Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Reports  MSNBC  May 3, 2022 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
thank you for the privilege of your time. andrea mitchell picks up with more views right now. good morning everyone, i'm andrea mitchell live outside the supreme court. a leaked supreme court draft opinion published by politico appearing to indicate that a majority of the supreme court is poised to overturn the landmark roe v. wade decision. that ruling made nearly 50 years ago says the constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion. nbc news has neither obtained or confirmed the draft. according to the label, it's a notation that it was circulated in february. the content of the draft could change before the supreme court officially announces its decision expected in late june. this is an unprecedented leak.
8:01 am
nbc news, of course, has reached out to the supreme court which has no comment at this time. in the last hour, republican senator susan collins sharing reaction calling this decision inconsistent with what justices neil gorsuch and brett kavanaugh both nominated and confirmed to the court in recent years said in their confirmation hearings, and in her private meetings with them before she agreed to vote for them. we'll be going live to capitol hill. also ahead, i'll talk with drk congresswoman cory bush who shared firsthand the emotional weight of deciding to get an abortion. her reaction and what it means for a woman's right to choose. joint base andrews, a source familiar with the matter telling nbc news that the president is expected to make brief remarks in the wake of the politico leak at jba before heading to alabama. he's left the white house. so expect that in about 15 minutes at motorcade speed to
8:02 am
joint base andrews. joining me is nbc's ali vitali on capitol hill, nbc's pete williams, nbc's carol reeves at the white house and garrett haake in austin, texas. also with me to do, barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and law professor at the university of michigan law school, also an msnbc legal analyst. ali, i want to start with you. we got reaction from republican senator susan collins, a key yes vote for some of these more conservative justices. let's talk about what she said and how she feels they mislead her. >> in her statement she says that if this leaked draft is true, that it would be inconsistent with what two of those conservative justices told her in their meetings. she said after the judge kavanaugh confirmation, for example, that she felt it was
8:03 am
promised it was settled precedent. i asked if she felt misled by what some of the judges told her years ago. listen to what she told us in very short remarks today. >> i just put out a statement, so you'll all have that. >> reporter: collins not going beyond her initial statement that we just talked about. but here on the hill, there seems to be two camps of reaction, the reactions over the way in which this leak happened, several former supreme court clerks on the hill in the senate saying they as clerks couldn't fathom leaking an opinion like this in its draft form. republicans calling for investigations into how this happened. then there's the reaction to the substance of what's in this draft opinion. democrats, of course, reigniting calls to potentially get rid of the filibuster and codify federal protections for abortion. they, of course, failed to do that earlier this year. they completely lacked the numbers to be able to climate
8:04 am
change the senate rules and do that. republicans, of course, including senator lindsey graham who i just spoke to saying that's not something they should do. i asked him as well if republicans were to retake power in the senate, would he say that they should also not codify abortion protections by changing the rules and the filibuster rules to do that. he said they should not. a lot of reaction here just across the street from where you are, andrea. senators on both sides of thisry acting to this big news this morning. >> pete williams, your location, you've been covering the court for decades and decades. let's talk about this, how unprecedented it is. you covered the oral arguments importantly back in february. you were the first to report from your vantage point there in the court chamber, how it was very clear there was a majority to overturn roe. this is different. this draft is much stronger and without any exceptions. >> it's different because it's actually the draft opinion. that means the court voted after
8:05 am
hearing the argument, voted according to the politico leak. we haven't confirmed it. there's no reason to think this isn't the real think. we have to assume that it is. i think that's a fair assumption. based on the concern level of the court, i think it's clear it is the real thing. i think it's shocking, andrea, that this has leaked. the supreme court doesn't leak like this. sure there have been leaks from the court in the past, but not a fully written draft opinion. that's astonishing. the second thing is nobody should be surprised in what it says. there were at least five justices prepared to overturn roe. i think they walked into the courtroom in december when this case was argued knowing full well how they would vote on this case. this is something they've thought about for years, read all the briefs in this case. even when the case first came to the court, ruth bader ginsburg
8:06 am
was still on the court, don't worry, you don't have to worry about overturning roe. and now, while you're at it, you need to overturn roe. the fact there's a draft opinion saying it should be overturned i don't think is a surprise to anybody who has followed this case. it is such a shock to see it made public. >> pete, this is circulated right after the oral arguments chl it could change. we remember when ruth bader ginsburg wrote the majority for the 7-2 decision, it didn't start at 72. one of the talking points who supported her staying on the court long past when she was ill was that she had a very big influence because of how careful she was in her legal arguments on some of the more swing votes in the court. didn't start at 72 in that vmi
8:07 am
case, ledding women into this all male school in virginia. >> three or four times a term there's an initial vote. as the opinion circulates, some justice changes their mind and the dissent becomes the majority opinion and it flips. i don't think this case is going to be one of those. i think the feelings were pretty well developed even before this case was argued. there was no reason to think during oral argument that anybody was waffling. the only question seemed to be would chief justice roberts join with the justices willing to overturn roe or more a middle ground saying let's uphold the mississippi law, but let's not go all the way and overturn roe? if the political leak is to be believed here, he's still not sure he wants to join those five and make it six, so it would appear to be a 5-4 decision. normally we would get this in late june. whether this leak will change that timeline, accelerate it, slow it down, i don't know.
8:08 am
andrea, you can be sure in that building behind you, this is causing enormous turmoil. this is deeply corrosive to the kind of trust that exists between members of the court and their clerks. it's just hard to know the impact that this is going to have, and the court's work is by no means done. they've got 37 cases yet to announce. >> they've always worked on the. going through all this gaming, inspector clouseau, who can be responsible, which side do you think did it? >> i just don't know. i can argue it round or flat. i simply don't know. >> pete williams, we'll talk to you a bit later in our next hour. thank you for being with us. carol lee, moments ago we found out, according to knows who know, we will hear from the president on camera for the first time since this news broke. this will happen out at andrews.
8:09 am
what more can you tell us? he's said in a statement issued this morning by the white house that he supports roe. he repeated that. he has supported roe. we know the midterms are approaching. he al lured to that, more than alluded to it. he mentioned the importance of the midterms. now it is up to the states, the governors, the legislatures, once this decision, if it does come down comes down. if this is the way it's decided, it would be up to individual states and 13 of them will already be triggered with laws that will immediately ban roe. >> yeah, that's right, andrea. the president already issued, as you mentioned, a lengthy paper statement, and the fact that he also on top of that is going to speak publicly in front of the cameras as he boards air force one really underscores the significance of this moment. this is a moment that is, while not surprising to the white house, that this would be where the supreme court landed on this particular issue. it still is shocking. what we heard from the president in his written statement is
8:10 am
likely some of what we'll hear from him when he speaks at the mics there at andrews, and that is that he reaffirmed, as you said, his position supporting abortion rights, and he also said that this is something that his white house, his gender policy council, white house counsel's office has been planning for, various outcomes where the supreme court could reach on abortion. he said, quote, we will be ready. he also drew a direct line from this to the midterms. i'll read you that part of his written statement. he said: if the court does overturn roe, it will fall on our nation's elected officials at all levels of government to protect a woman's right to choose and fall on voters to elect pro-choice officials this november. the president also said, andrea, he would back and push for legislation that codifies those protections in roe. one of the things we'll be looking for is what else does he
8:11 am
have to say, how much muscle does he have to throw behind that? as ali pointed out earlier, there's not really the votes there for the president, particularly in the senate. there's going to be a lot of protection for him to do something, and what he says in the next few moments is going to be hugely significant. >> in fact, garrett haake who covers capitol hill and politics around the country is in texas today, one of roughly a dozen states with so-called trigger laws. a potential decision like this has a big impact there. texas i think is your home state. you know it so well. i also want to flag the fact that it was joe manchin, according to house members, who has blocked the senate taking up the house-passed law that would codify roe. >> reporter: andrea, when it comes to texas, i think most viewers are familiar with senate bill 8 passed last year which
8:12 am
restricted abortion in this state to just the first six weeks. that wasn't the only abortion-related registration. they also passed this trigger bill which would, in the event that roe is overturned take effect within 30 days. it would ban almost all abortion in the state of texas, no time frame difference here, no exceptions for rape or insist, only an exception for the life of the mother and, in fact, would make performing an abortion a felony on the state of texas. i was here working on an entirely different story, interviewing a republican state legislator who defended it as morally and he believes constitutionally sound. take a listen. >> all i know in texas we are respecting the constitutional life for viable life, heartbeat, breath, to live. we're going to protect their life and liberty. >> reporter: andrea, that said, you look at state-level polling
8:13 am
in texas. banning abortion outright is not a majority position here in texas and will almost certainly be a major issues in the midterms where you have beto o'rourke running against governor abbott. he made protecting abortion rights a key part of his platform. i suspect we'll see that more so in the days and weeks to come. >> thanks to you, garrett, in texas. barbara mcquade, university of michigan law professor. what happens now? we've never seen anything like this. >> of course, we have to wait for the actual opinion to come out, which we'll see in probably june or july, maybe change at the margins. i agree with pete, we're not going to see a seismic change here. this is going to be the law of the land. i think one thing we'll see, in addition to the trigger laws, we have laws in the books in other states that pre-existed before roe that will be resuss stated. i think we'll see challenges within the state, challenging the state constitutionality of
8:14 am
those laws. one of the reasons we have stare decisis is to bring certainty to the law. what this opinion has done is create chaos. >> when you speak about stare decisis which means following precedent -- not literally -- that's the way it's always been interpreted, this means that any other constitutional right could now be challenged by this particular majority. it's always been viewed even by people who had differing opinions about abortion than justice roberts and some other cases where justices -- in fact in the casey decision, correct? i believe it was justice o'connor, justice kennedy -- trying to think of who the third justice was in that case, you would know better than i. >> it was suit tore. >> justice suitor. they wrote in the majority opinion on casey in 1992, the
8:15 am
pennsylvania case which upheld roe and added strength to it that press depth was important and that was one of the issues. no u the precedent is 49 years and counting, talking nearly half a century of precedent. what does this do to same-sex marriage and other constitutional rights? >> i think you are very right to be concerned about that. those rights, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, contraception and consensual sex acts between adults are all based on the same number of privacy rights on which roe v. wade was based. now with this opinion that that was poorly decided, that was just wrong, the foundation in which those other cases are built also comes crumbling down and i think are subject to challenge. this idea of precedent is supposed to be the law is settled unless you can answer a few questions. one is has our understanding or
8:16 am
facts of the law changed? has it viewed in light of other law that's developed around it? all of those measures, roe v. wade hasn't changed. the only thing that's changed is the makeup of the court since 1973. >> one other thing, barbara, do you think there's some context where, let's say this was the left trying to put out a very tough decision early, leak iter li so there would be opposition mobilized, although the court rarely listens to public opinion, especially not now. the other case would be trying to reenforce the determination of these five to be this categorical in rejecting roe. so create a situation where they were on record and, therefore, it would be harder for them to retreat and modify it at all in the coming months. do you have an opinion? >> of course, we can't possibly
8:17 am
know. it could be a hail mary where people shocked by this opinion wanted to get it out there in the public domain in hopes that some justice might change his or her vote. it could be the other side, i want these people to be on record so they will feel locked in and they will be reluctant to change their vote, lest they be seen as caving in. a third possibility, this is something lawyers do all the time, they float an idea before they lock it in so they can take the sting out of it. so no doubt there will be an uproar when this kaels comes out. if they can contain the uproar to know when it's only a leaked draft, then perhaps when the it comes out, we're closer to the midterm and maybe it stakes the sting out of it. i don't know the motivations. those are some possibilities. >> ali vitali, you've been talking to some senators. what is the reaction there politically? >> the conversation that you and barbara are having right now about the implications of
8:18 am
overturning the roe v. wade precedent and even the casey precedent, thaebs something i've been talking about with senators to do, specifically those who have been law clerks in the past. senator blumenthal said it's whether this has an implication on overall right to privacy, specifically in griswald v. connecticut, one of the bricks upon which roe was ultimately decided in 1973. certainly that's a concern of the other implications that could go forward here. as we've been standing outside the judiciary committee today, there's also a real conversation about what this means for the midterms going forward. in talking to people like senator lindsey graham, we asked if he thought this could galvanize democratic voters at a time when republicans want this to be an election all about inflation and the economy. andrea, you and i know this, many of us covering elections all the time, few things are as
8:19 am
incendiary as reproductive rights when they're on the ballot. we saw it in 2018 when it was justice kavanaugh and those hearings. certainly now coming into the midterms in 2022, it's going to be a big question in terms of how democratic voters and republican voters react to this kind of decision if it actually the politics for the white house, it's difficult for the white house -- it may energize the democratic base certainly, but it also can energize the republican base. it's going to be an election certainly dominated by the economy and inflation, but also about abortion. >> reporter: that's right, andrea. democrats i've spoken to this morning, the raw politics of this are for democrats it could be hugely energizing. one of the things that this sets up for the midterms is the ability for democrats to draw a very stark contrast, to make the
8:20 am
argument it's either the democrats or something very extreme. one of the things you can see the president and democrats saying is, is this the country that you want to live in? what other rights is the court going to go after? if you elect these republicans, they're going to just keep taking away certain rights. that's a very political calculation that democrats are going to make. the president obviously will be central in that. he's going to be campaigning a lot in the midterm elections. when he speaks in moments from now, we will get hopefully a flavor of what exactly his message is going to be. that contrast, which the president had already started to draw between himself and the republican party which he's called former president trump's party, the maga party, that's going to get more stark. >> carol, pete williams is back with a statement from the court. pete. >> the supreme court has basically confirmed that this is a real leak, and it's also
8:21 am
announcing that the chief justice has directed the court's marshal, the top official in the court to investigate what happened. let me read to you the full text of a brief statement the chief just put out. he said to the extent that this betrayal of the confidence of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. the work of the court will not be affected in any way. he said we at the court are blessed to have a workforce, permanent employees and law clerks alike, intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. court employees have an exemplary and important position of respecting the confidentiality of upholding the trust of the court. this is a ling lar an egregious breach of the trust. that was an affront to the court and the public servants who work here. i've directed the marshal to direct an investigation into the
8:22 am
source of the leak. that's chief justice john roberts speaking. you're looking at him presiding over one of the trump impeachment trials. this is a confirmation that this was, in fact, a leak. one of the problems with the court not saying whether tfls going to have an investigation, they wouldn't investigate a non-leak. this is their confirmation this really was the leak. >> we can take the word "alleged" out of all of our reports on this draft. let's talk for a moment about the chief. this is such a repudiation of his attempts to depoliticize the court. >> every other justice must feel the same way here. i'm sure they must feel stunned by this and deeply upset by it. whichever of the people that were not involved in this will feel the same way. it casts a great cloud of suspicion now over all the clerks, including the ones that innocently did nothing wrong.
8:23 am
>> pete williams, as we see, the president's motorcade arriving. the president will be getting out of the car right now. carol lee, as you know covering the white house, president normally just runs up those steps, generally runs up those steps. at this point we understand he is going to stop and talk. they've already issued a statement reiterating his long-held support for roe v. wade. he is the former chairman of the senate judiciary committee, famously, of course, during the clarence thomas confirmation and the disputes with anita hill. he may well be checking last-minute notes in the car and talking on the phone. it's a little hard to see through the window. the daylight out here is making it more difficult for me. the secret service, of course, always outside the car. carol, jump in here and let's talk about the burden or opportunity that's being placed
8:24 am
on the president of the united states right now. >> reporter: you can see the president in the presidential limousine with some aides. as you noted, it's highly unusual for the president to make a point and for the white house to telegraph ahead of time that he's going to step out at andrews air force base before jogging up those stairs to speak publicly. here he is -- it looks like he's walking over to the cameras. >> he is approaching the microphone. we'll listen to the president. he was supposed to be on route -- he will be on route to alabama focusing on a javelin missing production site. let's listen to the president of the united states on abortion. >> i just got a call that it's been announced it's a real draft but doesn't represent who is going to vote for it yet. i hope there are not enough votes for it. it's the main reason why i
8:25 am
worked so hard to keep roberts off the court. it reflects his view almost -- anyway, look, the idea -- it concerns me a great deal that we're going to, after 50 years, decide a woman doesn't have a right to choose within the limits of the supreme court decision, number one. but even equally as profound is the rationale used. it would mean that every other decision under the notion of privacy is thrown into question. one of the debates i had with robert bourque whether griswald versus connecticut should stand as law. the state of connecticut said privacy of the bedroom between a husband and wife or a couple couldn't choose to use contraception. to use contraception was a violation of the law. if the rationale of the decision
8:26 am
as released were to be sustained, a whole range of rights are in question, a whole range of rights. the idea we're letting the states make those decisions or localities make those decisions would be a fundamental shift in what we've done. it goes far beyond, in my view, if it becomes the law and if what is written is what remains, it goes far beyond the concern of whether or not there is the right to choose, those other basic rights, right to marriage, the right to determine a whole range of things because one of the issues that this court, many members of the court -- a number of the members of the court have not acknowledged is that there is a right to privacy in our constitution. i strongly believe there is. i think the decision in griswald was correct overruling it. i think the decision in roe was correct, because there's a right to privacy. putting limitations on it, but it cannot be denied.
8:27 am
>> do you think this leak has irreparably stained the court? we've never seen this happen before. >> if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision. again, the underlying premise -- again, i have not had a chance to thoroughly go into the report, but it basically says all the decisions related to your privacy life, who you marry, whether or not you decide you can see the child or not, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decisions, how you raise your child, what does this do? does this mean in florida they can decide they're going to pass a law saying that same-sex marriage is not permissible, it's against the law in florida? there's a whole -- it's a fundamental shift in american juris prudence.
8:28 am
>> can the senate do away with filibuster to codify row? >> i'm not prepared to make those judgments now. i think the codification of roe makes a lot of sense. what roe says -- roe says what all basic mainstream religions have historically included, that the existence of a human life is a question. is it at the moment of conception? is it six months? is it six weeks? is it quickening like kwien nas argued. the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make a judgment to choose to abort a child based on a decision by the supreme court, i think goes way overboard. >> thank you. thank you, guys.
8:29 am
>> the midterms, what does this mean for the democrats' argument in the midterms? >> i haven't thought that through yet. >> -- if this decision holds? >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this if the decision holds? >> no, you just have to choose -- look, one of the reasons why i voted against a number of members of the court, they refused to acknowledge there was a ninth amendment, refused to acknowledge there was a right to privacy. so many fundamental rights that are affected by that. i'm not prepared to leave that to the whims of the public. thank you so much. >> thank you, guys. the president of the united states importantly saying now that it's been confirmed, he says it is a real draft. it doesn't indicate who is going to vote for it. equally concerning to him, he has profound concerns over the
8:30 am
rationale that they used to reach this. he says this rationale is sustained -- it is going to eliminate a whole range of constitutional rights. it goes way beyond whether or not there was a right to choose. he mentioned the right to marriage, the right to conception, to use contraceptive s. he says this goes all the way back of the question of what robert bourque said, in the griswald case, whether the right to privacy would stand as well. he said he was not prepared to make a change to the filibuster system to codify row. >> carol lee, i want to ask you about the next steps for the white house. it's clear he was asking for the
8:31 am
supreme court. as the president said, we don't know who is going to vote for this draft. >> reporter: andrea, the president used the word radical. he said this was a fundamental shift to the way this operated. he said this is something that goes far beyond concern about abortion. one of the things you can look for going forward is how the white house is assessing all other types of decisions that the supreme court all those decisions of privacy. he mentioned contraception and same-sex marriage. that's a place where the president and the white house will focus. what else could this possibly impact. again, the president said he would -- he stopped short of saying that he would back a change in the filibuster to do that. it's not even clear they would have the votes to do either.
8:32 am
>> carol lee, thank you very much. last september some members of congress shared their personal experiences with abortion. one of them is democratic congresswoman cori bush testifying before a house committee about her choice. >> in the summer of 1994, i was raped, i became pregnant and i chose to have an abortion. choosing to have an abortion was the hardest decision i had ever made. at 18 years old, i knew it was the right decision for me. it was freeing, knowing i had options. >> congresswoman, thank you very much for joining us. i can't imagine how difficult it was for you to testify in that way and share your experience. what are your feelings today on what we now know is an authentic draft from the supreme court. >> just hearing the president speak, in hearing the announcement that came before
8:33 am
that, that this is real, that this is what's going to happen. it sounded like a hammer came down. i'm thinking about the 36 million women, nearly half of the women of reproductive age between 18 and 49. i'm thinking about them in the u.s. i'm thinking about other folks, people who can become pregnant and how they lose this access, the access to abortion. i think about what my mindset was at the time when i needed that help. we have to think about it this way. when i went to get my abortion, i didn't go to a gas station, didn't enter a fast food restaurant, i didn't go to a bank. i went to a health care facility because abortion care is health care. this will take away folks' access to safe abortions. i'm thinking about those that have this need and that need, that option will be gone.
8:34 am
>> congresswoman, the house has voted for a law to codify roe v. wade. it's been sitting in the senate. senator manchin and others refused to support it, so it couldn't break the filibuster. do you think the president should reverse his long-held position on the filibuster? as carol lee pointed out, she's not even sure there would be the votes -- >> absolutely. i think the president should really -- that's my stance, to abolish the filibuster. i did see that chuck schumer did tweet out that there's going to be a vote on the legislation to codify the right to an abortion. we're looking forward to that. we need to see who is going to vote for it. let's put the senate on record.
8:35 am
one option could be through the food and drug administration. the president could have the fda issue regulations to expand access to medication abortion. we need to bring that back into the conversation so pregnant people could have access to a two-pill regiment safely and be able to end a pregnancy at home up to ten weeks. what about the department of health and human services encouraging states to use their own medicaid funds, use that to cover abortion services. there are options. we need to talk about all of them. >> there's a missouri law, you know this well, signed in 2019 banning abortions after just eight weeks of pregnancy when most women don't even know they're pregnant. it's facing legal challenges. if roe is overturned, that law would ban abortions in missouri with only the separation of medical emergencies, not even rape or incest. what does it mean immediately to women in your state?
8:36 am
this could happen by june. >> yeah. we are one of the states that has the trigger ban. that means -- we're talking about 708,000, 893 human beings, whole human beings that make their own decisions, will potentially be affected by this law. 16% of women between 50 and 44 in our state -- 15 and 44 will be affected by this. i can't stress enough that abortion care is health care. it means that we are taking away all the work that we've done over these last 49 years, going from just making sure that reproductive health is part of the conversation. we're now talking about reproductive justice, making sure there's not just the right, but access and the ability for folks to have abortion. what we're talking about doing, what is possibly about to happen, most likely about to
8:37 am
happen is now we have people who will have to drive hundreds of miles, where we were already trying to make sure had access to abortions in their hometowns, now they have to drive hundreds of miles to access abortion care. we're saying people can be jailed. we have black and brown, lgbtqia, indigenous folks we know will be harmed the most by this decision that comes down. those that are most criminalized in this country, and we're opening that up even more to people who just need health care services. i cannot imagine who i would have been, what would i have done to a child, what type of parent could i have been to a child in the mind frame i was in when i became pregnant. i think about that. i wasn't well enough to be able to handle that after that rape. i wasn't well enough, i wasn't financially, emotionally, mentally stable or well enough to be able to take care of a child. to say that someone has to do this, i'm just -- i'm
8:38 am
absolutely -- my heart goes out to every single person -- i will bring this into the conversation. when i think about black, brown, indigenous, lgbtqia, those most directly impacted or at least up front impacted in a particular way, to think about the far right supreme court that are the ones making these decisions, the ones that will be voting. when i think about those, what is the purpose, why are they pushing knowing that we are talking about lives, people actually dying. do we go back to the 60s like representative barbara lee when she spoke at that same hearing. she spoke about how in the 60s that the number one killer for black women at that time was septic abortions. septic abortions was the number one killer. think about how many lives that
8:39 am
have been saved over the last 49 years because we have roe v. wade. how many were saved? do we put black, brown, indij laos, trans -- indigenous, trans folks in the position where this massive loss of life happens because of politics? no. we will fight this. >> thank you so much, missouri congresswoman cori bush, thank you for your story. we appreciate you sharing that today. coming up next, a national strategy. up next, what opponents of abortion rights are planning to do. you can hear there are protests here already where the crowds are gathering. this is "andrea mitchell reports" only on msnbc.
8:40 am
8:41 am
welcome back to "andrea
8:42 am
mitchell reports," live from in front of the supreme court. an nbc poll from 2021 found 54% of americans say abortion should be legal always orr most of the time. an nbc news poll from july of 2018 also found 71% of registered voters say roe v. wade should not be overturned. there's large public sun pour for it. joining me is kristin hawkins, president of students for life of america. we just heard from cori bush, a congress member from missouri, heard the story that she was raped, she was young, not prepared to raise a child financially, emotionally, medically. there are no exceptions in this draft decision which we now understand to be legitimate. what is your view of the president saying he's profoundly disturbed by the way, in his view, a radical decision has come down? >> this actually isn't a radical
8:43 am
decision. ruth bader ginsburg argued that roe v. wade was fatally flawed when the seven men in 1973 handed it down. this decision, this draft decision that we were combing through last night shows that this decision of abortion will be sent back to states where it was before 1973, where states, legislators and voters, which by the way 8 of 10 of gen z say they want a voice in the vote on abortion policies in their states. it won't be up to seven individuals on the supreme court anymore to make the law of the land which, by the way, is not the role of the judiciary in our country. i would really like to see -- i watched the congresswoman's remarks and i was fascinated with her story, very saddened by her story. i would like to see msnbc bring on a guest, a friend of mine who was conceived out of rape, who was actually created of sexual
8:44 am
assault. so often we hear this argument within the abortion movement that somehow we need to justify 100% of abortions for 1% of abortions. that's not the case. when you ask young people, ask americans of all ages how they feel about abortion, when you tell them the extremism of roe v. wade which allow abortion in all nine months of pregnancy for whatever reason, sometimes with taxpayer funds, the majority end up opposing roe v. wade. >> roe v. wade only permits it up until viability, between 23 and 24 weeks. let me ask you this -- >> roe v. wade and -- together legalize abortion up until the moment of birth. that's why you see in states like new mexico and colorado, where women can actually obtain abortions into the ninth month of pregnancy because those two decisions were issued on the same day in 1973. >> there are certain exceptions there certainly, but let's talk about the mississippi law at the
8:45 am
center of this decision, providing one exception, if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. it does not provide an exception for rape or incest. do you think there should be exceptions for rape or incest in state laws if this does go to the states? >> i don't think that we should issue birth certificates with rating systems based on how someone was conceived. a birth certificate notes one thing, the unique whole, living human being has come into existence and is living in our world. as i said earlier, i think msnbc needs to speak with my friend -- i have several friends who were conceived during a sexual assault. so often we hear this argument that abortion should, of course, be legal when children are conceived in sexual assault. but the reality is that those children's lives are no less
8:46 am
than valuable than our own lives simply because of the heinous crimes of their fathers. if my father would go out today and commit a heinous crime, there would be no judicial standing to take away my life, to end my life, because universally we recognize that i am a person with the fundamental right to life. this is the argument in the pro-life movement, that a child in the womb, a unique whole, living human being that is a member of our species, has the same and equal right to life regardless of the circumstances of our conception. >> is no right for the woman or the mother? by the way, birth certificates don't mention how people are conceived. birth certificates have nothing to do with it. >> bifrgt certificates tell us we're a human being and whether or not we're a member of --
8:47 am
human beings, a species of people that we know have value and have worth. as a pro-life movement, we talk about this all the time on college and high school campuses. we need to be willing to go as far as we can to support women who have endured and survived sexual assault. absolutely. i have very good friends who have endured and survived sexual assault. but my support ends when you ask them to take the life of another individual human being. it can't do that. there's a limit there. we're talking about what about choice, reproductive rights? let's define what we're talking about. an abortion is not a simple unplugging of a support system to a child. it is an active, violent technique that dismembers or sucks out the existence of life of a human being or induces a cardiac arrest. it is an act of violence that occurs within every single abortion in the united states
8:48 am
today. it is not simply the removal of support. >> thank you very much kristan hawkins, thank you for being with us today. >> thank you. >> an emotional and difficult day here at the supreme court which has, in the words of justice roberts, completely rejected this leak, the fact that there was a leak of a draft opinion now confirmed by the court, but chief justice ordering the marshals to investigate. what the court's draft decision does indicate a majority, five justices are in favor of overturning roe v. wade. that's quite a shift from what some of them have said in the past. >> mr. chairman, i think that the legitimacy of the court would be underpliened in any case if the court made a decision based on its perception of public opinion. >> so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united
8:49 am
states supreme court, worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. >> one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. >> as richard fallon from harvard said, roe is not a superprecedent because calls for its ruling have never ceased but that doesn't mean it should be overruled. >> joining me is jon meacham. jon, what is the long-term implication of this in terms of the court and in terms of the rule of law if five members now of the supreme court can overturn nearly a half century of constitutional precedent? >> andrea, we're entering an unfolding crisis of trust. it's unclear what the implications will be, but i think we can speculate with some safety that an extraordinary
8:50 am
number of americans are going to see this as a startling and maybe they shouldn't be surprised but they will be, reversal of a half century of precedent. precedence should not stand just because they're precedents. as you just played, there has been an understanding in the country that the 1973 decision or at least the rights secured by it were secure. one of the things we're going to have to deal with here is, we're such a narrowly divided country. we only had three presidential elections since world war ii where a candidate got even as much as 60% of the vote. we have been in an era where we are much closer to have popular minority vote winners become president. we are narrowly divided. if a narrowly divided court makes this sweeping of a
8:51 am
decision, you are going to have an extraordinary number of people in the center and to the left of the spectrum -- i hesitate to talk in those conventional terms. but for these purposes, in the center and to the left believing that this was a political as opposed to a constitutional decision. when earl warren led the court in 1953, announced in may of 1954 to the brown versus board of education decision, he took care to make it a unanimous decision, 9-0. when big stuff happens, history tends to suggest that you don't have this on a 5-4 decision. >> jon meacham when we think about our constitution at rights that have been conferred in recent decades, that includes republican decisions as well, the right to marriage that the majority opinion was justice
8:52 am
kennedy, the mentor, of course, of justice kavanaugh on this court, what does this mean for the right to contraception? the privacy right undergirding roe is griswald. then the extension, the right to marriage. what does this mean for lgbtq rights? >> i think everything is at risk. people like me and -- i don't want to drag you into this. but people who do what we do for a living, often say that democracy is a fragile thing. that the constitution is a fragile thing. well, if you ever thought that was hyperbolic or a cliche or some sort of casual thing, read this draft opinion. elections matter. the court matters. the composition of the senate matters.
8:53 am
the presidency matters. because in a republic, all rights are supposed to be eternal. they are supposed to be grounded in reason and in theocentric view. what we are seeing today in vivid terms is that the rights that many people have taken for granted for 50 years and more are fragile and at risk. >> jon meacham, as always, thank you for your perspective. with me now, ari melbur. when you think this will be extended to other rights that have been held -- we know where we stand with the midterms according to the current rolling. this is an earthquake in terms of privacy, lgbtq rights, the right to marriage, all of the
8:54 am
millions of people who have been affected by roe v. wade. >> that's right. these abortion rights rest chiefly on the right to privacy. this draft opinion goes out of its way to say or assert it will only do this thing and not the other things. when you start ending 50-year precedents, where does that end? this opinion as written with the supreme court confirming its veracity, although it's not the final opinion, is a two by four to 50 years of that precedent. in terms of the court, of course, there's going to be pressure on the president to pack the court. we know where that goes. the filibuster is fraught with this. midterms are months away. >> this opens a gigantic doors. we have many states that will leap through under the state laws. you have other states that will decide what to do. then you have the control of the congress. we are standing in front of the
8:55 am
supreme court across the street from the capitol. who controls the capitol decides whether there would be a federal ban on abortion. this opens the door to that if this is what the court ultimately does. >> what do you think of the legal reasons in here? it's the rights in the constitution is fundamental to their position, which is that if abortion is not mentioned in the constitution, it doesn't exist? >> what does that do to handguns? it's a tricky way to make an argument. this is 67 pages. we have had time to read it. one thing that comes through is justice alito asserts for the majority that they have no view of abortion. they are not saying whether they think it should or should not be illegal. that's their claim. yet, throughout it feels like an attack on roe and an invitation to ban abortion. >> ari, thank you so much for being here. that does it for this special
8:56 am
hour of "andrea mitchell reports." we will be back with more after this short break. stay with us. stay with us
8:57 am
8:58 am
this is a hero, walking his youngest down the aisle, which to his bladder, feels like a mile. yet he stands strong, dry, keeping the leaks only to his eyes. depend. the only thing stronger than us, is you.
8:59 am
♪ ♪ if you're on medicare, it pays to check the singlecare price before you fill your next prescription. i think we got it. don't overpay for your prescriptions. check the singlecare price. you might just save up to 80% on your meds.
9:00 am
welcome back to a special edition of "andrea mitchell reports" with our breaking news today. the supreme court and chief justice john roberts confirming the leak of an opinion reported by politico, the draft from alito indicating the supreme court will overturn nearly a half century of legal precedent and strike down roe v. wade unless it's altered in the next couple of months. the draft written in february just after oral arguments on the mississippi case that barred abortion after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy could be changed. if it stands, it would remove federal protection for women seeking abortion, permitting states to make final decisions. 13 states have already passed so-called trigger laws


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on