toll in eastern afghanistan has risen to 1,150. that word came today as the devastated region shuddered again with a heavy aftershock. survivors struggled to find food and shelter and waited for aid that is slowly trickling in. the u-n human rights office today blamed israeli troops for the death of shireen abu akleh a palestinian-american journalist. she was shot dead last month during unrest in the occupied west bank. the
3:38 pm
u-n review concluded she was hit by quote "seemingly well-aimed bullets" fired by israelis not palestinians. and, it called for a full investigation.
3:39 pm
"more than six weeks after the killing of journalist shireen abu akleh and injury of her colleague ali sammoudi in jenin on 11 may 2022, it is deeply disturbing that israeli authorities have not conducted a criminal investigation. israel has denied its soldiers targeted abu akleh. it also called again for the palestinians to share access to the fatal bullet. the palestinians have refused, saying they do not trust the israelis to conduct a legitimate investigation. record-breaking heat has hit more highs today, all around the northern hemisphere. cities in northern china had readings of 107 degrees. in the russian arctic, it was nearly 90 on thursday, and 15 states across the u-s had highs of 100 degrees. scientists say the extreme heat this early in the year is likely linked to climate change. the people of surfside, florida marked one year today since 98 people were killed when a condominium tower collapsed. first dy jill biden was among those honoring the victims at the now-cleared site where the 12-story building once stood. the cause of the collapse is still under investigation. and, wall street closed out a week that recouped much of last week's losses. stocks rose on hopes that interest rates won't need to rise so much if the economy cools. the dow jones industrial average gained 823 points on the day 2.7% to close at 31-thousand-500. the nasdaq rose 375 points 3.3%. the s-and-p 500 was up 3%.
3:40 pm
this is the pbs newshour. >> the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade has sent washington into a frenzy as observers navigate the political and cultural ramifications. that brings us to the analysis of capehart and gerson. that is jonathan capehart, associate editor for the washington post, and his colleague at the post, opinion columnist michael gerson. david brooks is away. >> we welcome both of you this friday night. i want to start with the story that is all over the news today. what is your reaction to the supreme court? >> i think i worked out not my rage, but my alarm. alarm is the right word when the leak of the draft opinion
3:41 pm
overturning roe v. wade was late last month. -- leak last month. i read it as roe v. wade being overturned, but a bunch of other rights to privacy would be weakened if it were overturned. the decision out today, it is close to that draft opinion. i am sitting here still trying to process what it means to live in a post roe v. wade world. we have states that had trigger laws that the moment roe v. wade was overturned, abortion was made illegal. my heart goes out to women who live in states where their right to choose their own reproductive health care is no longer there decision. my heart goes out to the families because it is not only
3:42 pm
a personal decision for the person who is pregnant. it is a decision that impacts an entire family. there are men out there dealing with this as well. in the hours we have been trying to digest all of this, i'm still trying to get my head around what it means. it's not good. >> michael? >> i have similar reaction in one way. i come from a pro-life background. i found my views very mixed today. we are a nation with an escalating culture war. placing this issue right now in the center of our national debate in states across the country is going to be deeply divisive. it is a terrible time to talk about this set of issues.
3:43 pm
i also thought they were a couple of good points made in criticism in the decision itself. one of them is by chief justice roberts. >> criticizing the main opinion. >> he concurred but criticized saying i would have done it differently. you did not need to overturn roe v. wade completely for the mississippi case. he said that this ruling was a ruling all the way down to the studs. to see that kind of dissent within the majority was kind of interesting. then, i thought the dissent made the decision or made the point very well that justice alito says in the decision that this does not affect other cases that have to do with sexual privacy.
3:44 pm
he doesn't make a good argument about why his reasoning would not. there could be good reasons. maybe justice roberts could write them. the reality is that was left a little bit blank. i think it's going to cause some consternation. >> what do you think this is about the court? >> i think the credibility of the court is now more on the line that ever. i hesitate to say that the legitimacy of the court is in question or at risk because that is a step too far. when you read this decision and you read the concurring opinions, e legitimacy of the court i think will be eroded. to michael's point about justice alito saying don't worry this only applies to abortion, he made the same argument in the
3:45 pm
draft opinion and that is what raised my alarm. just as an exclamation point on justice alito's don't worry, you have justice thomas putting in writing in future cases we should reconsider all of this courts substantive due process precedents including griswold, lawrence, and a booger felt. the same-sex marriage, the right to privacy to same-sex intimate contact, the right of married couples to have access to contraception. these decisions are grounded. roe v. wade is there foundation. now as an out gay married man, i am faced with officially the prospect of my marriage being rendered illegal. >> do you think this decision
3:46 pm
tells us something new about this court? >> given the frusttion of the chief justice, it tells us that is not the roberts court. leadership being shown by the five justices themselves not including justice roberts. that is an awkward position for him to be in. even he, this is a 6-3 decision, has accepted the basic point which is the point of the conservative legal revolution over the last several decades. if the constitution doesn't say it, then we cannot create rights. there is an additional element that want to say which is the
3:47 pm
point that judge alito makes which is there are two groups with visions of human rights at stake. not just one. e of those groups the pro-life people in america were to by roe v. wade you can never win. they were essentially disenfranchised at least in their own minds. that was also a source of division in ou country for 50 years. it's a perilous decision which way you go. i think there are humans to be made in favor of. >> do you see it having a political effect in this fraud election year? >> -- fraught election year? >> when we are facing historic headwinds in terms of making -- maintaining control of the house
3:48 pm
and en the senate, a democratic party base that might be frustrated because criminal justice reform wasn't done or voting rights wasn't done. now, we're looking at a woman's right to choose:. looking at other rights potentially on the chopping block. this is a galvanizing issue for republicans and democrats. particularly for democrats, because folks who are in favor of abortion rights because now they have lost something. the only way to get back is to put more democrats in the house. put more democrats in the senate so they can codify the right to abortion by law. that is the only way that's going to be done now. >> do you see this energizing democrats more than republicans? >> probably. this is a right withdrawn.
3:49 pm
that means that it is illegal in some places. it is likely to concern democrats because they have lost something i think that's exactly right. not to get too much into the politics, is the outcome of midterm elections is most directly tied to the popularity of the sitting president. that's what -- gallup runs their model. if you are below 50 as president, you're going to lose more than 30 seats, that is the history. does this make president biden more popular? i'm not sure that's true. he is hardly a culture war fighter on these issues. he gave a speech today that had some of those elements. i think there can be an effect on the democratic race, but this
3:50 pm
is still a very tough election for democrats. >> president biden is not on the ballot. there are individual members of the house and folks in the senate who are running and they can run and say if you want to get these things back, if you want to fortify the rights that we have, you must elect democrats because they are the ones who are going to do whatever it takes if they have the big enough geordie's to codify abortion rights and tact marriage equality and protect the legal right to contraception. >> we are already seeing candidates around the country saying were going to take this to the voters. we're going to talk about this. talking about the court and other decision the court handed down this week negating new york's regulations on who can carr guns out in the open. that came down from the court
3:51 pm
the same time congress has now passed the first, anything close to gun-control legislation in decades. where are we on guns in this country given all that? >> americans have every right to be confused. with the courts coming down in favor of state legislatures when it comes to abortion. undermining a 100-year-old law was a perfectly reasonable law. it relates to the earlier question. i do think that there is a concern on justice roberts part of a judicial activism on the right. whatever the favored right is, the right has found ways to do this. i don't want to downplay what the congress did on this measure. this was the first oits type in 30 years. the reality is it was a
3:52 pm
demonstration to some extent in the way that congress should work. you make compromises and you have incremental reform. that's what american democracy does. i think there's a lot to praise there and that included some republicans even though a lot of them are not coming back or not running in the next year. i think was well done. >> jonathan, you have the court going one direction and the congress in this instance going in another direction. >> the congress is reacting to real-time horrors. the mass shootings that have happened in this country since the beginning of the year. the fact that they were able to do something as incremental as it is, it is the first time it has been done in 30 years. this should be celebrated and recognized as an opportunity if
3:53 pm
congress shows the ability to pass something on guns, they can do it again. when it comes to the court's cision, it is another thing that worries me. this idea of reliance on ordinary self-defense. when you are a person of color, do you get the presumption of self-defense? many times, the answer is no. >> jonathan and michael, thank you for being with us on this historic evening. for more coverage of the supreme court overturng roe v wade join us for a special program at
3:54 pm
8 p-m easterhere on p-b-s and streaming online. and following that, join moderator yamiche alcindor and her washington week panel for additional analysis. that's tonight on pbs. and that's the newshour for tonight. i'm judy woodruff. join us on-line and again here tomorrow evening on p-b-s news weekend geoff bennett will have latest on the response to the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade. for all of us at the pbs newshour, thank you, please stay safe and see you soon. >> major funding has been provided by
3:55 pm
>> ming our economy for 160 years. bnsf the engine that connects us. >> with the ongoing support of these individuals and institutions and friends of the newshour including cap and paul anderson. >> the william and flora hewlett foundation for more than 50 years, advancing ideas and supporting institutions to support a better world at >> supporting social entrepreneurs and their solutions to the world's most pressing problems. >> friends of the newshr.
3:56 pm
this program was made possible by the corporation for public broadcasting and contributions toour pbs station from viewers like you. ♪
3:57 pm
3:58 pm
3:59 pm
4:00 pm
hello, everyone, and welcome to amanpour and company. here's what's coming up. inside each of these body bags is a john doe, remains left in the ruins of war for weeks that are too decomposed to be recognized. correspondent reports on the agony of the families of ukraine's unidentified war dead. then, the supreme court strikes down new york's hand gun law. i speak to supreme court watchers about the impact of the ruling on gun control legislation across the country. then. >> i think it's important for republicans to say enough, and take a stand.