Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Reports  MSNBC  June 24, 2022 8:00am-9:00am PDT

8:00 am
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 in the senate working to make
8:01 am
this law of the land. it says, "no person in the united states shall on the basis of sex be excluded from participation in being denied the benefits of or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." again, in honor of this anniversary, we unveiled a portrait which will hang in the halls. it's about our first. the first -- she's actually the first woman of color to serve in the congress. so she's honored for her first burt also for what she accomplished. we already have -- >> good friday morning. i'm garrett haake in washington listening to house speaker nancy pelosi reacting to what is "the" most seismic supreme court ruling in a generation. continuing breaking news coverage. granting abortion rights nationwide. this is the most highly anticipated decision in this supreme court session.
8:02 am
probably the most highly anticipated decision in at least a decade. this decision centered on the case dobbs versus jackson involving a mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. this was a widely expected decision after politico published a draft last month written by justice samuel alito. alito also wrote majority opinion in today's final decision. planned parenthood out with a blisters statement saying "the supreme court has taken away our trite abortion and overturned roe versus wade opening the floodgates for states across the country to ban abortion. the court has failed us all, but this is far from over." the news now generating immediate, emotional reaction from both sides of the issue outside the supreme court building. >> it feels like a betrayal. it feels like the country doesn't love me, and appreciate my body as a woman. i can't even -- i can't even chat. i can't say anything. i just -- it hurts.
8:03 am
>> this is the first build agriculture of life and we want to support families, people who are in crisis pregnancies especially low-income women and women in rural areas. >> nbc justice correspondent pete williams will join me in a moment. with me now is joyce vance, former u.s. attorney. melissa murray, nyu law professor and former law clerk to justice sonia sotomayor and former federal and state prosecutors in new york, also tom goldstein from scotus blog, expert on all things supreme court and tom start with you. walk us through details of this ruling and what will be its immediate impact? >> the supreme court overrules roe v. wade saying the states have no obligation to allow abortion in any circumstance, except, perhaps, to save the life of the mother. no rape, no insist. that it is up to the legislatures to decide this question. the court says, oh, you know,
8:04 am
don't think this necessarily calls into question other decisions we've had about privacy rights under the constitution. like about contraception or same-sex marriage. we'll leave that for know day but are not threatening those today. it is a full and complete and utter repudiation of any right under the constitution to an abortion. >> more than a double states, joyce, have so-called trigger laws put in place for this moment to put various stages of bans on abortion in place should roe versus wade be overturned. talk to me about the legal reality in states like my home state of text, 30 million with 30 days until that trigger law goes into effect? >> the legal reality on the ground is that clinics will shutter as much because of fear and uncertainty as because of the law. in many of these states with new trigger laws or old zombie laws that will come back to life from
8:05 am
the pre-roe era, there will be a huge amount of uncertainty about when and under what circumstances women can still get an abortion, and in many cases, that right no longer exists, and it will be a crime to obtain one. in other states, abortion will still be available, in some very limited circumstances, but because there will be so much uncertainty, there will be a further tamping down on women's willingness to obtain these services on people around them, their willingness to help, because at bottom, when you're facing the prospect of decades in prison because of obtaining what up until today was a fundamental right guaranteed to women, it's a moment where people pause, and a moment where people recalibrate, and one of the most important long-term effects of a ruling like this is its ability to bring about societal change. today we see, for instance, the young woman on the steps of the supreme court outraged about the
8:06 am
loss of her rights. the real problem here is whether there's a social trajectory here that begins to devalue women, devalue the rights of women to make their own decisions about their own body, because now the law of the land is that any state, any place, can begin the process and many of the states are scrambling right now to see what they need to do to bring these laws into practice. the last thing that i'll say is that, for instance, in alabama where we have old laws on the books, there is an active discussion under way about whether someone, the attorney general, or some other litigant, needs to go into court to remove restrictions on those laws that were put in place when roe versus wade was passed, but those efforts in the courts will be fast. i don't know that the courts will rule quickly, but i suspect in states like alabama we can expect to see prompt rulings. >> sure. >> the supreme court has set the process in motion. the states will complete it. >> there's another one of those zombie laws in michigan getting
8:07 am
a lot of attention. probably discuss a little later. looking at live pictures from outside of supreme court. ken dilanian from outside the court. ken, warnings about possibilities of political violence when these decisions come down. the fact we knew a lot of what was going to be in this decision, or thought we knew based on that leaked draft opinion, doesn't fear have dampened the shock at all outside the court. really, on both sides of this issue. tell me a little what you're seeing out there, what is the mood on the steps of the court this morning? >> reporter: i think you're exactly right, garrett. there have been demonstrators from both sides of this issue coming here every day. the opinions were be to be announced in anticipation of the decision, but the crowd has grown astronomically since announced. i can't even really -- i don't have a full picture how big it is. there are people as far as the eye can see from where i'm standing, and the capitol police, looks like they own this stretch of ground and are around
8:08 am
ins for but not anything like a real perimeter. it's not like people are searched as they come in here. i think there are real questions that will grow as this day unfolds about what is the level of security here? the mood is, so far, i got to say, it's peaceful. you know? there are people of all stripes here from all sides of this issue. some, you know, wearing the same shirt and demonstrating, and others just -- looks like people walked over from the hill. hill staffers here. a couple members of congress we saw. so -- so far not, nothing angry or violent but i think it's a situation that bears watching as the day unfolds. >> for folks not familiar with the layout of washington, d.c., the supreme court just behind us really right across the park from the u.s. capitol. open streets. it's been recently surrounded by one of those no-scale fences we got used to seeing after january --
8:09 am
tonight. >> ken dilanian, we'll come back to you. joining us from st. louis, missouri. what are you seeing in missouri? >> reporter: well, the first state in the country that has officially made abortion illegal. the attorney general wasting no time in this state and making that proclamation shortly after the decision came down in washington. a little background for viewers how this works. here in the state of missouri, in 2019 they passed a law. hb-126. as you've said a trigger law. there are 13 states in the country where this exists. that law basically says if the court overturns roe v. wade all that needs to happen either the attorney general, state's legislature or the governor issue as proclamation and then abortion is immediately illegal in the state. the attorney general was the first to sign it. the governor, mike parsons, also put out a proclamation. that proclamation unnecessary.
8:10 am
a duplicate. the fact remains abortion, again, now illegal in missouri. this planned parenthood behind me is the only censor in the entire state women can go to receive an abortion. it is an indication and when you talk to planned parenthood, talking to them all morning, it's an indication how difficult care was to preserve in missouri. conservative state legislature. words of planned parenthood, state legislatures that declared war on women's health. a chilling effect after this legislation it is presumed well beyond abortion. reproductive health, it will become more difficult 0 access and certainly missouri is one of those states to keep an eye on, because it is such a conservative state and because, garrett, as you know, the state house, governor, the attorney general, all republican. in was no stopping what was to come together. again, this proclamation following the decision in washington. worth noting, of course, in this law, hb-126, now a class-b
8:11 am
felony if you assist or conduct an abortion that can come with 5 to 15 years in prison. echoing what the guests have been saying this hour here. >> very conservative legislature there, and if you live in western missouri, in a place like kansas city, geography now becomes a factor. becomes a question when you start talking about abortion access. if you live in kansas city, you're a very long way from potentially being able to access abortion services. bringing in ali vitali from our capitol hill team running around trying to gather reaction. ali, again, this decision, not a surprise to lawmakers, democrats in particular have been gaming out steps to take in the event of this decision to try to put what speaker pelosi described into action, which would be codifying roe. votes don't exist to do that now. what can and will we see from democratic lawmakers in reaction to this rooming today? >> reporter: you point out it's not a surprises in terms of substance. in my text messages with
8:12 am
lawmakers and conversations having around the hill now, it's still no less stinging and jarring. especially for the women lawmakers who i'm talking to. many of them saying that their scared for this moment. all of the interviews i've done over my years covering the politics of this issue, women just continue to remind that this going to be something that puts other women's lives in jeopardy. i've spoken to lawmakers who have themselves had their own abortions in a time preprotection of the roe and they talked about the fact that they just felt lucky they survived that experience, because of how unsafe it was. there's also the conversation that speaker pelosi is having right now as she did her press conference. she made the important point saying it's not just about abortion. it's about contraception. it's about ivf, miscarriages. wide-ranging that were in roe and casey in the griswald
8:13 am
decision also now called into question here. a lot of these lawmakers making that point. i do think that the other piece of this that's important is the way that this supreme court came together in and of itself. people like joe manchin, susan collins. people key votes to confirm some of these conservative justices now coming out and saying in their statements that they trusted the things that these justices said, like gorsuch and kavanaugh saying in confirmation hearings they believe roe was settled precedent. super precedent effectively saying they wouldn't touch it. of course, we see on the decision they did touch it and overturn the entire thing. something we're hearing from senators this morning. a few different prongs to this but i can tell you among lawmakers on the democratic side i've spoken to a lot of rage and a lot of pushing towards november as they say, this is a ballot box issue now. >> ali, dig into that a little more. you are i think -- luck toy have your expertise on this. literally written a book about
8:14 am
women in politics and how particularly this, the salience of this issue. we have a generation of women on capitol hill especially in the house who have only served, in many cases only lived in a post-roe country. how do you see this issue being adapted to the midterm politics? i mean, you know, i'm not the one making this political. this is in speaker pelosi's statement and chuck schumer's statement right out of the gate saying a question that will go to voters. saw it in 2018. battle for suburbs. battle for the moms of america. how do you see the salience of this issue moving up in the decision-making tree, if you will, for voters and for how democrats trying desperately to hold on to that house majority will approach voters getting towards the fall? >> reporter: such an untested issue. you and i cover campaigns when not in this building and we know how galvanizing the idea of reproductive rights can be on both sides of this issue. so i think now that democratic women especially are faced with
8:15 am
reality that this is something that has been taken away from them, they are going to vote, and we are watching it in polling. went from an issue not on anybody's radar, because settled precedent for 49 years. now we've watched even in the instance between when the draft decision was leaked up to now, 16 point jumps in nbc news poll how this became a priority. that is key. then the other thing you point out here is 2018 is actually a really great parallel for democrats. abortion is health care. democrats were able to leverage health care as an issue in 2018 to do well in the suburbs and well in key house race es. running good female candidates by and large. people good fits for their district, but same time it was women who were able to go in and represent interests of those communities, and this is an issue i think that female messengers just -- you need their credibility now in this moment. i think it's definitely a potential game-changer for midterms. then, of course, also you look
8:16 am
to the states i think specifically of michigan and know that's something your panel spoke about. they have that sommely law there. gretchen whit meche up for re-election for her governor's seat. filed court cases. one of the most pro active governorsing on the issue. i was on the phone with her the other day talking about the steps taken. trying in her state to at least create momentum behind protecting abortion care. i think the really important thing here, when the house failed to pass the women's health friction act, kind of it. we've seen and i reported on the fact they want biden to take executive actions. things they can do that kind of nibble around the edges. in terms of a wide-scale protection, court ruled that back. took i way the rights today and congress is pretty hamstrung and the federal government hamstrung in terms of bringing semblance of that back. >> you mentioned michigan. i mention another state. pennsylvania. a governor's rate there where the republican nominee in pennsylvania has said he would
8:17 am
be in favor of banning abortion access outright in pennsylvania. going to be a very salient issue on the ballot there as well. back to the panel here talk about states -- back up a little bit. this decision removes a federal protections for abortion right. gets rid of roe. states where abortion rights are legal, nothing in this immediate decision that affects those laws. so talking about a state like new york. talking about now all of a sudden going to have a restriction on supply, if you will, for abortion access, but not a restriction on demand. what happens in a state like new york? where abortion will remain legal and you'll see, perhaps, an uptick in demand from women around the country? >> well, that's right. and our governor, governor hochul, has already been preparing for this moment, in understanding that new york and state like it are receiving states that women of means, or those who can find support might
8:18 am
be able to come here and we have been working in new york on expanding, but this is not really a solution, of course, to what is an enormous national problem, and i think it's really important to say as we look out at the landscape of what's going on to go on around the country, in this moment, 26 states on the other side. those trigger and ghost laws were written under the shadow of roe v. wade, and in some ways quite strategic trying to sort of guess at how far the supreme court might let them go, and now the answer is that states and also the federal government can go as far as they want to in banning abortion completely. no matter how young the pregnant girl or woman, from the moment of fertilization without exceptions for ape and incest.
8:19 am
bad as the situation is in this moment i think we can expect the law will shift and there's conversation could it be a goal for anti-choice movement to have a federal ban on abortion that is as absolute as what this opinion now allows. >> i want to bring in josh lederman. with us from the white house. josh, we know the white house also expected this ruling at some point. they got it today. what are we expecting to see in terms of response from the president? >> reporter: garrett, we've not heard response yet from the white house and the president but learned president biden will speak. he will deliver remarks on-camera at 12:30 p.m. on the supreme court's ruling in this case. the president will speak from the cross hall according to the white house, which is a location within the white house residence where you've often seen the president give addresses to the nation, and we've seen some activity here at the white house in the last half an hour as chairs were being removed from the west wing.
8:20 am
clearly a lot of officials trying to figure out exactly what the president is going to say. even though, as you point out, thiv had a lot of time to prepare for this. in fact, preparations for the eeventuality or possibility of a ruling like this was started, we are told, even before that draft ruling leaked weeks ago. there are really three buckets of areas where the white house is going to be looking to address. the ramifications of this ruling today. one is, of course, the ramifications for abortion for women in states across the country with the president looking for what executive action he can take to try to help there. there's not going to be a panacea. no executive order that president biden can sign that will restore a constitutional right that the supreme court has just taken away. instead, the white house counsel's office, the white house gender council, the domestic policy council looking for weeks whether there are action some federal agencies can
8:21 am
take to try to ensure some protections. for example, whether the justice department can ensure the ability for women to cross from one state to another, and in search of access to abortion. whether the fda can ease some of the remaining restrictions on medication abortion. abortion pills on how they are distributed by pharmacies in various places to make sure that is more of an option to women in the wake of this decision. now, secondly i think there's concern at the white house right now about whether we are going to see unrest. not necessarily what we see right now outside the supreme court, which so far has been quite peaceful, but whether there is a possibility given the strong feelings on this issue across the country that we could see civil unrest in various cities. that is something that the white house will be working with law enforcement authorities to make sure they're prepared are to the possibility of that happening. of course, the security for the supreme court justices also top of mind as the administration recently stepped up the security that is offered to them.
8:22 am
we will look to see whether even more security steps will be taken now that this ruling is out. then the third bucket is really the political. you and ali vitali just spoke about the white house. very aware the only thing that can really be done to restore this right is for congress to act. that will require far more democrats in the senate than are currently there, and so that is going to be a major political argument you will hear president biden making as he is on the campaign trail this fall. campaigning for democrats across the country who are running in the midterm elections. we should expect to get a preview of the way that president biden will be framing that argument, and the need to elect lawmakers who will restore the right to abortion for women. when president biden delivers those remarks in just about an hour from here at the white house, garrett. >> josh lederman at the white house. thank you, josh. whatever else you get, bring it back to us. we'll look for the president at
8:23 am
12 350shgs. 12:30. and now bring in senator coons of delaware. senator, this ruling not really a surprise, but yet here we are again, and i don't find it, at least folks i've been talking to, don't find it in less shocking to read it today knows it was probably going to happen. what was your reaction when you saw this ruling and what jumped out to you as you've had about opportunity to digest where we are in this moment? >> garrett, i was speechless when i heard just in the last hour that a conservative majority on the supreme court has struck down a 50-year established liberty. a right of freedom. and has changed the lives of tens of millions of american women, and will make even more unequal access to reproductive health care. look in blue states like mine. this right will continue, and women will continue to have the freedom to choose how and when
8:24 am
they will have a family, but in roughly half the states, abortion will be criminalized. either immediately. it's already happened in a number of states. announcements made. or in the coming weeks as they implement laws now on the books. i'm left wondering, what else is next with this activist conservative majority? what other well-established long-standing rights to privacy, to freedom, are at risk. this is a day i will never forget, where i was when i heard this dobbs decision came down. it's hundreds of pages. i have not read through it yet, but my understanding from my chief counsel is that the concurrence by justice thomas points the way to even more grave consequences, even broader ambitions by this activist conservative majority. so this is a very hard day. and i think this will drive our
8:25 am
country further apart. it will make even harder the lives of women whose ability to make their own choices to decide for themselves, their future and their family will be even harder after this decision. >> senator, i did get a moment to skim through concurrences justice thomas amend kavanaugh. interesting for different reasons but back to what you say about justice thomas' concurrence. he does seem to open the door here. if you get rid of roe and casey, which this decision does, you cerebrally get rid of this fundamental right to privacy, they say is nots in the constitution. i think we can snaeb a 50/50 senator you won't be able to pass something re-establish protections in roe. is it possible, see the senate potentially act to perhaps make sure this court or a conservative majority court in the future can go no further to roll back some of those rights that were built upon the
8:26 am
precedents established there in roe and in casey? >> look, the reason i voted against justice kavanaugh, justice gorsuch, i was greatly concerned whether they would in fact respect these long-settled presidents. roe and casey, and the underpinnings on which they rest. a right to privacy. something that is as old as i am and has been the foundation on which a whole bunch of other things. access to contraception, marriage equality. many other things rest. and as i raised in the confirmation hearings for these justices, i'm also concerned about their ambition to knock out the underpinning of the administrative state. the ability of the federal government to provide for clean air and clean water, for safe baby formula and for access to safe food and safe working spaces. so we don't know the trajectory
8:27 am
here, but millions and millions of americans women today know that they don't enjoy the same freedoms and rights that their mothers did decades ago, and if this court takes us back to where we were in the 1920s, and before, in terms of the ability of the federal government to provide for privacy and protection and liberty, we could be in a very different country in a short order. that's why this issue is on the ballot this fall. that's why state and local elections and federal elections matter more than ever before. >> just over 12 hours ago -- >> we passed a bipartisan gun bill, mental health. i went to bed with the possibilities we could legislate on issues that mattered to the american people. but the supreme court has done today, rip away a decades -- old settled right, and an ability
8:28 am
for american women to choose their own future. this court seems more concerned about making certain that americans can carry guns anywhere and anytime they want than it is about protecting long-established freedoms. >> i'm glad you mentioned state elections. the decision goes to great pains to talk about this being a question for the states to answer. representatives of the people at the state level. seems like that is where the rubber meets the road in terms of real action on this issue going forward. senator also i want to ask, you're on the judiciary committee. i covered the kavanaugh hearings with you. so much of the focus on the end of justice kavanaugh's confirmation on his personal background. beneath all that a discussion about his views on precedent and his concurrence here is largely about defending what seems like a departure from what he told senators during his confirmation about the value he placed on established precedent.
8:29 am
basically debating with himself, know, when to overrule a precedent you think is fundamentally wrong. my question is, do you think brett kavanaugh misled either yourself or the other senators who were very concerned about this. like a susan collins. about what he believed about precedent when it came particularly to the question of roe? >> i'll let other senators speak for themselves, and i look -- i don't look forward to -- i will read the concurrence and the opinion in this case before giving a fuller answer, but certainly my gut reaction is, yes. i feel in a the statements that were made in the confirmation hearings at least of those three justices about their respect for long-settled opinion is sharply in contrast with this decision overturning such a central and long-established president and given what i know and heard about the thomas concurrence that i will read later today, i'm gravely concerned about where else this court may take
8:30 am
us, if this right can be taken away. so abruptly, what other freedoms are at risk. >> an open question and one i'm sure we'll talk about more in the not too distant future. senator senator chris coons. thank you for joining us. and outside of planned parenthood what do you see there now, cal? i understand you're joined by someone who would like to talk to you. >> reporter: yeah. starting to see not only media gathering but folks out here to make their voices heard. reminder to viewers, the attorney general here in the state signing a proclamation announces missouri is the first state to make abortion illegal. joined by representative cori bush. as reminder, the only facility in the state of missouri offering abortion. as of right now, provided somebody has an abortion, class felony. 5 to 15 years in prison.
8:31 am
what is it like to hear me report that news to america? >> it's, it is horrifying. it's horrifying, because we are talking about taking away a person's freedom of their own body. their bodily autonomy, and their trite their own health care. you know, we are -- we have been working for years to make sure that we tackle the disparities in health care nap we are doing the work to make sure anybody who needs care, much as we can, that people have access to care. to health care. what's that is. we're not all the way there but that's been the work. then for now to have this far right extremist racist classiest bigoted supreme court strike down roe v. wade, and -- for them to make the decision when majority of the people of this country have said that they
8:32 am
don't want roe v. wade overturned. for various reasons. sitting in -- we were just in a meeting with secretary of health, the secretary of the department of health and human services. the secretary in st. louis what happens to a state like hours, what happens in missouri? >> reporter: whatevered if you can't find access. >> right now what will hppen, you cannot get an abortion in missouri, it's done. signed. done. you can still get an abortion fwhop clinics in illinois across the river to receive services. what i've been told by the advocates just now over the last few minutes is, if you were supposed to have abortion services, you know, this weekend, you don't have an appointment in missouri, but get on the phone immediately and call illinois. get an appointment. because the waiting list is filling up, because not only is
8:33 am
it people who have been affected in missouri but in other states as well. but they are going to do everything they can, plane, train and automobile, to make sure people get the care. transportation costs, costs for the services. lodging, whatever is needed. child care. they're going to do best they can to help everyone. >> reporter: before i let you know. you're busy. this happened before. ruling happened. are you worried what's to come? >> absolutely. this has been -- it's absolutely horrible. talking about, is marriage equality next? interracial marriage next? what about birth control? all of those things are not only on the table. we know that this is, these are things we've been hearing about, and, we won't lay down and take this. we are keeping fighting, rallying and make sure people have care. >> personal for millions of women. >> absolutely. >> reporter: you testified before congress. what was it like when you heard the news? >> so i'm standing at the place where i had my own abortion
8:34 am
care, services, at 18 years old. i got raped at 17. and i was able to be back here with the secretary -- >> reporter: here? >> here. able to be here as the congresswoman, able to advocate for people like me. advocate for those that i have been around as a nurse. advocating for those that i sent here. hey, this is where you go get services. and -- as we're sitting in there we, the announcement was made. as we're talking, sitting with the secretary that announcement was made. it -- it -- it -- it broke my heart, because i'm thinking about the people who today found out that they were pregnant. found out they were pregnant a few weeks ago trying to figure out what to do. takes more than a minute to make a decision what you're going to do that will affect your lif for years to come and affect the life of another human being. it's not something people can automatically make a decision in
8:35 am
a matter of weeks or a couple days or a few hours. sometimes it takes time and we're stripping that from people. i didn't even find out i -- didn't know i was pregnant at six weeks. to say that, to restrict people's right to their own body and their own decisions, it broke me down. i think about my daughter who will never, never know what it's like to live in a roe v. wade, a roe v. wade constitutionally protected society. i know. i only know what that's like. she won't. but it's my -- it's my work. it's the work of our office every single day and my colleagues in congress and so many others to make sure that we are, that care is happening and people know where to get it. >> representative bush, thank you so much for your time sharing your story. grateful. garrett, back to you. >> cal, thank you very much for that reporting and, please, thank the congresswoman for us. she has spoken about her own personal experience in the part and quite well and quite powerfully. back to ken dilanian joining us
8:36 am
again from outside the supreme court. ken? >> reporter: garrett, here with congressman tim ryan of ohio who's an important voice on the democratic party and whose position on issue of abortion evolved. congressman, what's your reaction to this decision today? >> absolute largest governmental overreach in history of our lifetime. we're a country of expanding rights. now we're, with this supreme court taking rights away. this is government mandated pregnancy. if you're going to defer to the ohio law, then the ohio law says pregnant through rape, incest, you must bring that baby to term. so i thought we in a free society here, and i thought women had rights and they were free like everyone else, but evidently they're not, and concern is i think for everybody watching this right now, the concern is justice thomas, what he wrote, he wrote about going after birth control next. right? going after same-sex marriage next. that's the era we live in and i hope people are waking up.
8:37 am
this is terrible about roe but going well beyond that, if they have anything to do with it. >> reporter: your position on issue of abortion evolved over the years. tell me about volved because i talking and hearing stories of women with very complicated pregnancies and came over time, talked to more and more of these women with circumstances and realized government has no business being in there. you want madison in your bedroom, matt gaetz? your bedroom and doctor's office? madison cawthorn and gaetz? got to be a sustained movement of americans expanding rights. same-sex marriage? you got a gay kid that's married? they're coming after your kid next. everybody needs to be aware of that. >> reporter: you're chairman of a committee overseeing the capitol police. do they have security any hand?
8:38 am
>> feel pretty good. a great police presence in and out of uniform. police dogs. we should be in good shape. >> reporter: thanks congressman. back to you, garrett. >> ken dilanian with looking to flip a red senate seat in ohio. tim ryan, and ken, thank you both. and congresswoman sarah jacobs outside the supreme court. congresswoman, democrat of california. congresswoman jacobs if you're with us now, i just want to ask you, sort of your personal reaction to hearing about this today? i know the minute this decision came down i heard from some of the women in my life who were shocked and who were horrified. and people who knew this was coming. right? all been following this story for more than a month now. i don't know that as guys we understand and feel this quite in the same way that women will when they hear about these kinds of decisions. so if you wouldn't mind, just tell me about how you felt when you heard this decision today? >> when i heard the decision i
8:39 am
literally started shaking. i'm furious. i am so angry. i'm so angry that i'm going to have less rights than my mother and my grandmother and that my children might have even less? i'm angry that five radical judges think they know more about what decisions i need to make about my body and my health care. than i do. i'm frankly angry we haven't done what we need to do in congress and codify roe v. wade at the law of the land and not relying on a radical supreme court for our rights. >> options are limited in the house obviously, congresswoman. you need more democratic senators. you need that kind of majority potentially to pass the kind of legislation you're talking about in the senate. how do you see this issue politically in the midterms? you know, california's one thing, but you've got to win -- tim ryan, our last guest harks to win a senate seat in ohio for this to be the kind of things that can have change coming from congress. how do you see this issue
8:40 am
playing in congress? >> as one of the few women of reproductive age in congress this decision is deeply personal to me and to people across the country. we need to abolish the filibuster and make sure we a pro-choice majority in house and senate to codify roe v. wade once and for all as the law of the land. >> congress rahm sarah jacobs outside the supreme court. thank you for your time. going now to really a state you could argue is at the front lines of the coming national fight. we're going to have about abortion. that's texas. former texas state senate wendy davis with us now. ms. davis, you and i talked this issue recently when i was in texas reporting on this draft opinion when it first came out. texas is a state with a trigger law. 30 days from now essentially all apportions in the state of texas will be illegal. no state in the country where this is issue is probably more on the ballot than in the governor's race that you're having right now in the state of texas.
8:41 am
talk to me about how texans and women in texas feel about this issue and how you see the political landscape around this issue in the lone star state? >> thanks so much, garrett. you know, women in texas, people in texas, are no different than voters in states across the country in terms of their attitude, perspectives, about the need to protect autonomy and the right to make decisions about our own bodies. so i think we are going to see, i hope, a backlash in november by voters who honestly believed, even after that draft opinion was leaked, that somehow magically this right was not going to go away. it is a sobering reality that we wake up today. it is a sorrowful reality that we wake up to today, and i know that for the generations younger than me, my daughters, and my
8:42 am
granddaughters and those of us around this country and in my state who love them, we wake up today with a new resolve to make sure that we're fighting for their futures, and that's what november is going to be about here. it's also going to mean that on the ground tactically we are going to need to do everything we can to get people from our state to other states who are going to need access to safe and legal abortion care. that means protecting the abortion funds here. they are going to be under the gun literally with criminal and civil penalties threatened against them for helping women to leave texas and go elsewhere, and we're going to see that all over the country. so there are many practical things that we're going to have to put our, our minds around and our work around to ensure that in this period of time, where
8:43 am
roe has died in states like mine, we will do everything we can to continue to provide access to that care to as many people as possible. >> and in texas, majority of voters are in favor of -- making sure they have access to abortion, know, all the time or with some limitations. polling pretty consistent even in a state as well as texas on other issues. i wonder how you think lawmakers in texas, state-level lawmakers in texas, win one way with plurality of voters in texas seem to go a different way? >> it's such a good question, garrett, and, really, it's because we are being ruled by literally a tyranny of the minority. in states like texas where we have had radical gerrymandering so that only primaries matter, and where we've been chopped into a majority of republican
8:44 am
seats and those republican candidates and office holders believe that they only need to be held accountable to a vast minority of voters who are voting in primaries and deciding the outcomes of their elections. that's how we wind up where we are, and i think it's really important in this moment where we are shocked and angry and upset about what's happening with roe to understand that it is rooted in voting rights, and it is rooted in our inability to break through this filibuster-proof senate and do something about the very voting rights that are stripping our voices from the policymaking decisions of legislators in states like mine. >> wendy davis, former democratic state senator out of texas. ms. davis, thank four coming on with this breaking news. back to talley weinstein. nearly a quarter women in the u.s. will have an abortion by
8:45 am
age 45 according to the "american journal of public health." in 2020 something like 900,000 american women had an abortion. do we understand fully the impact of a decision like this is going to have on public life in america? i mean, help viewers understand the scale that we're really talking about here. >> it is so hard to absorb that impact. in part because we are now looking at a period of enormous instability around the country as laws change. both in receiving states. you know, blue states like new york. and in states where abortion will now be criminalized, and i think that that's really important to focus on that instability and how the supreme court dealt with it in this opinion. you know, i'm thinking right now about just is sandra day o'connor for whom i clerked at the supreme court and what she must be thinking today.
8:46 am
she was part of that trio of colleagues who wrote in the casey decision that whatever you think about roe, if you were there to decide it on day one, one of the things you're supposed to think about when you approach overruling a precedent and just making a dramatic shift in the law is, what have people been relying on? what kind of choices have women been making, assuming they have this right. so when you asked me about, what does this mean in terms of the scale for the country, there's just so much to think about. i'm thinking about young women who decided where to go to college in the fall based on where they thought they might have a right to terminate a pregnancy or not. where people are choosing to raise their daughters. how people are sequencing their careers. what kind of relationships they're deciding to get in, and there is a place for all of those considerations inside of supreme court doctrine and why we talk about reliance, and the court in today's opinion, it
8:47 am
said, no. we reject thinking about that. that's not for us. that's all speculative, and it doesn't feel speculative to me to think there are millions of women around the country who now have to go back and think about the choices that they've made in reliance on something that doesn't exist anymore. a right that does not exist anymore. >> seems so clear the ripple effects of this are going to go so much farther than we culturally have really even begun to comprehend. thank you. i want to bring in dasha burns from grand rapids, michigan. you just interviewed the governor of michigan the other way. talk about another state where abortion rights will be majorly on the ballot in these midterms. she's up for re-election. michigan has a zombie law, so-called that could be coming back now. what's going to happen in michigan as you see this issue playing out there?
8:48 am
>> right, garrett. on the ballot, but right now abortion is very much under threat here in the state. we've talked a lot today about the southern block of states. here in michigan, that zombie law that 1931 law, sort of laid dormant amp roe, but now could take effect again. it's a law that criminalizes abortion without exceptions, and the michigan state legislature is fighting to keep this law in place. look, michigan is a purple state. right? you've seen red states enacting trigger laws and blue states trying to fortify abortion rights in the wake of this expected ruling, but when you have these purple states, you've got a big battle here, because you have a democratic governor who's trying to protect these rights. state legislature fighting against them, and this is going to play out in the courts. it's going to play out in politics on the ballot in november, and right now the governor has sued to try to make this law ineffective, but the
8:49 am
state legislature is fighting back. just yesterday some house lawmakers proenlzproposed a bil would sentence abortion providers to up to ten years in prison if they do, in fact, provide abortion care. this is going to be a major, major fight here. in fact, just as we were standing here i had a woman walk up to me asking to talk. she was in tears. she is in her 60s. says she was 18 years old when roe took effect and she was just baffled, and furious and having a hard time wrapping her mind around this right she has seen in place her entire adult life be ruled back. we've been in kent county a lot, garrett. you may remember through 2020, because this is a purple county. it's sort of a bastion of moderate republicanism. also i spoke to a woman named katie morris. a republican most of her life and voted for donald trump in 2016. did not vote for him again in
8:50 am
2020, but tells me she is confused here about the gop approach to personal medical freedom. she says she was actually against vaccine mandates, because she believed people should have the freedom to make their own medical choices. medi. she says now she sees a contradiction with the republican party telling women what to do with some of the most personal medical decisions that they can make. a lot of folks, a lot of women, a lot of families really wrestling with trying to see this reset, this new era of medical rights here. >> i will tell you what, i've been covering the guns bill. michigan is a state that doesn't have a red flag law currently. i have been talking to the senator there about the possibility that michigan could be a state to enact one in the future. we were talking about the importance of the state legislature there and what direction that legislature might go on the issue of guns. you want to talk about a place
8:51 am
where local elections are going to have a huge impact on that issue, now on this issue, the state of michigan right at the center of our political discourse as we head into the midterms. dasha burns, thank you. i want to bring back in joyce vance. joyce, when i was talking to senator coons, we talked about justice thomas' concurrence in the case here. i read it very briefly on my way up to the studio. i also read justice kavanaugh's. they disagree on this issue. thomas talks about the idea that the court should potentially reconsider cases like same-sex marriage, other cases that grew out of some of the rights theoretically established in roe. he and kavanaugh disagree. it does seem to open the door to additionallaws, additional decisions. you have more experience and
8:52 am
more time with this. walk me through what you think the legal landscape looks like in the near future. >> clarence thomas is carving out a vision that, frankly, he has not been shy about putting forward for the last couple of decades. he has this notion that all of these substantive rights that are derived from the right to privacy are vulnerable. that none of them should continue to stand. he identifies, for instance, griswold versus connecticut, privacy in our own homes. the potential right for attack is the right to same-sex marriage. that starts out as laws that are passed in states and challenges that are brought in state courts that can work their way up to the supreme court much like this 50-year path that we saw to overturning roe. is there a majority on the current stream court that would
8:53 am
do to other rights what was done to roe today? that's not clear. i think we would be foolish to discount that possibility. if you don't mind, i would like to actually read -- i don't have them memorized, the closing words from the dissent, which i hope are not prescient in regard to the question you asked me but i fear are. the dissenters are. with sorrow for this court but more for the many millions of american women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection, we dissent. with sorrow, we dissent. i don't recall other cases where the court has used that sort of personal language. i think that personal language speaks to the risk that other rights will be at risk as well. >> glad you brought that up. i didn't get to dissent. i ran out of time to read through it. i'm reminded of ruth bader ginsburg who talks about a dissent now could be a
8:54 am
foundation for a majority decision in the future. what do you read in this that might give you optimism that perhaps a different composition might view this differently? >> dissents are written for the future. i don't think the country benefits from a future that involves a highly politicized supreme court that waffles back and forth on issues based on whims. that's the tragedy, one of the tragedies of this opinion today is that it destabilizes the court. can the court survive this stench? that's a problem here. do we have a future court that restores rights? then it's just like watching a ping-pong game going back and forth. that can't be what the rule of law means in this country. to your question, what does the dissent mean for future rulings? could additional or alternative
8:55 am
basis be found? there's an interesting first amendment establishment of ref -- religion issue here. some faiths command women, particularly where the mother's life is at risk, to use abortion services to preserve the mother's life. could we see, for instance, a first amendment challenge that would change the result in this case but not conflict with its analysis? i suppose that that's possible. but we're a ways off. >> that's fascinating analysis. thank you for breaking this down for us. in the last hour, we had an opportunity to hear from planned parenthood's president and ceo reacting to today's ruling. what she said was important. wasn't to play what she said in the last hour. >> this is absolutely devastating. the court just told us that we are not equal. the court just told us that we
8:56 am
don't have a right in the constitution to control our own bodies. 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. >> kathy park joins us from jackson, mississippi. this case centers on that 2018 law passed by mississippi's republican-controlled legislature. talk to me about what you are seeing there, what the reaction is in mississippi. >> reporter: garrett, you are right. jackson, mississippi, there is a spotlight on this community because a mississippi law was a challenge to roe v. wade and it got us to where we are today. what happens next? you probably heard in past conversations about trigger laws.
8:57 am
mississippi is a trigger law state. there will be a patchwork of new regulations that will ban most abortions in a lot of states in the south, mississippi one of them. there's a ten-day period where the attorney general will essentially have to weigh in. she released a statement via tweet. she called this a victory for the state of mississippi. she commended the court and said the work to empower women begins today. she said looking ahead, they will be bolstering and improving foster care and adoption resources. on the flip side, you have abortion rights advocates who have been preparing for this day, right? obviously, the leak in may, they had time to galvanize a group of people to build resources, potentially tap into new funds. the big concern moving forward for women who want to access abortions legally and safely, it's going to be several hours away.
8:58 am
many of them might have to take a plane to new mexico, to massachusetts. the close of the state being illinois. that's a big concern, especially for communities of color, poor women. we were at the abortion clinic yesterday. it was a very heated scene. you had both sides of the debate in front of the abortion clinic. we had a colleague over there step over there and just to see how things are going. there's a large crowd that is gathering. pro choice advocates are out there saying that this fight isn't over. they will try to continue supporting women who want to gain access to abortions safely and legally. pro life advocates saying as well that they will continue their fight to ensure that abortions are eliminated across the board. >> kathy park in mississippi. thank you. as we keep an eye on the protests outside the supreme court, i want to bring back in josh lederman at the white house. we will hear from the president
8:59 am
around 12:30. what can you tell us about how the white house is reacting and what we should expect to hear from president biden this afternoon? >> reporter: this is a really significant moment in president biden's presidency. he has had to respond to court rulings before. he will do it again in the future. but never one on the magnitude of this, as highly anticipated as this, with so many americans now turning to president biden to understand what his response will be, what the white house can do to try to ensure access to abortion now that the supreme court said it's not a constitutionally protected right. we will hear from the president half an hour from now in the white house where we will address what the white house can do. he will lay out what some of the federal actions that might be possible are. we are hearing from attorney general garland in a statement that is also describing some of what the federal government can do. merrick garland saying the justice department disagrees
9:00 am
with this decision. it will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country, with the most disproportionate felt by people of color and those of limited financial means. we are getting a sense from the attorney general of what the justice department can do. it amounts to strict enforcement of current laws that would protect some of the other things that are necessary for women to get abortions, particularly if and when they are banned in many of the states. the justice department in this statement pointing out that women who reside in states that have banned access must remain free to seek that care in states where it's legal. i think we can expect to see the justice department making sure that there are not infringements on the rights of women who live in states to travel to another state where it will remain legal in search of an abortion. merrick garland talking about the abortion pill and the fact that states are not going to be allowed to pass laws


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on