tv Jose Diaz- Balart Reports MSNBC June 24, 2022 7:00am-8:00am PDT
good morning. 10:00 a.m. eastern, 7:00 a.m. pacific. right now, we're awaiting decisions from the supreme court, just nine cases to go for this session, including one on abortion that could decide the fate of roe v. wade. >> and breaking this morning, the house taking up a historic bipartisan gun violence prevention bill, passed by the senate overnight. minnesota senator tina smith will join us live. and today marks one month since a gunman killed 19 elementary school students and two teachers in uvalde, texas. we'll speak with texas state senator roland gutierrez about
the investigation and how the community is doing. plus, an nbc news exclusive with richard engle speaking with ukrainian president zelenskyy. we'll play for you what he had to say about the americans captured by russian troops. and this morning, we remember the 98 lives lost in the surfside condominium collapse one year ago today. we begin this hour with breaking news. congress is one step closer to passing the most significant measure to reduce gun violence in nearly 30 years. right now, the house is holding a rule debate on gun violence prevention bill, after it passed the senate overnight. these are live pictures from the capitol. final passage expected in the house some time later today. in a 65-33 vote, 15 republican senators joined democrats in passing the bill. the historic progress being made on capitol hill comes just one day after the supreme court
issued a landmark decision expanding gun rights across the country. joining us now, nbc news capitol hill correspondent ali vitali. good morning. how soon will the house vote on the final passage of this bill? >> yeah, jose. we're about three to four hours away, and hot you're seeing on the house floor right now is the first of a few debates because what they're going to do is have a series of procedural votes to get on to this bill that will finally allow them to pass it, and we do expect this to pass, both because most democrats are onboard and some republicans are expected to cross party lines and pass it. again, we have said this yesterday, because when the senate voted to pass it, it was still true. the most significant gun reform legislation in nearly 30 years. you're seeing the 15 republicans who crossed party lines last night to ultimately vote for it. there were some interesting dynamics at play as you look at who's on your screen. moe of those republican senators are not in cycle. they're not up for re-election
right now. some of them are retiring. others are simply in safe seats. but there are two, specifically senators murkowski and young, who i think are particularly fascinating. both because they are in cycle, but also for murkowski, she's in a tight primary race against a trump-backed challenger in alaska. she's one of the people who is consistently bipartisan and also consistently on trump's vendetta list, so as we look into the dynamics in the senate of what got us to this point in the house, those are really interesting things i'm paying attention to, and then again, of course, all of the things in this bill, the fact it's touching not just mental health and school safety but also incentiviing red flag laws, closing the boyfriend loophole, establishing new offenses for gun trafficking and clarifying who is even considered a gun seller. all of these tightening that process and coming together, and again, the most significant package we have seen in decades. >> so it's a couple hours debate on the floor. when could this conceivably be
sent to the president's desk? >> that is the open question here, because congress is about to go into a period of some recesses. nevertheless, this is one of those moments that lawmakers will certainly come back to town for to celebrate. you heard this from both republicans and democrats on both sides of the aisle saying this was such a moment for bipartisanship. i'll be interested to see who actually goes to the signing that white house, who wants that picture and who can politically afford that picture with the president. nevertheless, a significant moment and we're waiting to hear when the white house wants that celebration. you have to imagine, though, this is an image they really want to push out. >> ali vitali, thank you so much. >> now to continue our conversation, minnesota senator tina smith. senator, thank you very much for your time this morning. i want to begin by getting your thoughts on what could soon be passage of the most sweeping bill aimed at reducing gun violence in nearly 30 years. >> thank you, jose. it's great to be with you. i have to say being on the floor of the senate last night, a
place where i have seen radical republicans stop us from making progress on so many issues like voting rights and abortion rights, to see the most significant gun safety legislation in over 30 years pass with bipartisan support, it felt like a powerful moment. and especially because the galleries were full of people who had lost loved ones to gun violence. my friend lucy mcbath, whose son was killed by a police officer, who is now in the house of representatives, was sitting on the senate floor to be there for the moment. it was a moment of hope that we can accomplish good things. there's a lot more we need to do around gun safety, but this was an important step, and i was just so happy to see progress being made finally. >> and thank you for painting the picture of what it's like in that hall. for many of us that aren't ever there, a moment where so many people were there that had been directly affected by gun
violence, must have been extraordinarily moving. >> it was very touching. and i think that there were several times when our colleague john cornyn from texas, republican, choked up a little bit as he was talking about how important it was to get something done, and of course, chris murphy, who has been such a fighter on this, ever since he came to congress, it was a very moving moment, and to see our colleagues go across party lines to congratulate one another. all the while knowing we have much more work to do. we should be banning assault rifles. we should have universal background checks, but progress is progress and i'll take it. >> do you think there will be shortly another round of maybe discussions or bipartisan attempts at dealing with this? >> well, i don't really see that. and you have to also acknowledge that on the very day that we made this progress in the senate, this radical republican supreme court majority handed down one of the most sweeping
rollbacks of state gun safety regulations that we have seen. here's a law in new york that has been on the books for 100 years saying that it's fair to put some regulation on people carrying guns around in public to the grocery store and to restaurants and other places. so that's the paradox that we are in this moment with what the supreme court is doing. >> you know, i am just thinking today is one month since the massacre at robb elementary in uvalde, texas. 19 elementary school children lost their lives, two teachers, and then the husband of one of the teachers subsequently died of a heart attack just a day after she was killed in that elementary school. i'm just wonderin these things affect so many people permanently in so many ways, senator. >> that is so true. the human toll of the scourge of gun violence in our country, it's unlike any other place in
the world in terms of the number of guns that are out there, and the damage that they do, and we pay attention as rightly we should when there are these horrible mass murders, murder/suicides really, but we also need to pay attention when people are reaching for a gun to end their own life or are engaging in gun violence to murder domestic partners, this level of gun violence that affects us all is tragic. and we're taking a small step in addressing some of those challenges. but the human toll is there, and we have to see it. >> senator, as we wait for the u.s. supreme court to announce its decision on the future of abortion rights, you have introduced a bill aiming to shore up access to abortion pills in states that have not yet restricted access. how do you get this bill through? >> so, abortion medication has been around since 2000. it is safe, it is effective, and the first 11 weeks of pregnancy.
my bill is aiming to protect access, provide another layer of protection for abortion medication in states where abortion will still be legal after the supreme court, which appears to be on the precipice of getting rid of roe, that it will still be there. i think it's important to introduce this legislation to help people understand abortion medication, where it will still be legal and make sure people understand there's a lot of misinformation being put out there by republicans about this. we saw this in a committee i serve on just a couple weeks ago, trying to say it isn't safe, it's dangerous, and that isn't true. my bill will help to make that case and i hope expand access to this very important option for women in states where abortion will still be legal. >> just nine cases to go for this session for the supreme court. they're going to be making announcements today and monday. let's see how those go. i want to turn to another big topic in the news these days. that is the house january 6th
committee hearings, senator. what has surprised you the most about what you have seen so far? >> well, so much of the crimes of january 6th and the planning that led up to it have been kind of right out there for everyone to see. what i think surprises me is to get into the granular new evidence that the committee is laying out, which really exposes the conspiracy that existed at the highest levels of the trump administration. yesterday, to see the lengths to which the president was willing to go to get the justice department, which is they're there to administer and protect the rights of all americans, how willing he was, how prepared he was to force the justice department down his criminal path, was really, i mean, you can't lose your ability to be shocked by that level of, i think, criminal behavior. it will be very interesting to see what else comes out, and of course, this new documentary footage is going to be
interesting as it lays out what was going on in the white house in those days. >> senator, i would like to focus your attention on the border, far away from minnesota, but relevant and i think directly impacting all of us. there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, and yet, there has been no move on any kind of immigration reform in the senate or in the house that has been effective. is there any possibility, senator, that you could take this issue up in a possibly bipartisan form to get anything done on immigration? >> you know, earlier, i was saying how remarkable it was to see the kind of finally a breakthrough in the logjam in the senate on gun safety. the challenge is we have had this logjam on immigration for years and years and year. i really believe it is driven by republicans in the senate who refuse to take up comprehensive immigration reform. like we were able to discuss and get close to only back barely
ten years ago, not even ten years ago. this is something i hear about from businesses in minnesota who are calling out for reforms to our immigration system. so yes, we can have security at the border, yes, we need to address the terrible humanitarian crisis at the border. but also, to make it possible for people to legally come into this country and do the jobs that businesses in minnesota and all across america are creating right now. >> senator, before the july 4th break, what are you seeing as the primary issue you want dealt with? >> well, in minnesota, i'll be heading home in a couple hours, and certainly, minnesotans are concerned about rising prices and the cost of food and gas, and i think that we need to continue to work on that. this is one of the reasons i am so determined to try to get a reconciliation bill over the finish line here in the senate so we can help to bring energy prices down. >> senator tina smith, i
interrupt you with breaking news. pete williams on the supreme court. >> in which the abortion right was made nationwide. those two rulings stood for the proposition that states could not ban abortion before the age of viability. they could restrict it during that period up to about 23 weeks, but they couldn't ban it. now, the supreme court has taken that guarantee away. lester, this is the first time the supreme court has ever granted a constitutional right, which it did so when roe was decided in 1973, and then took it away. a popular right that was widely recognized. so the immediate effect of this will be to uphold a mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks. but this also now means that in a roughly half the country, abortion is as of now or soon will be illegal. 13 states have what are called trigger laws that were intended to make roe -- abortion illegal in those states once the supreme court reached this decision.
a few of those states, the law takes effect immediately, in some, they have to wait for the state attorney general to certificate that this is what the supreme court has done. that's 13 states in which abortion will shortly be illegal. and in the rest of up to about half of the states, they are expected soon to make it illegal. so we're about to become a divided country, lester, where abortion is legal in about half the states, illegal in half the states. this is a 6-3 decision. it's written by samuel alito. we haven't had a chance to track it yet, but you may recall the justice alito was the author of the draft opinion that leaked in may, that suggested the supreme court was going to overturn roe v. wade. but lester, i have to say, this is not, while it is certainly going to be surprising to some, pleasing to others that have worked for this day for many years, it can't be too much of a surprise for three reasons. first of all, the fact the court agreed to take this place in the
first place. this was a decision from the lower courts that said no, you can't strike down abortion that early because it would go against supreme court precedence. there was no division among the circuit courts. so why did the supreme court take it? the logical conclusion has to be they took it to overturn roe. secondly, what they did in the texas case when they allowed the texas law to go into effect that would restrict abortion, and third, the comments the justices made when the roe v. wade case was argued. so supreme court overturning roe. this is one of the most significant historic decisions in modern times, lester, and now it means that abortion is no longer the law of the land. it's up to the states, and it's about to become illegal in about half of them, lester. >> pete williams with breaking news out of the supreme court. i want to go right to nbc's ken dilanian, he's outside the supreme court. also neal katyal, former acting
solicitor general, joyce vance, nbc legal analyst, and dahlia, seenial editor and host of the amicus podcast for sale. neal, give us a bigger picture of what pete williams is announcing. >> this is as devastating a ruling as can be imagined. it looks very much like the draft opinion that was leaked last month. i haven't done obviously a word comparison, but it does say roe v. wade is overruled. it's a 6-3 vote on the bottom line. the chief justice, chief justice roberts, concurs in the judgment, saying he disagreed with the majority's decision to go so far as to overrule roe v. wade and that he would have upheld the mississippi law on a more minor -- on a more narrow basis than the three dissenters led by justice breyer, are vehement, saying this is improper.
the justice says one result of today's decision is certain. the curtailment of women's rights and of their status as free and equal citizens. and what this decision means is that you no longer have a right to an abortion in any of the 50 states if a state legislature wants to take that away from you, put you in jail or put those who assist you in obtaining an abortion in jail, they can do so. this is a complete flip from 50 years of a guaranteed constitutional right to women. it is as grave and dramatic a step as the united states supreme court has ever taken in our lifetimes. >> joyce vance, give us some context on that. that is an extraordinary thing that neal is talking about. it really is taking back precedent for more than 40 years. >> in this country, we're so used to the courts as the guarantor of our civil rights. when states prohibited black people from voting in the south,
activists went to the court to make sure all people were treated equally in our system of government. so neal is correct to point out this is monumental because it's the first time we have seen the court take away a right. and the way they do it, the context in which they do it, saying that there is historically no right grounded in the constitution and its text or in its precedent or in our history that guarantees women rights to equality, that bodes poorly for other rights that have been the subject of the culture wars in this country. the culture wars that led to this newly conservative 6-3 really a super majority, if you count the chief justice in that majority on perhaps some issues. what we don't know is what might come next. could, for instance, lawrence, the case that makes it possible for gay people to live in civil and marital unions, could that be the next case that falls? could there be other sorts of rights that are vulnerable.
it's a very dark day in america. >> so 26 states are certain or likely to ban abortion. when, how quickly will this happen? >> yeah, i mean, in the states that have trigger laws, it can be immediate. in the states that have ghost laws on the books, which is to say pre-roe bans that now are lawful, they're no longer unconstitutional, it will be very, very quick. we have a bunch of states that have eight-week bans and very, very even more constrictive bans that the ban at issue here. and those will go into effect. and so i think you're going to see that some of the really draconian efforts, even before dobbs came down, to do away with the viability line, to sort of assume it had already happened, all that, i think, is going to kick in really, really quickly, and i think that we're only going to begin to start to
figure out the nuts and bolts state by state. >> neal, you that have been in front of the supreme court so many times, how unusual is this? >> it's past unusual. i mean, it is literally unprecedented. i mean, roe v. wade was a 7-2 decision in a time where there were seven republican justices on the supreme court. and it was reaffirmed in 1992 with a trio of republican justices, justices o'connor, kennedy, and suter coming forth to say this is basically a superprecedent. this is something on which social expectations have crystallized around this right. it's crucial to women's equality. the court can't take it away. that's what the republican justices -- republican appointed justices were saying. today, you hear an absolutely different tune. and it is shocking because
regardless of what one thinks about roe v. wade and even justice ginsburg, ruth bader ginsburg was a critic of roe's reasoning, the bottom line, particularly at this juncture in american history, was thought to be very solid. so it is a horrendous move by the supreme court. >> and joyce, i know this is just coming across. this is breaking news that we're living through here on msnbc. i'm wondering, joyce, the similarities with the logic and the statements from today's decision announcement and then the one that was leaked some weeks, months ago. >> so i think it will take us a while to get a black line to compare this opinion to the leaked opinion. but in substance, it appears to match the opinion that we saw earlier. and the reasoning here is particularly tragic. essentially what the court says is, there is no right, no
federal right to abortion. we return this issue to the states. and in many parts of the country, in this big geographic block across the deep south, that means to state legislatures that are hostile to this notion that women should have the ability to determine what happens with their own bodies. so the alito opinion, the draft opinion that we saw earlier that caused so much turmoil, appears to be the opinion that has arrived today. it is that same majority with, as we pointed out, the chief justice concurring. but not being willing to go quite as far as the majority goes. and of course, with the dissenters vehemently arguing that what the court has done here is in essence a results-or ynlt or ynltianted ruling. the court did whatever mental gymnastics it needed to do to turn the textualism that
conservatives rely on, to turn it on its head to reach this result, saying that only states have the authority to make decisions in this area. >> dahlia, paint the picture of what it means for the 50 states. >> well, you know, it's interesting what it's going to mean is there are two countries. that there are quite literally red states and blue states. and we're already seeing red states making efforts to reach out into blue states and say we're going preclude you from performing abortions, either by shuttering your clinics, trying to bankrupt your clinic. we're already seeing fights going on about red states that are going to want to make it impossible for people to travel interstate to get this basic health care. and i think we're going to see blue states like connecticut passing laws to try to shield their own providers from liability in red states. so in some sense, i think we are
looking at a sort of a constitutional legal -- i don't want to use the word civil war, but i think we're going to see immense, immense bickering about where states can control conduct of other states. in some ways it is sort of representative of where we are right now, but i think it's really, really puts to the lie justice kavanaugh's notion that if we kick it back to the states, everyone will chill out and be happy. >> indeed. let me bring in ken dilanian outside the supreme court. ken, what is happening there as we speak? >> it's a raucous atmosphere, jose. demonstrators from both sides of this issue have been coming here every day that opinions were to be announced in anticipation of this. when the opinion came down on the website, a cheer went up, obviously from the anti-abortion rights forces. you know, look, this building behind me opened 87 years ago,
and for 49 of those years, as of other guests have been saying, the right to abortion has been enshrined in the constitution. and now you have a conservative majority saying it's not there anymore, and the political and social reverberations of this decision will be immense. you see also that black fencing behind me that is keeping the public away from an area in front of the supreme court where they used to be able to go years ago. that speaks to how divided and dangerous our politics has become, and there are a lot of law enforcement officers here, frankly, who are getting ready for any potential violence or disorder that could come from this. there are members of congress, i saw marjorie taylor greene walking past, in fact i think she's right here now in a scrum of people. i think that's what you're seeing on your screen, with a big smile on her face, and i'm sure we're going to see more of that as the day unfolds. we should remember we're here because of politics. we're here because a conservative majority on the court was appointed by a
republican president. it started when the current attorney general merrick garland who had been nominated by barack obama was not given a hearing for 11 months, and was not elevated to the court, and then president trump got to pick three supreme court justices, including one who was voted on by the senate even as the 2020 election was under way, and these are the people who join in this decision written by justice alito that strikes down the right to abortion, says it doesn't exist in the constitution, jose. >> ken, stay with us. i want to bring in melissa murray, former law clerk for judge sonia sotomayor. your reaction? melissa, can you hear me? >> i can. >> hi, melissa. we're on the air. just wondering your reaction? >> i think it's exactly that. we're here not because of law but because of politics. this is a 6-3 conservative supermajority that has overruled
a right that's been in place for almost 50 years. this court has dealt with the question of abortion before. it's always upheld roe v. wade. what we have here is a naked political grab because they can, because they have the numbers to do so. it's also worth noting that in his concurrence to the majority opinion, justice thomas indicated they will not necessarily stop at just abortion. he also suggested that the court should reconsider cases like obergefell versus hodges which legalized gay marriage and griswold v. connecticut which allows for the right to contraseptember. there will be a number of clashes over the scope of the state's authority to prohibit abortion, but there will also be other clashes under this right of liberty that the 14th amendment guarantees and whether that extends to these rights of heart and home that we all take for granted. >> melissa, i'm wondering your thoughts, and you bring up what dahlia brought up as a point. the issue, for example, states
now dealing with control conduct, to use dahlia's statement, of other states. in other words, this is a situation where it could become much more complicated and then affecting other rights as well. >> that's exactly right. the oral argument in december, justice kavanaugh suggested this would be a neutral settlement of a very vexed issue, simply returning to the states the authority to prohibit abortion, but it's actually going to be more complicated than that, as we have seen states take really assertive steps to limit the ability of their own citizens even to leave the state to seek reproductive care in more hospitable jurisdictions. we're going to see a number of interjurisdictional clashes over whether or not the state can essentially extend the borders of their law to include those of other states. so buckle up. this is going to be a really bumpy ride, and this is not the end on this story. >> i want to go to nbc news's josh lederman joining us from
the white house. josh, how is the white house reacting? >> well, so far, there has not been a response from the white house to this ruling. jose, we have asked the white house whether we should expect to see president biden speak on this issue today. we have not gotten an answer yet, but we are hearing from another president, former president barack obama, who has just tweeted that today the supreme court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues. former president obama going on to say this decision today attacks the essential freedom of millions of americans. but in the meantime, jose, the biden white house has been preparing for the possibility of this ruling today literally for months. even before that leaked draft ruling that seems to point towards what ultimately happened today. and the white house is expected to respond to today's ruling by doing whatever it can to try to
insure that women still have the ability to get an abortion now that the supreme court has said they don't have a right to. but the reality is, there is no executive order that president biden could sign today or any other day that would restore a right, a constitutional right that the supreme court has taken away. that would take an act of congress. so what the white house has been doing is looking for ways that the federal agencies such as the justice department, the fda, and other agencies might be able to act to loosen things just a little bit, to protect, for example, the ability for a woman to travel from one state to another in search of an abortion, something that the justice department could potentially be involved in insuring that that is still an option for people. the fda, for example, could look at the approval of various abortion medications and making sure those are accessible to people. it's going to be those kinds of steps that are not going to make everything the way it was before
this ruling, but that the administration hopes will be whatever it can do to at least make sure some women still have that access, and in the midst of that, we expect vice president kamala harris will be playing a key role in that effort. she has spent the last many weeks working on this issue, meeting with women of all different stripes, women of color, women from disadvantaged communities, as well as others about the issues they face in abortion access, making sure they understand exactly which communities are going to be hardest hit by this decision and a lack of available access to abortion and trying to see what the white house can do now that this ruling has come down to try to make sure that some women still have access to this, jose. >> according to the gut mocker institute, the majority of people who got abortions in 2020 used medication abortions. something we were speaking with senator tina smith on msnbc, is one of the people behind that movement to legislatively do
something about that medication abortion being readily available throughout the country. i'm wondering, joyce, there is very little, as we were just hearing, that the president can do unilaterally. congress had some attempts at codifying parts of roe v. wade. unsuccessful there. is it now falling on totally the responsibility of congress to do something? >> if the responsibility the guaranteeing women's rights falls to congress, then i think the prospects are extremely limited. because this notion that roe v. wade should become law is not something new in congress. that's something that california representative judy chu, for instance, has introduced in the house every single time we have a new congress. it has never happened when there was plenty of opportunity for it to.
it's unlikely that it will in this environment. and even if congress were to take that step, it would then be considered by the same supreme court that has issued this ruling today. i don't think it's cynical to believe that this court will continue to view abortion decisions and new abortion laws in a very results-oriented fashion, so if, for instance, congress were to take stops to codify roe and protect abortion, the court would perhaps rule that congress lacked the power to make that sort of a nationwide ruling. whereas if we were to get a new congress that perhaps prohibited abortion nationwide, turning dobbs into the law of the land, the court would likely be more receptive to that kind of a ruling even though the language in dobbs today talks about returning that right to the states, it's not difficult to believe that the commerce clause issues that would underlie that sort of national prohibition on abortion could be manipulated in
a way that would reach the desired result. so again, this is a tough situation. i think we all knew this was coming. i think we expected for it to feel bad. i'm not sure we all fully appreciated how devastating it would feel to see the words on the paper, condemning women to second-class citizenship, and knowing there's very little that can be done, both nationally and in states, and of course, here we see, and this is i think very difficult, this intersection of extreme gerrymandering with the decimation of women's rights, because we have states where large majorities of the population believe that some form of abortion should be legal, if not completely legal, then in some circumstances. and yet in many of those states, abortion will now be criminalized. abortion will not be available in cases of rape and incest. and as melissa and dahlia have been discussing, there will be this effort to have extra territorial reach, so if you're
in alabama, you might want to try to criminalize efforts by your citizens to go to other states to obtain abortion services. and what all of this does, jose, it creates this environment of fear and uncertainty. and people who are concerned that perhaps alabama could prosecute them if they're in states like california, might become less clear about helping. i think that there will remain a strong contingent of people who will be supportive of women's rights, but at the margins when you have this sort of fear and uncertainty and risk, it can't stand on the exercise of rights, and that's one of the most deleterious parts of this opinion. it's a follow-on to what happened in texas with sb-8, where people were concerned about vigilante lawsuits and it became a concern, if you were an uber driver and drove a woman to a clinic, could you find yourself sued? now those are magnified in ways that tamp down on the exercise of what little rights women will have left in some states.
. it's important we continue having conversation on exactly that part of it. i want to bring in jennifer mascot, assistant professor of law at george mason university. if you're just joining us on msnbc, breaking news. 35 after the hour, the supreme court has overturned roe v. wade. accepting mississippi's law, upholding that mississippi law dobbs v. jackson women's health organization. i'm wondering what your reactions are, jennifer, to what we're living through right now? >> yes, well, thanks so much for having me this morning. it is a momentous day and a momentous decision and one folks have been waiting for. it's important to remember for the first 185 years of the country, the supreme court really had not weighed in on abortion, so in the decision in 1973 in roe v. wade, it was really the first time that the court was nationalizing the decision as a constitutional matter. so what the court really, the majority is doing today, is taking itself out of the seat of
power. acknowledging that the text and structure of the constitution has never spoken directly to the issue of abortion, and that because as folks have already noted this morning, it is such a contentious issue with so many deeply seeded views on both sides, it's an issue for states and local elected officials and the people's representatives to work through with them and not for the nine justices to come up with a one size fits all solution for the country. >> and jennifer, i think it's important to mention you support this decision, this morning. and i think that what joyce was saying, to see actually, i'm looking at the 200-plus page decision today, i have the first couple pages here. the first paragraph, it just says held, the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, roe and casey are overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. is this, jennifer, the correct
way for an issue that has been already precedent, law for nearly 50 years, to be handled? >> well, one of the things that the opinion acknowledges is that the reasoning in roe was criticized and challenged from the beginning, and the court itself over the years has seemed to have trouble settling on one particular test. for example, at one point the standard was the line of viability, or another time, trimester framework. then the court changed course a little bit in a decision called casey in the 1990s, where the court said it's going to be about whether there's an undue burden. i think the court has been struggling to figure out how to evaluate all the rules and regulations states have put into place, because the text of the constuesday doesn't speak directly to abortion itself, so the majority justices today see roe as a precedent that's already been questioned and changed by the court itself over
many years, and the court's trying to no longer sit in this political fashion and decide these important issues for the american people. knowing that there are important deeply held views on both sides. >> jennifer, i thank you for being with us on msnbc this morning. joining us now, alexis mcgill johnson, planned parenthood president and ceo. alexis, your reaction to this news. >> this is absolutely devastating. the court just told us that we are not equal. the court just told us that we don't have a right in the constitution to control our own bodies. and i can't think of anything more enraging, more absurd, more insane than overturning nearly 50 years of precedent of our ability to control our own bodies. it is absolutely horrifying, and all i can think about is the millions of people that are going to be affected. millions of people that, you know, we have seen as patients at planned parenthood, many
other independent providers out there, who are catching tears right now from their patients, knowing they won't be able to provide the care that they need. it is absolutely devastating. >> i mean, not only is roe v. wade no longer the law of the land, planned parenthood v. casey in 1992 is no longer. and i'm wondering, how -- what do you see the impact being immediately on the 50 states? >> look, we are already seeing the impact with just texas and oklahoma in play right now. this is over the last ten months, we have seen patients who are having to travel thousands of miles outside of their state just to get access to care. the extra burden when you talk about casey, the extra burden of what it takes to get time sensitive care in the middle of already caring for the family that you have. in the middle of traveling through a pandemic. we are seeing upwards of -- we will see 36 million women be affected by this.
they will live in those -- in the 24 states that we anticipate that will be freshly emboldened to pass not just restrictions overturning access to abortion in their state, but also criminalizing things like iuds, criminalizing things like ivf, like emergency contraception. this is the opening salvos on our bodies and self-determination. i think we'll see it get worse. >> what do you say to the people across the country watching in many in disbelief on maybe both sides of this issue? >> look, i'm telling you, i'm telling them, what we have been saying. we will not go back, and we will not back down. we are going to take this fight to every single state, and let people understand what is at stake right now. coming into this cycle, coming into '22. every single person who is running for anything is going to
eat this decision for breakfast. that's what's going to happen. they're going to have to not stand on the sidelines anymore. there is no opportunity. >> i'm just wondering, i mean, patients who have in the past been most personally affected by this issue have been people that don't have the means to travel to another state or even to another country. let's be honest. there are people who are just -- morgan radford was just reported last night on the many people who have been crossing the border into monterrey, mexico, to receive abortion. it's affecting people that cannot afford to go from state to state or to another country. >> absolutely. and this decision will insure that people will be forced into
pregnancy. no question about that. we're going to do everything we can to help every person who needs access to care. they can go to abortionfinder.org to identify what state regulations exist and to help them secure appointments, but it reality is that 24 states in the next couple months, as we see all of these bans come into play in all of these states, 24 states cannot absorb all of the health care of 50 states. and that is the real challenge here. right? that's the real challenge, that there are people who will not be able to travel. there are people who will not have the resources. there will be people who, you know, are living in scenarios where they are not able to get the care that they need, and we're going to fight like hell to insure that they can get the care and that we can help them get the resources, but the reality is this decision will be impacting so many patients, so
many people who won't be able to get out of state, for sure. >> of those 26 states that are certain or likely to ban abortion, let me just read the list, i think it's important. alabama, arizona, arkansas, georgia, idaho, iowa, kentucky, louisiana, michigan, mississippi, missouri, north dakota, ohio, oklahoma, south carolina, south dakota, tennessee, texas, west virginia, florida, indiana, mont, and nebraska. and we continue our conversation. michelle is with us, and michelle, you -- i'm sorry, melissa. melissa, what are your thoughts on this? >> i just wanted to return to something that professor mascot said. it is true that one could say this simply returns a vexed issue to the states to allow it to undertake the process of democratic deliberation, but it takes real chief to make that assertion just a day after this very same supreme court issued a decision that takes away from the states the opportunity to
have democratic deliberation on the vexed and contentious issue of gun control. within their own jurisdiction. just yesterday, the supreme court gave us a national solution to the question of whether states can craft their own regimes for concealed carry permits. so i'm sure the professor would then say the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated in the constitution and the right to an abortion is not, but there are lots of things that are not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, including any protection for women, also not enumerated in the constitution is executive privilege, which conservatives love to talk about. there are lots of things that are not in the constitution, but this grant of liberty in the 14th amendment covers those rights of heart and home, of intimate association we all take for granted because this court in the past has protected them, and today that bends. >> and is that, melissa, a fate acomplea across the board. i don't know if it's across the board, i think we are going to see, as joyce said, more
litigation. justice thomas has invited more litigation in his concurrence around questions involving same-sex marriage and contraception. i'm sure we will see some developments on that front in the future. this is not a court that is necessarily a one fell swoop kind of intervention, like they do things in increments. we saw this just last week with their ruling on the maine case regarding tuition payments to religious schools. that's a decision that was basically four or five years in the making overthree opinions. this will be the same case. we'll have this return to the states but we're also going to see a lot of other litigation to follow about the scope and substance of this ruling, and whether or not its implications are going to be as far reaching as some in the conservative legal movement would like. >> dahlia, is this something you are forecasting we're going to be seeing in short order? >> i believe so. i think it's very, very clear that this was not the end game. this was the beginning of the end game. and i think whether it's a
national personhood standard or whether it's as melissa just said, starting to unravel obergefell and lawrence and other protections for lgbtq americans, whether it's a tax on contraception which we're already seeing. we're already seeing in states that are sweeping in certain forms of contraception as abortivephasia. and one other point i want to make to dovetail was melissa said, the notion that just 24 hours ago, the court found that the right to own a gun, to carry a gun out on the street is so fundamental that it cannot be left to the states to sort it out, and yet today, we find out that the right to be a woman and make a decision as a pregnant person about your own body is something that can cavalierly be disposed of as states see fit is such, such a shocking, shocking
sho dilanian is outside the supreme court. what are you seeing? >> jose, are you going to me? >> yes, i am. >> sorry. yeah, it's really noisy here. the crowd has probably -- is fivefold larger than before the decision was announced and i'm sure it's going to grow as the day goes on. as you can see, we're surrounded by people on both sides of the issue, and we have seen members of congress come down here, marjorie taylor greene, the conservative member, came and had an impromptu prayer vigil. as you can see behind me, black fencing is keeping people away from the court building itself, as it has for some time. but we're just seeing a really raucous scene here. as the supreme court has essentially reshaped american life over two days with a major
gun decision yesterday and obviously this removing the right to an abortion today. the crowds here are simply growing, jose. >> and just if you would, just give us an idea of what kind of issues people are talking about. clearly, today's decision of the supreme court to overturn roe v. wade is the major and only thing that they're talking about right now. >> yeah, of course. look, the people who had come to a venue at this at a time like this tend to be the activists on both sides. you have a lot of passion on both sides. you have a lot of signs and demonstrations and bull horns. people are very passionate, obviously, about this outcome today on both sides. and so far, it's been largely peaceful. there's a huge retinue of law enforcement officers probably you can't see in the shot but who are in the background here. peaceful but raucous. >> ken, stay with us. i want to get back to joyce
vance. we're coming up on 49 after the hour, the supreme court overturned roe v. wade. we're living through this breaking news. if you would, joyce, just give us a broad picture of what exactly happened today. >> the supreme court roomed that 50 years of abortion rights for women in america, the court has held that there is no right to abortion, and that it's up to states to decide the fate of women. so that's our broad-brush outlook. obviously, this is a ruling that was expected after the alito draft of this opinion was leaked several weeks ago, and this final version of the opinion does not appear in substance to be very different from that leaked draft. for instance, the same majority is in place for this ruling. so the top-level takeaway is that abortion is now at the whim
of the states, and that means that states are free to do whatever they want to do to women in this area. they can make abortion illegal. making illegal in cases involving rape and incest. in many states like in alabama, scramb scrambling, zombie laws are on the book. the question, whether or not they go into effect immediately. there is a possibility beginning today, because people will are concerned whether they're complying with the law, we will see many of the few remaining clinics in parts of the country unfriendly to abortion rights, we will see those clinics shutter their abortion services for the last time. so while the effect of this in the first instance the media. we know there's a lot more to come. melissa and dahlia mentioned it, and in justice thomas' opinion specifically points out, like the rate to same-sex marriage,
like for instance, the privacy rights to birth control, those are also vulnerable. it doesn't seem unlikely we'll see very quick passage of statutes by some state legislatures, very quick legislation to test whether those rights will hold up. it's very difficult, i think, to overstate what a watershed moment this is in american jurs jurisprudence. >> and 8% increase from 2017. i'm thinking, dahlia, joyce talking about "other" privacy rights, that may be affected. oh, nancy pelosi is about to speak. sorry for the interruption, dahlia. let's go to capitol hill and nancy pelosi. >> there's no point in saying good morning, because it certainly is not one. this morning the radical supreme
court is eviscerating american rights and endangering their health and safety, but the congress will continue to act to overcome this extremism and protect the american people. today the republican-controlled supreme court achieved their dark, extreme goal over ruling a woman's right to make their own health decisions. because of donald trump, mitch mcconnell, and the republican party, they're supermajority in the supreme court, american women today have less freedom than their mothers, with roe and their attempt to destroy it radical republicans are charging ahead with their crusade to criminalize health freedom. in the congress, be aware of this. the republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban.
they cannot be allowed to have majority in the congress to do that, but that's their goal. and if you read, and, again, we're all studying all this, but if you read what is in the very clear -- one of the justices had his own statement -- it's about contraception, in vitro fertilization, family planning. that is all what will spring from their decision that they made today. such a contradiction. yesterday they say the states cannot make laws governing the constitutional right to bear arms, and today they're saying the exact reverse, that the states can overturn a
constitutional right, for 50 rights, a constitutional right, for one having a right to choose. the hypocrisy is raging, but the harm is endless. what this means to women is such an insult. it's a slap in the face to women about using their own judgment to make their own decisions about their reproductive freedom, and, again, it goes well -- i always have said, determination of a pregnancy is just their opening act. it's just their front game, but because, beyond -- behind it in four years, i have seen endless congress opposition to any family planning, domestic or global. when we have had those discussions and those debates, and those votes on the floor of the house. this is deadly serious.
but we are not going to let this pass. a woman's right to choose reproductive freedom, is on the ballot in november. we cannot allow them to take charge so that they can institute their goal, which is to criminalize reproductive freedom. to criminalize it. right now they're saying in states that they can arrest doctors and all the rest. what is happening here? what is happening here? a woman's fundamental health decisions are her own to make in consultation with her doctor, her faith, her family. not some right-wing politicians that donald trump and mitch mcconnell packed the court with. while republicans seek to punish and control women, democrats will keep fighting ferociously to enshrine roe v. wade into the
law of the land. this cruel ruling is outrageous and heart wrenching, but make no mistake. again, it's all on the ballot in november. the supreme court has ended a constitutional right. this is -- 50 years proclaimed a constitutional right. what happened today was historic in many respects. historic in that it had not granted, recognized the constitutional right and then reversed it. this is a first. and, again, just before an imposed constitutional right to allow for concealed weapons. how about those justices coming before the senators and saying that they -- they respect that -- sorry, the president of
the court, that they respect the right of privacy in the constitutional of the united states? did you hear that? were they not telling the truth then? again -- just getting to the gun issue, because, really, in preparation for this morning i was really in an exalted state about what happened in the united states senate yesterday. counterpoint to the dangerous decision of this trumpian supreme court that they made yesterday, but a way to take us to, as the bill is called "community safety." the pied partisan safe ircommunity act. right now, i have to leave momentarily because we just finished voting on the room, we will be debating the bill on the floor and we expect a good
bipartisan vote on it in the house. we congratulate the senate on the work that they have done, and the timeliness of it to be passed in the senate in a strong bipartisan day on a day when the court made such a dangerous, dangerous decision. we will -- however, house democrats proposal, that are included in this package are that, keep deadly weapons out of dangerous hands by encouraging states to establish extreme risk protection border laws, otherwise known at red flag law. help end straw purchases, close the boyfriend loophole. so many good things are in, there and it's not everything that we wanted. we must keep moving towards background checks, but universal background checks, which will save the most lives, but this will save lives. so listen to lucy mcgrath and
other family members of those who have lost their loved ones, this is a giant step forward. maybe not so much a giant, but a strong step forward, and if it's good enough for them, then we rejoice in passing it. as i say to members all the time with legislation, do not judge it for what isn't in it, but respect it for what is. and there's much to be respected in this legislation. on a happier note, yesterday we celebrated 50 years of title ix, which has transformed equality and opportunity in our country. are you familiar with the words of title ix? yesterday we had billie jean king here once again celebrating title ix unveiling a portrait of, of patsy mink who is author in the house working with birch he