tv Deadline White House MSNBC May 3, 2022 1:00pm-3:00pm PDT
kevin, no! not today. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty. ♪ hi there, everyone. it's 4:00 in new york. a political earthquake today in the wake of bombshell reporting that reveals that the u.s. supreme court is on the verge of overturning roe versus wade, a decision that will leave millions of women in america without access to abortion for the first time in decades. for many women for the first time in their lives. the document that sparked near instant protests on the steps of the supreme court and has put
every lawmaker in washington on the spot today, is the first draft of a majority opinion obtained exclusively by "politico" written back in february in the case before the court over mississippi's abortion ban. the opinion is described by "politico" like this, quote, a full throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision, which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision, planned parenthood versus casey that largely maintained that right. it reads in part, quote, roe was egregiously wrong from the start. its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. in a statement, chief justice john roberts confirmed the authenticity of the document while also noting that it is not the final decision by the court.
judges can and do change their votes before ruling is announced, which in this case is likely in late june. all the same, it's difficult to understate the impact that this ruling, which would technically leave the issue of abortion rights up to the states would have, if it's handed down in this form next month. 13 states would ban abortions the very second roe is overturned. according to one by nbc news, 23 states would ban all or nearly all abortions. on capitol hill, senate majority leader chuck schumer today pledged a vote on legislation that would codify the right to an abortion saying the supreme court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years, not just on women but on all americans. under this decision, our children will have fewer rights than their parents. schumer also blasted the conservative wing of the supreme court, accused them of lying when they told the senate during their confirmation hearings that they viewed roe versus wade as
settled law. for president joe biden, the possibility, likelihood now, that the u.s. supreme court will roll back abortion rights poses both a monumental challenge and perhaps an opportunity that could define his presidency. the president today expressing deep concern that this decision would not just abolish the constitutional right to an abortion but it could put other rights in danger as well. watch that. >> if this decision holds, it's really quite a radical decision, and, again, the underlying premise, and again, i've not had a chance to thoroughly go into the report. but it basically says all the decisions to be made in your private life, who you marry, whether or not you decide to conceive a child, whether or not you can have an abortion, a range of other decision, how you raise your child, what does this do and does this mean that 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? so there's a whole -- it's a fundamental shift in american jurisprudence. >> the u.s. supreme court on the verge of overturning roe versus wade is where we start the hour. josh gerstein is one of the reporters who broke this story of the century. he joins, "politico's" senior legal affairs reporter also joining us, and senior editor for slate as well as host of the amicus podcast and our good friend former senator claire mccaskill, an msnbc political analyst. josh, first of all, congratulations on the scoop. since this story posted last night and really, i think, changed everything in politics and in the lives of every american, not just women, the court has responded, and i have to start by asking you if you or "politico" has been contacted by the marshals that chief justice
john roberts appointed to investigate the leak. >> i'm not aware of anything like that, if it's happened nobody's told me and i think i would know, so not as of yet, nicole. >> is there anything that you can or want to say about the commitment to protecting the sources on the story and the import of what you've published? >> well, i would say that when we published this story, we did what we could to try to preserve the source's anonymity as they requested and will continue to try to do that, and, you know, the supreme court will proceed as they see fit, and, you know, we stand by our story. we think it was accurate, and indeed the key part, i think, of the statement that the chief justice issued today is he said that this draft is authentic, so you have on the record from the supreme court that this is, in fact, an actual draft opinion that at least at some point has
been under deliberation there among the nine justices in their private conferences. >> it is literally the highest level confirmation a journalist with a by line on the story could possibly have. so i want to turn to what you've reported and i want to read some from the original story, just to reset. i know -- i know there's not many who haven't seen it, but let me come back to the reporting. alito's use of the phrase in the draft opinion, egregiously wrong to describe roe echoes language mississippi solicitor general scott stewart used in december in defending his state's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. the phrase was also contained in an opinion brett kavanaugh wrote as part of a 2020 ruling that jury convictions in criminal cases must be unanimous. in that opinion kavanaugh labeled two well-known supreme court decisions, quote, egregiously wrong when decided, the 1944 ruling upholding the detention of japanese americans during world war ii and the 1896 decision that blessed racial
segregation under the rule separate but equal, plessy versus ferguson. just pull this thread a little more for our viewers in helping us understand the significance of alito's phrase, egregiously wrong. >> well, what he's trying to do in this opinion and part of the reason that i think it is so forceful and so brutal in its assault on the roe v. wade precedent is he's trying to build up ahead of steam here to say that this isn't just a precedent that was wrong. this is a precedent that the court got so terribly and in his word, egregiously wrong that we should disregard the usual policy of respecting precedence and throw it out the window. and what is very interesting about this alito opinion and i think probably challenging to a lot of people who read it is, you know, he's drawing a direct line to plessy versus ferguson. he's essentially saying roe v.
wade was as wrong as the decision that said that segregation, legal segregation could be carried on between the races in the united states, and so why is he doing that? again, it's because he has to show this opinion from 1973 to be so hopelessly flawed that the justices shouldn't take any concern or be particularly worried about the fact that by overruling it and overturning it, they're defying the usual principle that the lawyers call stare decisis, that once a case is decided that precedent should remain on the books absent extraordinary circumstances. that's part of the reason why this decision is so withering. if our reporting is correct on this, it could be why chief justice john roberts does not guilty not seem to have given his assent to this type of a frontal attack on roe. >> did alito mention plessy
versus ferguson in his confirmation hearings when he was asked about roe? >> i don't know that off the top of my head, nicolle. >> he did not. none of them made this legal argument, and i guess my question for you knowing these folks is where does this come from? because i think that when justice sotomayor described the stench of what the legislature did by writing their ban on abortion after the trump nominees were confirmed, she was talking about this intersection of politics and the court, and i wonder where this analysis of roe to plessy comes from. does it exist in far right legal writings or websites? i mean, have you ever heard that before? >> yeah, i do think that it has been the subject of other opinions from the court, dissenting opinions in abortion cases, and the reason that you kind of have to grapple with it is the point is that plessy furs ferguson was overturned by the
u.s. supreme court in brown versus board of education in 1954, and so they're trying to find examples where the court has taken something that was very well-established for a period of years, of decades really and has tossed it, and you know, there are examples of it. there aren't that many examples that involve principles that affected the lives of every american or many, many millions of americans, and so they're looking for those examples, and this is one that they seize on in this particular opinion. is this exactly what may have been of concern to roberts? i don't know. is it something we're likely to hear more about in the dissents we expect from the democratic appointees on the court? i certainly think you will. >> josh, you're 20 hours into or about 19.5 hours into this bomb shell reporting, what do you -- what are your views? i mean, do you have any additional insights? what has
the reaction been from sort of sources close to the justices themselves to the report? >> well, you know, there are different camps, nicolle about what is going to happen here. i mean, the issue is that since it hasn't happened before, it's very difficult to say, you know, the justices, this isn't regarded, i think, probably by many of them as a breach of trust, but what is the impact on those deliberations that take place in that private conference room with only nine of them there? are they pointing the finger at each other? are they pointing the finger at other members of the court staff? do they blame each other for what happened? and the most interesting dynamic here, i think, is, you know, there is sometimes some horse trading, some exchange of opinions and some change of votes and some toning down and perhaps sharpening of opinions usually happens right in this period we're going into right now according to the former clerks and so forth that i've talked to. it happens in may and june,
that's why these opinions take until the end of june in the controversial cases to be released, and will this draft opinion coming out impact that by causing some justices to stiffen their spines and say i'm not moving from the position i've staked out earlier because i won't be intimidated by any sort of public report, or will the public reaction to this lead to different views from different justices? will the whole controversy lead the court to come together in some fashion? you know, a lot of people think these justices are so set in their views at this point that nothing could sway them, but i guess we're going to find out in the next eight weeks. >> and the draft seems to characterize public opinion as extraneous, which is so contradictory to the public pronouncements by the chief justice, by retiring justice breyer by amy coney barrett and others by their deep and sincere
malaise that the public no longer trust the supreme court and the kind of numbers it did just 22 years ago in the wake of bush v gore, does that divide the court as well that alito is so brazenly disdainful of public opinion and the majority of americans are against overturning roe. there are divisive opinions within abortion technically, but not on roe versus wade. what is alito saying in that part of the opinion about the need to disregard and view as irrelevant and radical public opinion? >> right, so he's saying, you know, we should call it as we see it based on strictly the law, and we shouldn't consider how the public will respond. he also dismisses what the court and especially chief justice john roberts has said in the past things that are very important to him. which sounds arcane using the phrase reliance resistance.
you've had ten to millions of women come to rely on the availability of abortions over the last 50 years, that they could count on that as a federal constitutional right, even though it's been cut back somewhat over the last couple of decades, and so both those things are sort of rejected out of hand by alito in this opinion, and frankly, it's one of the factors that led us to confirm our reporting that roberts is not on board here. when you look at some of the language there about the court, the court's reputation, public reaction, saying things like, well, we can't predict how the public will react, and we shouldn't take that into account. roberts has said things almost directly contrary to that. it's very difficult to see if that kind of language remained in the opinion, how he could stay on board. i also think just in terms of tone, the way the opinion treats roe versus wade ask implicitly the justices who signed onto that opinion in 1973, again, doesn't sound like the degree of respect that roberts typically
pays to other members of the court and what he views as decorum. but you know, we shall see. does that language remain in the opinion. does roberts write separately, and does he formally dissent from those parts of the opinion are all things that not only i'm looking for but a lot of court watchers are waiting to see with bated breath at this point. >> what josh just say is specifically something that you write about today. let me read from your piece in slate. it's titled "the supreme court's legitimacy is already lost, the drfrmt opinion, whatever may be done to it in the days to come is exhibit a. for anyone who believe that time or history or respect for their colleagues or the justices who came before them would moderate the five justices in this current majority, a majority that ought to know it stole its way into the majority, but, again, refuses to even fain self-moderation. the court will surely suffer to its self-own to its own
legitimate psy. the three republican justices who offered the plurality opinion in casey knew very well what would happen to the court if it disregarded and disparaged the american public, the constitution, and itself. wow. i want to ask you 5,000 questions, but i'll start with that last point that you make there, dahlia. >> i think it's just a paradox, nicolle, and it goes to some of what you were just discussing with josh, which is the court is in a funny position. on the one hand, by design justices get lifetime appointments, right? they are not supposed to be swayed by public opinion. they're supposed to be able to promote minortarian interests when, for instance, the country doesn't want to -- affirm plessy, the court is tasked with doing a brave thing, right? so at one level you want a court that is not beholden to what the public belief thinks. that's why we have a court.
on the other hand, i think it's really important if you go back to the framing that the court has neither the power of the purse nor the sword as they put in the federalist papers. all it has is public legitimacy. i think you have to start from the proposition that that is baked in, that the court kind of lives on the scene between not having to care about public respect and approbation, and also of course having to care because if -- and justice breyer writes this all the time -- if the american public just decided we're not going to abide by what the court says in bush v. gore the court has no army. so i think we're in this funny world here where we have a court that is simultaneously saying, look, we care about stare decisis. we care about precedent. we don't want to willy nilly total turn precedent that people have relied upon for decades, but also we don't care because we're just doing the constitution, and what you
really see, i think, in justice alito's draft at least, which may be softened as josh said is a justice who is really at pains to say we just don't care what the polling shows or what the public thinks or what this does to our sort of estimation and regard. what we care about is the constitution and the court was wrong in roe and this goes back to the states. he's walked that line by essentially proclaiming he is fully on board with a project that he doesn't care what the public blooefts. >> the problem for alee to and gorsuch and kavanaugh and barrett they literally said the opposite. let me ask you if confirmation hearings should continue if they're not going to speak honestly to the men and women who confirm them. here's all of them asked specifically if roe is precedent. >> it is an important precedent
of the supreme court, it was decided in 1973, so it's been on the books for a long time. it has been challenged on a number of occasions, and i discussed those yesterday, and it is my and the supreme court has reaffirmed the decision, sometimes on the merits, sometimes in casey based on stare decisis, and i think that when a decision is challenged and it is reaffirmed, that strengthens its value. >> i would tell you that roe versus wade decided in 1973 is a precedent of the united states supreme court. it has been reaffirmed so a good judge will consider it as precedent of the united states supreme court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other. >> as a judge t is an important precedent of the supreme court, by it i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey, and reaffirm many times casey is precedent on precedent. >> roe is not a super precedent because calls for its overruling have never ceased, but that doesn't mean that roe should be
overruled. >> are we down the rabbit hole? if they don't care about public opinion and they were so confident in their political standing, why not just, you know, rip off -- why not just say i don't -- i mean, why say those words, claire? >> first of all, it's going to be very hard for me today because my blood pressure is so high, and there's so many things i want to say. >> well, take your time. >> with anger and passion, and frankly a little nerdy. there is a whole lot of talk about here as a lawyer they kicked the ladder out from under the right of privacy in the constitution, and as the other two experts could tell you that are joining us today, there are a lot of decisions that rest on this right of privacy that springs not just from the bill of rights but also the 14th amendment and the concept of liberty in this country, and then the other irony is at the same time, he is spouting off
about how bad, egregiously wrong roe was and how it divided the country. well, guess what he's doing. he's dividing the country for time indefinitely now in the future because these battles will be fought over and over and over again in campaigns, in state legislatures, in courts. so it is such a hypocritical thing, and then finally the question you asked, some of these justices lied to senators. susan collins as much said so today that they lied to her. they told her that they thought it was established precedent, that she was confident when she stood on the floor of the senate announcing her support for kavanaugh that he would not overturn roe v. wade based on the private conversations she had with him. what does that say to america about the integrity of this court? what does that do for any future confirmation hearing? how will any senator ever
believe anyone who puts their hand up and swears that they are going to be truthful and forthcoming and then if their name ends up on this kind of slash and burn opinion over the rights to privacy in this country and the implications to gay marriage, and the implications to contraception, it really has done incredible damage to what i revered as one of the most important institutions in our democracy. >> claire, i want to show you something that senator elizabeth warren said because she's, like you usually taking us through the troubling times in which we live, but i think she's having the same reaction you are. but let me just -- let me just read -- we have the transcript of what susan collins said. i want to read this to you, dahlia. she does, she -- i mean, she calls kavanaugh a liar, quote, if this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would
be completely inconsistent with what justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh -- she calls both of them liars, justice kavanaugh said in their hearings and meetings in my office. obviously we won't know each justice's decision and reasoning until the supreme court officially announced its opinion in this case. so dahlia, we've got a sitting republican u.s. senator calling gorsuch and kavanaugh liars in their hearings, end quote, in my office, end quote. >> yeah, and lisa murkowski i think used equally strong language. i think that, you know, part of me wants to say did you ever really, really think that they were telling you the truth? a lot of us at the time said, oh, no, no, please, lucy, football, please, please. so it's a little bit hard at this moment to say, wait, really? the blinders are off. we all knew this was why kavanaugh got himself onto trump's short list. this was how amy coney barrett got on the short list.
donald trump's short list was expressly people who would overturn roe v. wade, so the idea that your shock now is a little difficult, it does raise the question what are these senators prepared to do about it because there is federal legislation, it has been blocked in the senate. there are things that these shocked senators could do tomorrow if they genuinely believe they've been lied to and misled, in addition to a conversation we need to have about court reform that has not gotten much traction in the congress. rather than be shocked and awed, i think it's time to hear from the people who feel they have been betrayed, and like claire i also feel my blood pressure ticking up by the minute over the betrayal, but there are things to be done beyond just saying they lied to me. >> so josh, i want to come back to the reporting. i mean, the reporting in and of itself about the way that the court is ruling, i guess in
hindsight is only half the shock. the shock is really, like you said, the almost brutish language alito uses to rebuke and repudiate the things they testified under oath to hold dear, precedent. tell me where the court goes from here in your view, josh. >> well, i mean, the question is i guess what kind of credibility problem that may present. obviously the kind of withering criticism that we've scene now from, you know, republican senators, you know, does this -- this is the way in which the revelation of this opinion could potentially affect the outcome, right? instead of being blind sided on the 29th of june or something like that with an opinion that senators are then commenting on, they're now commenting on it in -- in realtime, and you know, this is a bell that cannot be unrung at this point. it will forever be impossible
for us to say how this case would have come out without this opinion being public because the plot line has changed here. people are expressing views on it who wouldn't have said anything until the final decision came out, and so the court is in uncharted territory at this point. i think that's part of why you saw this statement from chief justice roberts here because of his concern that, you know, this indicates some kind of deterioration in the court of its traditional practices and something that could harm its credibility, and he wants to indicate that this simply can't be -- can't be tolerated going forward, and so, again, i think that's all consistent with the concerns that the chief has expressed over the years. now, which ends up doing more damage to the court, a week to "politico" of draft opinion or the ultimate opinion in this case in whatever form it comes out. again, that's the developments we're going to have to wait until the end of june to see,
you know, in the annals of history, which will rank more significantly, i think we can all say is probably less so than whatever the final decision is here. >> we can indeed. to lift you up and lift up "politico" and congratulate the report that is obviously not seen to us but making sure whatever the court had to say today, it was confirming the contents of your reporting, to all that, congratulations and the bell that can't be unrung is the perfect way to put it. dahlia lithwick for your reporting and prents here, thank you so much. claire sticks around, i'm going to show claire that elizabeth warren appearance from earl year today. it's stunning. what is it like to live in a state where this has already happened, where abortion has already been deemed illegal. we'll talk with a doctor in texas who's had the last few
months to help women to navigate what life looks like in a post-roe america. if the supreme court does move the way the draft looks like it may, what happens next? other fundamental rights as we've been discussing and as we know them right now could soon end, if this conservative court continues down this path in this direction. later in the program with the striking down of roe will mean for future elections, every one of them, and how to mobilize voters right now. all those stories and more when "deadline white house" continues after a quick break. don't go anywhere. a quick break. don't go anywhere. and, we're back!
it's time to see which chew provides the longest-lasting flea and tick protection. bravecto's the big winner. 12 weeks of powerful protection, nearly 3 times longer than any other chew. bravo, bravecto! bravo! allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from nearly 3 times longer than any other chew. overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! flonase all good.
senator claire mccaskill. here's your former colleague, senator elizabeth warren outside the united states supreme court today. >> i am angry. >> angry and upset and determined. the united states congress can make roe versus wade the law of the land. they just need to do it. >> i've never seen you so angry. >> this is what the republicans have been working toward this day for decades. they have been out there plotting carefully cultivating these supreme court justices so they could have a majority on the bench who would publish something that the majority of americans do not want. 69% of people across this country, across this country, red states and blue states, old people and young people want roe versus wade to maintain as the law. we need to do that. we have a right, extremists,
we've heard enough from extremists and we need -- >> >> i've never seen her like that. i've interviewed her, you know, around a lot of historic events, but perhaps the most important of all of her important points is that 69% of americans do not want to see roe overturned. i obviously worked for pro-life politicians, president is and aspiring president who did not support the amendments to ban abortion, did not support -- did not oppose the exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. all of these state laws are more radical than anything that's been in front of this country in a very long time. what happens next? >> my state has a trigger law, the minute roe falls every abortion in missouri is illegal including victims of rape and incest. life begins at conception and will have dramatic impacts on
the ability of women to -- and couples to go through ivf, so there is all kinds of consequences here. but here's the thing, nicolle, if anybody thinks their next step is not to try to pass federal legislation echoing what this opinion says they're not paying attention. every candidate for the senate, be it a republican or a democrat needs to go on record today whether they support a federal law to protect the right of privacy and liberty for women in making their own decisions about their bodies or whether they believe this should be the federal law of the land that no state should be allowed to have legal and safe abortions, and that, i think is what control of the senate is going to come down to in november. >> i want to add to our conversation, claire, an
abortion provider who works out of a planned parenthood in houston, texas, we've spoken before when this decision loomed but not when it was in our faces as potentially imminent, and i wonder your thoughts today as someone still on the front lines trying to help women in crisis. >> yeah, i think we've seen this moment coming for decades now, but certainly the closer reality of it is shocking. it is devastating to see the words that were written by supreme court justice of the united states, and what i've seen over the last eight months here in texas is we've been living in a post roe world where roe essentially has no meaning, and what we've seen is that people continue to need access to abortion care, that banning abortion doesn't make it go away, and what's happened is people have been traumatized by the process of having to travel hundreds or thousands of miles to go to another state for care
they could get safely in their own communities. it's a really devastating moment. i think the writing is on the wall. for folks like me in texas, we're not waiting for the supreme court. we're not waiting for our elected officials to do what we know our patients need. we're moving into action and taking care of our people. >> i want to read some reporting about what is likely to happen, not just to physicians but the men and women training to do what you do, to be physicians. this is from "axios," abortion training is in peril if supreme court overturns roe versus wade. almost half of ob/gyn medical students will not receive any abortion training if the u.s. supreme court overturns roe versus wade according to a new study from the university of california sf, researchers found that 44.8% of the 286 accredited obstetrics and gynecology residency programs are in states certain or likely to ban abortions in the absence of roe. the researchers suggest that clinical educators arrange out of state travel rotations and
patient centered early pregnancy loss training, a press release for the study says. it's literally a purge, not just of reproductive health procedures but of anyone trained in doing them. it's stunning. >> absolutely, you know, i was looking for a medical school 15 years ago and my schooling was mostly done here in texas, and even from 15 years ago, not much has changed, training has been difficult, especially for family medicine doctors and ob/gyns and i think as we move into this new landscape of potentially extremely limited access to abortion, how do we train the next generation of abortion providers if we don't even have access to abortion in that state. so this will only get worse with time, unfortunately. >> and what is sort of the conversation among doctors and patients when you can't provide the care a woman needs? i mean, what is available to those women? >> yeah, i mean, i will say just from a personal perspective,
that conversation as physician is extremely difficult, especially when you're trained to provide that care when perhaps months ago you were providing that care for people in the health center where you're working, and to suddenly say we're not able to do that feels immoral and unethical, especially when you're sitting in front of another human being who's asking you for help that you could provide. i think what we've seen instead is that we've had to help a lot of people access care in other states, that often means traveling hundreds if not thousands of miles. and a lot of people are driving, sometimes with their kids that they already have in the car with them. that means overnight stays in hotels and other states, having to think about the cost of food, time off of work. for some people child care for the kids that they have at home, it is very costly. it is very traumatizing. it is very difficult, and the last thing i'll mention is that unfortunately many of the people i've seen have said traveling out of state is just not an option for me, whether they're undocumented, whether they have an abusive partner that they are tethered to and cannot leave,
whether they can just not surmount the logistical requirement of getting to another state and getting to that clinic or the cost of whatever it may be, and many people have been forced to carry their pregnancies to term when they know that they can't carry those pregnancies in a safe way, when they know they don't have the resources to parent a child. and it's really curious, you know, to think about s is going happen to these people. many people will stay in poverty, many people will face morbid outcomes. many people will also die because they don't have access to abortion. it's unfortunate that we're moving into a time when that reality is going to be upon all of us. >> wow, dr. kumar, it's stark, but you know of what you speak. thank you so much for sharing that with all of us today. president joe biden today is warning that after this decision the supreme court is in the position to do what everyone so far has said, to put other rights in danger as well.
when you join ihop's new rewards program, the international bank of pancakes, and start stacking pancoins toward free food, you get a smile on your plate. download the app and join the rewards program today. it's time to get outdoorsy. it's hot! and wayfair has got just what you need. we need a rug. that's the one. yeah. yeah we're getting outdoorsy. save on outdoorsy furniture, decor, and more. you're so outdoorsy honey. what are you... spend less on everything outdoorsy at wayfair. ♪ wayfair you've got just what i need ♪ your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description.
allergies don't have to be scary. spraying flonase daily stops your body from matching your job description. overreacting to allergens all season long. psst! psst! flonase all good. the u.s. supreme court poised to strike down a protected right in this country, one we've had for 50 years, the right to make choices about our health and our bodies, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. there are questions now about where the ruling's impact leads
us, the new precedent manual justice alito's argument created could give power back to the states for other rights as well. sitting republicans have already argued should be the case on things like same-sex marriage. experts seem to have little confidence in justice alito's argument that abortion rights is fundamentally different from all other rights ensured by the 14th amendment. intimate sexual relations, contraception and marriage he writes because it destroys what past decisions called fetal life, and none of those other cases involve the critical moral question posed by abortion. joining our conversation, erin carmone new york magazine senior correspondent, co-author of the book "the life and times of ruth bader ginsburg" who was on the air as this news broke. i know you had more time to digest. we're excited to have you. also joining us, joyce vance,
form er u.s. attorney, claire is still with us. claire's not going anywhere today. erin, i want to ask you -- just want your thoughts now, sort of 20 hours after you were on the air as this broke, your thoughts about the ruling and about the court? >> well, i think that even though the manner in which this came out was extraordinary, i think anybody who's been paying attention knows that this is what was coming and that the impact is going to be devastating even without it being a surprise. of course alito is not a trump appointee. he was appointed by george w. bush. clarence thomas was appointed by george h.w. bush. for a long time, there has been a laser focus in getting us to exactly this point using the supreme court as a lever to undermine this fundamental right. and as we heard as recently as ketanji brown jackson's hearings in which republican senators asked questions about things like gay marriage and republican
senators put up for grabs things like loving versus virginia the case that struck down bans on interracial marriage that everything is up for grabs in the culture wars. you cited alito saying abortion is different, but there's nothing in the fundamental reasoning that he lays out that actually makes abortion different. he says abortion is a moral question. well, if you ask opponents of same-sex marriage if they think that that's a moral question, too, they think that the right to use contraception, some of which they falsely classify as abortion is also a moral question, so i think we should stop and think about the impact that this will have on people who need abortions, anybody who can become pregnant, and also understand where this is all going, which is a place that they've been very clear about wanting to head for decades now. >> you wrote a tweet, i said in the last block that josh gerstein's reporting, the scoop, the way we learned about this. the substance of it is only half the shock, the way we learned
about it is sort of the -- adds to, that but this one will be in the history book along with that story, you tweeted this, to be clear hell is reading the entirety of any alito opinion, but i just got to, quote, women are not without electoral or political power on page 61, and i know for sure i'm there. elaborate, please. >> late night tweets reading a 68 page opinion dismantling fundamental rights, but in seriousness, one of the arguments that alito makes and it's one that we heard during oral arguments that was also brought during the amicus briefs is that women do not need access to reproductive freedom because they are liberated or supported in all kinds of ways. now, i can say i'm six months pregnant with my second child, but even with all of the support in the world, the decision to parent is earth shattering. it's life changing, and nobody should be forced into it, and that too many people don't have that kind of support, but people
like amy coney barrett during justice coney barrett during the oral argument made the argument that these are not barriers for women anymore. there's all kinds of supports, women are in the work force. now, to separate out the advances in politics and in public life of women from the fact that we've had reproductive freedom, access to contraception, access to abortion, the ability to decide whether and when to parent, it would be impossible. but we're about to find out what that's going to look like in many states and so that was one of the very few places that justice alito actually gave even lip service to the fact that people's fundamental status in society is going to be determined by whether they have control over their reproductive lives. >> joyce, senator mitch mcconnell has said that the supreme court same-sex marriage ruling was wrong. it should be decided by the american people. senator mike brawn of indiana
said he would be fine with states having the power to limit interracial marriage as well as abortion. his office later suggested he misunderstood the question, but to everyone's point, there's nothing -- i mean, i guess to alito's point, men too have access to policy making for better or for worse, ask there's nothing that suggests that their policy making ambitions stop with overturning roe. what's your sense of what legal door is open to them when roe is overturned? >> in this draft opinion, justice alito tried to put that concern to rest saying that abortion was different from these other rights because it involved taking the life of an unborn child, but his argument, nicolle, wasn't very convincing. doctrinally, many of these rights, including the right to contraception confirm this same
sort of constitution al privacy rubric. the way this landed with me, i tried so hard last night to read this opinion as a lawyer and to understand it as a lawyer, but to be honest with you, i couldn't help but read it and understand it as a woman, and what this opinion said to me was that i couldn't be trusted with decisions about my own body and my own life. i don't think that that stops with me as a woman. i think it goes on to talk about who people can love, perhaps far more intimate decisions about people's personal lives. this is not something that is precedented with the court. this is, in my recall, the first time we've seen an opinion that takes away a major significant right. this is not the court that helped america advance, that helped expand and enforce people's rights. this is a court that's saying, we want to go back. we want to go back to the days of the founding of this country. we only want to enforce rights that are grounded in history and
tradition, and frankly, the history and the tradition in this country isn't always so open-minded because at the founding, black people were slaves. they counted as 3/5 of a person. women didn't have the right to vote. >> none of the four of us voted. >> the textualism. you know, this notion that textualism is the only way to understand the constitution and the founding fathers' intent, that rules a lot of us out of democracy. >> i mean, and that's the whole point. i mean, i -- the question i'm dying to know the answer to is one i'm going to have to take a commercial break to think of whether it's appropriate for daytime cable. how's that for a tease? i'm going to ask all three of you to stick around. i'm going to ask all three of i'm going to ask all three of you to stick around. what if you could let in the lyte? discover caplyta. caplyta is a once-daily pill, proven to deliver significant relief
from bipolar depression. unlike some medicines that only treat bipolar i, caplyta treats both bipolar i and bipolar ii depression. and, in clinical trials, feelings of inner restlessness and weight gain were not common. caplyta can cause serious side effects. call your doctor about sudden mood changes, behaviors, or suicidal thoughts right away. antidepressants may increase these risks in young adults. elderly dementia patients have increased risk of death or stroke. report fever, stiff muscles, or confusion, which may be life-threatening, or uncontrollable muscle movements, which may be permanent. these aren't all the serious side effects. in the darkness of bipolar i and ii depression, caplyta can help you let in the lyte. ask your doctor about caplyta, from intra-cellular therapies. ♪("i've been everywhere" by johnny cash) ♪ ♪i've traveled every road in this here land!♪ ♪i've been everywhere, man.♪ ♪i've been everywhere, man.♪ ♪of travel i've had my share, man.♪ ♪i've been everywhere.♪ ♪♪
in one easy appointment... ♪i've been everywhere.♪ ♪ pop rock music ♪ >> tech: ...we can replace your windshield and recalibrate your advanced safety system. >> dad: looks great. thanks. >> tech: stay safe with safelite. schedule now. >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ we're back with our panel. so, claire, the blunt question i have been grappling with is, how did this become an issue for democrats to solve? this involves anyone with a uterus and i guess the other half of it is, if men had the wombs, would we be here? >> no, we wouldn't. and i will say that the reason democrats have to solve this is because this has been a primary focus of the republican party for sometime now. and you know, the thing -- the two other brilliant women lawyers that i share this time with right now, i'm sure they were, but i think it's really important to point out to
everyone what the casey decision was about. in this really bold and aggressive language, he strikes casey and says it was egregiously wrong. you know what they struck down in casey? one law. and you know what that law said? that law said not that a woman couldn't have an abortion or could have an abortion. that law required that she had to tell her husband before she could have an abortion. that's what they struck down. that a woman did not have to tell anyone that they were going to have an abortion. so, exactly how is that some moral imperative? and that's what's so frustrating about this is that with this side bar stuff that women have power and women have election power, he is removing the ultimate power from women across this country, and time will tell, nicole, are there enough young women that don't know what
this feels like that they will become very motivated? will this make a difference in how this country moves ahead after this next election and in 2024? i don't know yet. but i think it could. i really think it could. >> and joyce, i guess my last question for you is, as a lawyer, how is the case right now for abortion rights? if you had to argue the other side, state by state by state by state, how steep is that hill to climb right now if roe is overturned? >> it's pretty steep in states that have republican-controlled legislatures. in some cases, as a result of some of this extreme gerrymandering that we have seen creeping up on us. you know, something, you hear a lot of different numbers, nicole, but well over 50% of americans favor at least some form of abortion rights. when you throw up the map of the
country, this statistic that shows where there are laws that will go into effect if roe is reversed that will restrict abortion, it doesn't look to me like the wishes of the people in the united states are being honored as fully as justice alito wants to pretend in this opinion that they are being. it is a tough fight. it is a vote of the legislature. legislatures can now ban abortion. they can ban it for women who are victims of rape and incest. and they can criminalize it. you can go to prison for getting an abortion or performing an abortion if your legislature decides that that's appropriate law. and legal challenges, if this draft opinion that we see from alito becomes the law, it's going to be a heavy road to challenge it. >> unbelievable. america, 2022. erin, joyce, claire, thank you all so much for spending time with us today. up next for us, we're keeping our eye on protests that are bubbling up across the country this evening around the supreme court's draft decision
♪ ♪ when you order the all new deluxe three cheese and bacon omelette, you get a smile on your plate. only from ihop. join the rewards program and earn double pancoins with any omelette purchase. bonnie boon i'm calling you out. everybody be cool, alright? with ringcentral we can pull bonnie up on phone, message, or video, all in the same app. oh... hey bonnie, i didn't see you there. ♪ ringcentral ♪
to the american people, i say this. the elections this november will have consequences, because the rights of 100 million women are now on the ballot. to help fight this court's awful decision, i urge every american to make their voices heard this week and this year. call your members. write them. call your senators. write them. email them. text them. and most of all, cast your ballots this november. >> hi again, everybody, it's 5:00 in new york. under the anger being felt by many americans across this country today in light of a leaked draft majority opinion that the united states supreme court has voted or will likely vote to strike down roe vs. wade, calls like the one you just heard from senator schumer
for action, for getting their voters to the polls, because if roe is ultimately overturned, all the power to make these decisions goes back to the states. as our friends note in nbc's first read, if you get rid of roe, every single state will need a position on fetus viability. weeks when you can or cannot have an abortion. parental notification, sonograms and possible exceptions like in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life. and every single primary and general election could be dominated by those specific positions. we are already seeing the impact of last night's reporting on state races like the primaries taking place today in ohio and indiana. democratic congressman tim ryan, the heavy favorite to win the democratic nomination for senate in ohio, was one of the first candidates to put out a statement after news broke. he said this. "overturning roe would be absolutely wrong, not to mention catastrophic for ohio, where republicans have passed one extreme and dangerous proposal after another to ban abortion.
it's time to end the filibuster, pass the women's health protection act, and fight like hell to make sure all ohio families are free to make these critical decisions without interference from politicians in columbus or in washington." ryan will face off against the winner of a contentious and crowded republican primary contest that is quite trump-studded at this hour. the candidates are navigating just how far off the right-wing fringe and just how trumpy they should get. who wins this five-way will speak volumes for the stakes of november's general elections, because as "the washington post" is reporting today, if republicans take back if majority in washington, overturning roe is really just the beginning. from their reporting, quote, leading anti-abortion groups and their allies in congress have been meeting behind the scenes to plan a national strategy that would kick in if the supreme court rolls back abortion rights this summer, including a push for a strict nationwide ban on
the procedure if republicans retake power in washington. while a number of states have recently approved laws to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, the limit established in the mississippi legislation at the heart of the case pending before the high court, some activists and republican lawmakers now say that those laws are not ambitious enough. for the next phase of the anti-abortion movement. instead, they now see the six-week limit, which they call heartbeat legislation, as a preferred strategy because it would prevent far more abortions. right now, here in new york city, protests are starting to gather, advocating for safe and affordable abortion access for everyone. we'll have a live report from that site shortly. with the striking down of roe would mean for future elections is where we begin this hour with some of our favorite reporters and friends. kimberly atkins stohr is here, "boston globe" senior columnist, co-host of the #sisters in law podcast which put out an emergency episode last night. she's also an msnbc contributor.
danielle holley-walker is here, dean and professor of howard university law school and the best-selling author, don wins low who is shifting his focus to fighting trumpism full-time, we welcome you full-time to the fight. you've been on the front lines for a long time, don. but i want to start with you, danielle. and just take us through. it's about 21 hours since this news broke. take us through your thoughts on the reporting, the potential for some sort of intervention and what the majority opinion seems to mean for the country and the actual language of alito's opinion. >> so, i think the actual language of the draft opinion is very important to read. there's a couple of key areas. number one is really this future of anti-abortion law, and looking at the draft opinion in terms of thinking about fetal viability, which is a huge portion of this draft opinion,
but also the notion that the 14th amendment only protects rights that are deeply embedded in the nation's history, and so when you think about things like the right to contraception, the right to interracial marriage, the right to even think about things like forced sterilization, many of those things have similar histories to the ones that are outlined by justice alito in this draft opinion. so, this is a very serious moment, not just in the history of abortion rights but for individual rights in general. >> kim, a lot of the state bans go into effect immediately once the supreme court acts. and the state bans, and there's some individual quirks and features, but a lot of them are far more extreme than where the public is, and i think that was at the heart of what elizabeth warren was talking about. if you ask the public, should roe be overturned, this was conducted last week, 54% think it should be upheld, 28% think it should be overturned, but if
you specifically ask about what is in some of these most draconian bans, if a mother's health is in danger, 82% of all americans think that an abortion should be legal. if a pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, 79%, almost 80% of all americans think abortion access should be unrestricted. a lot of these bans move in opposite direction at a moment when only 40% of americans approve the united states supreme court. what is your sense of the, you know, perhaps less discussed repercussions of the supreme court doing something with so little support from not just women, not just blue states, but the american people? >> yeah, one thing that just strikes me right off the top of that, nicole, is justice samuel alito's draft opinion points to the fact that the public should have the say about whether these laws are implemented and points
to the fact, after dismissing, if i can get lawyerly on you for a moment, he totally dismisses the equal protection analysis, doesn't even do one, because he says that only applies to a ruling that only -- that is directed at women, and he said that this would not be. but then later says, well, you know, women should be left to the states, and women can always vote. women vote at greater dependency than men anyway. so they have a choice to decide whether this is true. we already know that not just now but for decades, the american people, by a large margin, have favored keeping roe intact and keeping abortion legal and accessible. you can break it down in a lot of different ways and come up with different numbers, but that part has remained the same, so that isn't what this is about. this is about something very, very different and the way that it impacts women should be front and center. one thing that i have been thinking a lot about today is
reproductive justice, which i've written about, because this isn't going to make abortion inaccessible to everyone. it's going to make abortion inaccessible to the poorest, to black and brown people, and to the people who are most vulnerable. already right now, in america, black women are three to four times more likely to die during pregnancy due to a complication. most of these laws that you're talking about don't have exceptions for the life and health of the mother. many of these laws criminalize even trying to seek an abortion in another state, so some states have roe acts that protect access, but even that may not be enough for a lot of people. i think we need to really see clearly what's happening here. you can blow big legal holes through the analysis that justice alito laid out in that draft opinion, and i hope in the intervening weeks and months before the end of the supreme court term, enough people see that. >> i mean, and i think another -- and i'm glad you
brought this to the real world consequences of overturning roe. i mean, another thing that's already happening in some of these states that are pushing most aggressively to overturn abortion access, texas, front and center, is miscarriages are suddenly suspicious and under scrutiny. i mean, every human being with a uterus of child-bearing age, your life and existence changes forever. not put quite so bluntly, but president obama's weighed in about the consequences of this decision by saying this. quote, the consequences of this decision would be a blow not just to women but to all of us who believe that in a free society, there are limits to how much the government can encroach on our personal lives. this decision is unlikely to significantly reduce abortions, which have been steadily going down over the past several decades, thanks in large part to better access to contraception and education. a clear majority of americans support roe, yet we recognize
that while many are angry and frustrated by this report, some of those who support roe may feel helpless and instinctively turn back to their work or families or daily tasks, telling themselves that because this outcome may have been predictable, there's nothing any of us can do. we ask you to think about the college student, waking up after her date forced her into unprotected sex. think about the couple that tried to have children for years who are without any options when faced with the tragic reality of an unviable pregnancy. think of any of the hundreds of thousands of women each year who deserve the dignity and freedom of making a decision that is right for their bodies and their circumstances. danielle, president obama has lost none of his ability to make an unrivalled and emotional political argument there. it's a question on the table since we have been on the air. is it enough to change the make-up of who votes in november? >> wow. i mean, i think he just said so much of what is on many of our
minds. i was sitting next to a woman on the train today and her college daughter called her and was in tears, feeling so disempowered from the draft opinion, and i think what we have to say to people around the country is that, number one, this is a draft. it's important for people to remember that abortion is still legal in this country. we are still protected by roe and casey. and i think it's also important for us to realize that the legitimacy of the supreme court when looking at those approval numbers on abortion is really on the line here and hopefully the justices are carefully thinking about the question of how this would be received. these kinds of decisions have an impact on everyday people's lives, not just on women but all people in this country who, as president obama just said, love their individual freedoms and liberty. cutting back on the right to privacy is something that should be deeply disturbing for almost
every american and i think that we will see that this draft opinion has caused a great deal of alarm for good reason and i'm hoping that in the intervening time between now and when the opinion is actually issued, a lot of the broadest kind of sweep of ideas that are in this opinion will be retracted. we know that the decision is likely to be one that will strike down roe and casey, but i think that there is a lot of room there to really think about how this affects individual women's lives and for us to mobilize on the state level and obviously the federal level to make sure that abortion rights are protected and that our individual privacy rights are protected. >> don winslow, this mobilization of voters is something you have been focused on, i know, largely in your free time. you have made a video that has, i think, more than 3,000 views just on the texas abortion ban. i want to play that as a way into -- 3 million views. i want to play that as a way into our conversation. >> the same people who have been protesting and screaming, my
body, my choice, when it comes to the covid vaccine, are now saying, i don't have any control over my own body. texas republicans won't require a 12-year-old girl to wear a mask in school that may save her life and the lives of other children, but they will force her to keep a baby regardless of how she got pregnant, including rape and incest. i am a woman, and i have a constitutional right to make decisions for my own body. i am a woman. and i have a human right to refuse to give birth to my rapist's baby. i am a woman. this is my body. i am a woman. this is the united states of america. i am a woman. you do not own or control my mind or my body. >> my body is my choice. >> shame on the men and women who passed this law, and shame on anyone who sits in silence while women suffer and die because of it. >> my life, my choice. my life, my choice.
>> don, i wanted you in this conversation, and i'm so glad we get to talk to you today, because the reaction to that ad i thought might give us a window into what happens next on the political front. what are your thoughts? >> well, the reaction to that ad was overwhelming. it had so many views on it and so much reaction to it. so many people coming in to say, we want to join in this fight, but look, i don't know why we're surprised. this is the culmination of the 50-year campaign by the conservatives, and we wondered, you know, people speculated, and people were incredulous that the christian right and evangelicals supported donald trump after, what, 27 accusations of sexual assault, bragging about sexually assaulting women, a man who paid off a porn star in hush money, and this is our answer.
and there are consequences to the trump presidency. >> kim, i want to come back to that. i'm sorry, go ahead. >> i'm sorry. he delivered the three justices. that made this decision possible. and that was always the deal. >> kim, i want to ask you to pick up on that and this, you know, again, this is -- we know about this because it's a draft. this is not the final decision, but do you share danielle's hope that as a result of knowing about it now, maybe some protections are put into place, or do you share president obama's bleaker articulation of what's going to happen -- i want to read this again. the college student waking up after her date forced her into unprotected sex. that's former president obama. former president obama also writing about this, think about the couple that tried to have children for years, who are
without any options when faced with the tragic reality of an unviable pregnancy. i mean, these are some of the people who now, after the supreme court acts, will no longer have access to reproductive healthcare and choices about their bodies or their pregnancies. >> you know, nicole, i really wish that i believed, that i knew for certain that this would mobilize the nation in a way to really appreciate the urgency of this, but i can't give that analysis if i haven't seen it. and i have seen people be gunned down in cities in mass shootings, including the mass shooting of children, and not see sensible gun regulations passed. we all watched as george floyd was lynched in a street in minneapolis, and we haven't had no real impactful police reform on the nationwide level. and nobody who has blocked those
measures has been held responsible for it by voters, so i know a lot of people are saying, this is going to galvanize people, this is really going to wake up and -- wake people up and motivate them. i don't know that to be true, because i haven't seen it happen. i hope i'm proven that it will be true, but i can't sit here and say that. what i do know, and i think that is an important point that we started picking up and we didn't finish, is that this didn't come out of the blue. this came from a mobilization, a decades-long mobilization by conservatives who were intent on placing conservative people in all levels of government and putting conservative justices on courts throughout the states and federal judiciary so that this moment would happen. democrats, if they had -- if their eyes were opened now, that's great, but it's a couple decades too late because this is the question that i was asking democrats in 2016 when merrick garland's nomination was stalled, exactly how they were going to message this in that election year to make it clear to voters what the stakes were
and they didn't have an answer for me then. if they have an answer now, it's possibly too late. >> kim, i don't want to drop this again because you're right and i think you hit on sort of the crux of this. i mean, to be perfectly honest, and i want to bring don into this as well, hillary clinton told us that exactly this would happen. exactly what josh scooped was the prediction that hillary clinton made as part of her presidential campaign run against donald trump, who was the most blatantly forceful in his desire to overturn roe vs. wade through his appointments to the united states supreme court. mitt romney before him and john mccain before him and george w. bush before him always -- and i checked all their issue papers today -- they all affirmed believing in exceptions in cases of rape and incest and life of the mother. that, as i said, is not in this statewide bans racing through state legislatures and waiting for the supreme court to act. what do you -- and she's made
statements, strong statements, today, not "i told you so," but this is as bad as it feels, and i wonder, kim, if you think anything. because we have had countless conversations about the voter suppression laws, all predicated on a lie. there was no voter fraud. chris krebs said so. bill barr said so. mitch mcconnell said so. there are 436 voter suppression laws racing through 48 states, not even true -- fixing a problem that doesn't exist. i mean, what is the asymmetry that democrats with 69% of the american people on their side in control of both houses of congress and the white house seem paralyzed? >> is that question for me? >> yeah, back to you, kim. >> i don't know. i don't know. this is the question that i have been asking for years. you are correct that hillary clinton did predict this. but it is also true that the democrats did not campaign on the u.s. supreme court and the
federal judiciary and the threat to roe with the urgency and consistency and financial backing that conservatives campaigned on overturning roe. there was never an equivalent when it came to that political messaging, and that is a major reason why we are where we are now, and it's even more dangerous now because many of the legal protections that roe is based upon are the very legal protections that makes it legal for me to be married to my husband, who is of a different race at this moment. it makes it able for people to be able to have access to contraception, for people to be able to marry whomever they want and have privacy in their homes, in their own actions, in their most intimate things. these are the same protections. so it's not going to end at abortion. this is just the beginning. and look, yes, there -- we can talk about this in a legal way and in a political way, but i think we need to be clear and not make it seem as if this either came out of the blue or that the democrats should not have been paying attention to
this for a long time before this moment. >> and i mean, i guess the last thought is that there's not a quick or immediate way to undo this, to unring the bill as josh said. don, i want to bring you back in. you're on the precipice of making a big life change. you're going to devote full-time to something that we enjoy and consume in our sort of workdays, and that is your really unparalleled political messages and videos. talk about what specifically you think should be done in this fight now. >> well, we need to organize. we need to mobilize. we need to speak clearly and strongly in defense of our values and our beliefs. i think that we've ceded way too much ground on the area of the definition of patriotism and the definition of morality. i think we've ceded much too much of that to the republicans. and now, we need to act, and we need to talk strongly and in plain language and tell the
people the truth. >> don, you have to come back and we'll have a longer conversation. maybe you can join us onset, about your new book, "city on fire," out now, and we promise we will come back to that in focus on the next time you're here, hopefully news won't be breaking the way it is today. kimberly atkins stohr -- we want to spend time with the book too. thank you for your generosity, don. kim atkins stohr, danielle holley-walker, and don winslow, thank you so much for starting us off this hour. i'm grateful to all of you. when we come back, we'll be joined by yamiche alcindor, she is in mississippi. the dynamics on the ground there could soon be replicated in states all across the country. she'll explain. plus as three trump allies in congress say no, they will not comply with the january 6th committee's request for information, majority of americans want the twice-impeached disgraced ex-president criminally charged for his role in the deadly insurrection.
♪ life can be a lot to handle. ♪ this magic moment ♪ but heinz knows there's plenty of magic in all that chaos. ♪ so different and so new ♪ ♪ was like any other... ♪ life... doesn't stop for diabetes. be ready for every moment, with glucerna. it's the number one doctor recommended brand that is scientifically designed to help manage your blood sugar. live every moment. glucerna.
as a business owner, your bottom line live every moment. is always top of mind. so start saving by switching to the mobile service designed for small business: comcast business mobile. flexible data plans mean you can get unlimited data or pay by the gig. all on the most reliable 5g network. with no line activation fees or term contracts... saving you up to $500 a year. and it's only available to comcast business internet customers. so boost your bottom line by switching today. comcast business. powering possibilities.™ there are lots of choices when it comes to your internet and technology needs. but when you choose comcast business internet, you choose the largest, fastest reliable network. you choose advanced security. and you choose fiber solutions with speeds up to 10 gigs available to more small businesses than any other provider. the choice is clear: get unbeatable business solutions from the most innovative company. get a great deal on this limited time price with internet and voice for just $49.99 a month for 24 months with a 2-year price guarantee. call today.
it's not going to end with abortion access, right? i mean, i think the opinion makes clear that other laws may be targeted in the future. >> what's your fear of those laws? >> obviously, the first one that comes to mind is gay marriage, and we're going to see that headed and whether it's going to be left to the states to legislate because i can tell you that mississippi is not going to be in favor of gay marriage. >> nbc's yamiche alcindor is a reporter on the ground in mississippi as the u.s. supreme court appears poised to uphold that state's abortion law and
thus overturn roe. the fears of mississippi residents are just a preview of what we can expect all across this country as nearly half of states would ban abortion immediately once roe is overturned. joining us now from jackson, mississippi, the aforementioned yamiche alcindor, nbc news washington correspondent, the moderator of "washington week" on pbs and in d.c., fatima goss graves. yamiche, tell us what you have been reporting there. >> well, nicole, i've been outside mississippi's only abortion clinic right over my shoulder, this pink building. it is the clinic at the center of this landmark supreme court case. of course, it is the most direct challenge to roe vs. wade in 30 years, and what people have been telling me all day long, women, are that they are gutted, they are devastated by this decision. i also went inside that clinic where women, by the way, are still getting abortions. this is a fully operational clinic for now. of course, the question is, how long will that last? but i want to share with you
what the director there, shannon brewer, told me about her fears and her concerns now that this decision is poised to happen. >> my reaction, actually, i was not surprised by it. i was -- this is kind of what we were expecting here. they want to control women, period. a lot of the african american women, mostly, you're going to have unwanted pregnancies. you're going to have women showing up at the hospital for different reasons as far as trying to self-abort. you're going to have babies being dropped off at these safe places that they say they can bring these babies to. all these things go on now, and people don't know because they don't broadcast this stuff. >> so, there you have it, the director saying that an already tough situation is going to get even worse. she also tells me that she's now thinking about starting a new facility in new mexico and trying to have resources to have
women here in the state of mississippi and the region travel to those other states but there are a number of states that if this ban on roe, i should say, if roe v. wade is overturned, there's going to be a number of states that are going to either ban abortion or explicitly curtail abortion. about 26 states. and in this region alone, in this country, you're going to have tennessee, louisiana, alabama, so it's going to be very hard for a woman here in mississippi to get an abortion. the other thing i should tell you is that the director tells me she has, quote, no hope that congress will codify roe v. wade. she's very, very skeptical that that's going to happen in her lifetime, so she says it's very hard to get a right back once you've lost it. >> so stunning. both the real world implications and a pretty profound and sharp look at the national posture on this issue. fatima, i want to show you something our friend cecile richards said on msnbc earlier today. >> this has never happened in our lifetime, that a right that an entire generation, many
generations of women, have assumed would be part of their life has -- is poised to end, and it's not ending because the american people want to end safe and legal abortion. in fact, polls consistently show that people believe pregnancy should be a decision made by women, not by politicians, not by government. the republican party has done everything in their power, both nationally and state-by-state, to end abortion access. >> fatima, sean patrick maloney tweeted, if republicans win control of congress, they'll ban reproductive freedom, then marriage equality and birth control. we don't have enough power now to fix the problem, but we can if we organize and vote. your thoughts about this moment? >> well, i think he was absolutely right. yesterday, we saw them announce that they were setting a new litmus test for a nationwide ban. that's what the republicans are running on this congress. people have to be clear.
this is not limited to just one state. it was 26 states that asked the supreme court together to overturn roe in the mississippi case. so, we are facing a crisis of unprecedented proportion, a health crisis of unprecedented proportion, but also a legal and constitutional crisis. >> yamiche, what do, you know, what does shannon think will happen to women there? obviously, i hope she's able to do what she's talking about, setting up a clinic in new mexico. but it's impossible. it's inconceivable that every woman in mississippi who wants an abortion will be able to travel there for one. what does she think will happen to women? >> she frankly thinks that women are going to be put in dangerous situations. she says that there are going to be the vulnerable women. she said the women that she has in her clinic that she's services are overwhelmingly women of color, black women. also women who don't have the money, frankly, to afford many
of the abortions that they want to have or to be able to raise children that they cannot afford to have, so really, she's worried that children are going to either have to be born into families that frankly do not have the resources to support them or that women are going to seek out illegal abortions and try to self-abort. she said that means there are going to be, she says, in emergency rooms, women may die or be put in dangerous situations. i should also note the women i've talked to here, there's an emotional aspect that can't be put into words. i talked to one woman, the sound that you played, a resident here, who said she went up to the volunteers who were literally escorting these women into a clinic to thank them for their work because she understands just how hard it is for women to access the care that they're getting here, so the director here is very, very worried about the future, but i can't understand underscore enough that she is not looking to washington for solutions, nicole. she says that people will need to take this as a wake-up call, they need to really focus on states rights, focus on state officials because she just
doesn't have any confidence that any sort of solution will come from washington. >> fatima, do you share shannon brewer's pessimism about washington's ability to act? >> you know, i came over here from outside the supreme court where hundreds and hundreds are gathering and people around the country are gathering all over. you know, i could get as pessimistic as it comes about washington and inaction, and i put my hope in people who are demanding more from their leaders, from congress, from their state leaders, this is a time where it's going to take all of us to act and no one should be left off the hook. >> it's a perfect segue. yamiche alcindor and fatima gas graves, thank you for spending time with us. protests continue to grow in new york city. let's bring in nbc news correspondent ellison barber live from that rally in new york. . >> reporter: nicole, if you just look around at the massive amount of people here, the signs
that they are holding, and you see why they are here. people here that we have spoken to, they are angry. they are scared. they don't know what access to abortion reproductive rights will look like moving forward, and they're worried that this is a slippery slope. you see all of these signs, all of these people have gathered here, not because they think that they might lose their rights in this state, in new york, the right to abortion is fairly well protected, in part because of a 2019 piece of legislation that was signed into law by then governor cuomo, but they say that doesn't matter, that it's not jut about their rights here. it's about the rights of women everywhere. you hear this sound, look out at the crowd, and i want to give you a sense of how many people have showed up here today. time and time again, people we have spoken to, they say that in some ways, they expected this, but they are still disappointed. they are scared. and they say they are determined to fight, make their voices heard until they believe that women have full access to the
rights that they believe are guaranteed by the constitution. they say regardless of what the supreme court does, they will not be quiet, they will not stand down. is this is a fight they're ready to move forward and do whatever it takes. some people said they're frustrated that over the years, democratic lawmakers didn't do more to codify roe v. wade, but they say they will be out here, they will make their voices heard as long as it takes because they believe that every woman in this country and beyond should have the right to access abortion. nicole? >> ellison barber, it's interesting, i mean, you have -- i see people of multiple ages and lots of men in that crowd too. thank you so much for being out there for us and for joining us today. thank you, my friend. shifting gears completely for us, the next moves from the committee investigating the january 6th insurrection. now that three trump allies in congress say no, they will not comply with the committee's request for their information about the planning and violence that day. stay with us. out the planning a that day that day stay with us
♪ breeze driftin' on by... ♪ if you've been playing down your copd,... ♪ it's a new dawn, it's a new day,... ♪ ...it's time to make a stand. start a new day with trelegy. ♪...and i'm feelin' good. ♪ no once-daily copd medicine... has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy, and save at trelegy.com.
♪ well the sun is shining and the grass is green ♪ ♪ i'm way ahead of schedule with my trusty team ♪ ♪ there's heather on the hedges ♪ ♪ and kenny on the koi ♪ ♪ and your truck's been demolished by the peterson boy ♪ ♪ yes -- ♪ wait, what was that? timber... [ sighs heavily ] when owning a small business gets real, progressive helps protect what you've built with affordable coverage.
some breaking news to tell you about in just the last hour regarding the twice-impeached ex-president's attempt to yet again evade new york attorney general letitia james's investigation. our own tom winter here at nbc is reporting that james's office has learned today that the ex-president's motion to stay the contempt order pending appeal that would have meant he
didn't have to pay has been denied. it failed. trump is now going to be forced to pay the order, which is $10,000 a day, and it started april 26th. meanwhile, in the ongoing investigation by the january 6th committee, that committee faces a new perhaps unsurprising roadblock as it seeks to obtain crucial information from several of their own colleagues. as we reported here yesterday, three house republicans, andy biggs of arizona, ronny jackson of texas, and mo brooks of alabama, were sent requests to voluntarily sit down and testify about their experiences on the day of the insurrection. after receiving those letters, all three congressmen said, no. they rejected the requests, leaving the committee with the option to subpoena the members to compel them to testify. the news comes as a new poll shows that a majority of americans want justice to be served for the former president. "washington post" abc news poll released this morning found that 52% of americans believe that trump should be charged with a crime for urging his supporters
to march to the capitol on january 6th. joining us, "washington post" congressional investigations reporter, also an msnbc contributor. it's an interesting peek into public opinion and my only thought was it does give the committee a little bit of wind at its back. there is still a majority of americans who see very clearly what we talk about every day, there's been no accountability for the man who sent his supporters to the capitol to endanger the transition of power and his own vice president. >> yeah, nicole, those numbers have shifted -- have not shifted very much since the actual attack 16 months ago with 52% of people saying that trump should be charged and 42% saying he shouldn't be. but that majority of people who want to see people charged still falls along party lines. those strong partisan divisions remain and that's going to be the committee's challenge going
forward to try to break past that, but another number in this poll that might give the committee some hope that they can actually breakthrough is that while the house committee investigating the attack is viewed favorably, 40% favorably, by some americans, 40% view them unfavorably, there's about 20% of americans that do not have an opinion of the committee, meaning -- of the committee's fairness. meaning that the committee has the opportunity to have a first impression on a pretty sizable amount of americans as they are going to be putting on hearings in primetime in the month of june. >> it's such an interesting point. you don't have that many persuadable members of an audience for very many debates in american political life and that is a big chunk of the country at a moment as divided as this one. take me inside the reaction, which you all but predicted that republicans would not play with the committee. they seem to be at a fork in the
road. they either subpoena them or what? i interviewed congressman aguilar yesterday. it's clear they have the other half of those text exchanges. do they sort of go with what they've got? >> yeah, and i think, at this point in time, with this time crunch being obviously present before june, they need to wrap up these depositions before the public hearings, and then also, the fact that if they do decide to subpoena -- if lawmakers on the committee decide to subpoena republican house members, which would be the next step to compelling these members, andy biggs, mo brooks, jim jordan, scott perry, house minority leader kevin mccarthy, who do not want to voluntarily appear before the committee, that legal process might not wrap up until november, and pete aguilar, jamie raskin, many of the members have said this explicitly, that yes, it would
be preferable in terms of keeping tensions at a minimum in an already pretty tense workplace, but also from an actual timing perspective, this legal process could tie the committee's hands up for a while, and the committee believes that getting these members to voluntarily cooperate is really their only option right now, and so they've said time and time again that they've been able to work around these members. i think that's why we have seen them wait until may, now, to actually publicly call out these lawmakers but if you read those actual letters to members yesterday, they did release some very interesting information and findings in their interviews and investigation that they've conducted so far from ronny jackson communicating with oath keepers to andy biggs potentially trying to scope out whether or not he could land a presidential pardon related to some of the activities to overturning the results of the
election. >> so, two-part follow-up question. one, how many of the lawmakers you just named -- i think you named six -- have lawyers? and they don't ever plan to participate in the committee's investigation, are they concerned there's enough everyday out there and that the committee may refer them to doj, that they are really trying to protect themselves legally? >> yeah, so, some of them do have lawyers who have been referred to them, but that question of the doj is at top of mind. lawmakers are -- in the house are out at recess right now. they're not on the hill so we haven't been able to ask them ourselves just yet. but when we've previously asked them, they have at least publicly acted as though they were not concerned being referred to the doj, but right now, the doj has done a very good at keeping their parallel simultaneous investigation under pretty tight wraps. we know that they've convened a grand jury, and we also know that lawmakers on the panel are hoping that the doj can
hopefully pick up some of the slack as they do have obviously criminal authority to actually make charges that the committee only has in a more political, rhetorical sense, and that that question of criminal referrals is also still up for -- to be decided on amongst committee members. we'll see if some of these members who ultimately may not comply in any way with the congressional investigation get referred to the doj for future investigations. >> it all seems to be coming to a head in the coming weeks and months. jackie alemany, thank you so much. when we come back, we will turn to ukraine where civilians continue to be evacuated from the hard-hit, pummelled city of mariupol. we'll have a live report from our friend, cal perry. we'll have a live report from our friend, cal perry.
lemons. lemons. lemons. lemons. look how nice they are. the moment you become an expedia member, you can instantly start saving on your travels. so you can go and see all those, lovely, lemony, lemons. and never wonder if you got a good deal. because you did. my a1c stayed here, it needed to be here. ruby's a1c is down with rybelsus®. my a1c wasn't at goal, now i'm down with rybelsus®.
mom's a1c is down with rybelsus®. (♪ ♪) in a clinical study, once-daily rybelsus® significantly lowered a1c better than a leading branded pill. rybelsus® isn't for people with type 1 diabetes. don't take rybelsus® if you or your family ever had medullary thyroid cancer, or have multiple endocrine neoplasia syndrome type 2, or if allergic to it. stop rybelsus® and get medical help right away if you get a lump or swelling in your neck, severe stomach pain, or an allergic reaction. serious side effects may include pancreatitis. tell your provider about vision problems or changes. taking rybelsus® with a sulfonylurea or insulin increases low blood sugar risk. side effects like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea may lead to dehydration, which may worsen kidney problems. need to get your a1c down? (♪ ♪) ask your healthcare provider about rybelsus® today. hi, i'm steve and i live in austin, texas. i work as a personal assistant to the owner of a large manufacturing firm. i've got anywhere from 10 to 50 projects going at any given time. i absolutely have to be sharp.
let me tell ya, i was struggling with my memory. it was going downhill. my friend recommended that i try prevagen and over time, it made a very significant difference in my memory and in my cognitive ability. i started to feel a much better sense of well-being. prevagen. healthier brain. better life.
new intelligents from u.s. officials suggest that even as russian forces struggle to make gains in moscow, moscow is already planning to invade new parts of ukraine and claim them as their own. according to these reports russian forces look to seize control of the eastern region of donetsk and luhansk as well as the southern city of cursman. a senior official telling "the washington post," highly
credible intelligence indicates russia will probably hold fraudulent referenduming in may. let's bring in cal perry live in kyiv, ukraine for us. this sounds like much more of the same, and i know it isn't working on the ground militarily or disinformation space, but i wonder if the intended audience is just in russia. what do you make of these reports? >> yeah, and we had reports today of 1.1 million people -- according to russian news -- 1.1 million people brought back to russia. russia's going frame that differently. here it's framed as abductions. 1.1 million people abducted including 200,000 children take ton russia. russia uses the term liberated. so you have this push and pull for each domestic audience and certainly the way that russia's framing things is not realistic to what's happening on the ground. you also have, as that is
playing out in the background, a concerted and coordinated attack on this country through air strikes today. at least 18 missiles were fired tonight alone. 18 of them shot down, 10 reaching targets, majority in lviv, where the power is now out in that city. the first time it happened since the war began. they also hit the railway stations. six different rail stations or rails were actually targeted. 14 trains are sitting idle on tracks in the western part of the country, so you have russia increasing its air strikes, increasing air attacks on these infrastructure targets. the result of it are along gas lines is a country that is starting to not be able to function in the way that it was. and it was one of the most impressive things we had seen about the war is the supply chains stayed open. the grocery stores are full in the city i'm in. today we saw incredibly long gas
lines. it's an impossible situation for people to go about their daily lives. and again, it seems like the attacks from russia are increasing. seems like the war is just picking up here, nicole. >> it's just remarkable that lviv, which was sort of a sanctuary, you spent weeks there, was the site of these attacks. i wonder how that changes calculations or decisions people made who are displaced in ukraine. >> reporter: and how does it change the dynamic for diplomatic missions. when we think about people returning -- we think about 7.7 million people displaced. the may why are here in kyiv asked people not to come home. part of it is the infrastructure doesn't exist to support these people, so folks are coming back to destroyed homes, and there's no infrastructure, no municipal infrastructure to support them. there's no emergency services, no doctors, no hospital. there's none of the things that you need to sustain daily life. in he vi, there's a lot of
questions as to, why now? we anticipated six weeks ago they'd cut the power, get them to leave the country. but tonight for some reason is the night they have decided to take out the power stations to hit the rail lines. a week ago we had the secretary of state and secretary of defense riding a train from poland here in a visit that was no longer secret because it was announced. why is russia picking up its attacks? one of the theories is there have been attacks on russian sides of the border, the ukraine is using drones. it's something the ukrainian military isn't talk about, but that's why we're seeing the uptick in attacks just in the last six hours. >> quickly, the strikes on the railways and stations, would that have rendered untenable the trips by u.s. secretary of state
and nancy pelosi? >> i'm not sure if logistically it would have been impossible, but you would think from a security perspective it would have been impossible. right now, as i said, 14 trains sitting on tracks not near stations. that's not okay. seems like the trips happened just in time now with the infrastructure being targeted. >> cal perry, the best of the best, thank you so much for your reporting. please stay safe, my friend. >> and thank you to all of you for letting us in your homes on this extraordinary tuesday. we are grateful. "the beat" with ari melber will pick up our coverage live after a break. don't miss that. stay with us. a break. don't miss that. stay with us
jackie speier leaves big shoes to fill. i rose through the ranks to captain in the army. expanded access to education as a nonprofit leader. had a successful career in business. and as burlingame mayor during the pandemic, raised the minimum wage, increased affordable housing, and preserved our bayfront open space.
welcome to "the beat" with ari melber. tonight we are reporting from here, the supreme court of the united states, where protesters have been gathering since the draft opinion came down late last night, a rare leak from inside the supreme court. today we learned from the supreme court justice himselves this awe tentic and true, which is to say there are the votes as of february to overturn roe vs. wade. on tonight's program we are going to cover this from all angles with legal expert, advocates and some of the protesters we have been hearing from right here at the court. all of this started with the big leak when the news broke last night. >> just breaking in the last few minutes is this -- united states supreme court voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows. >> politico drop a bombshell on the u.s. legal and political system