and the joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor, and justice souter, at great length went through these factors. that was the question presented in the case. >> could i interrupt you to say, since you mentioned stare decisis, and i've sat on nine of these hearings, and when the subject comes up, the person says, i will follow stare decisis, and they get confirmed, and then of course, they don't. so, i think now knowing going into it, how you make a judgment on these issues is really important to our vote as whether to support you or not. because i don't want to go back to those death tolls in this country. and i truly believe that women should be able to control their own reproductive systems within, obviously, some concern for a viable fetus. >> and i understand your point of view on that senator, i understand how passionate and how deeply people feel about this issue. i understand the importance of the issue, i understand the importance that people attached to the room the way decision, to the planned parenthood versus casey decision. i don't live in a bubble. i understa

and that going to pinion that justice kennedy and justice o'connor and justice souter, at great length, went to those factors. that was the question percentage in the case. what does this mean to the 13 year old girl in north carolina who is rape, possibly, by family member, who does not want to have a baby at age 13? whose parents don't want her to have a baby at age 13? whose parents and 13 health want to be able to end this pregnancy? what is a mean to that girl? >> it is a very dangerous decision of this court. the senate absolutely must act to protect the right of a woman, or girl, to make this decision with her family, with her physician, without government interference. we also need to make sure that the senate codified is this constitutionally protected right, to make sure the doctors and women are not punished when they make this choice in their own private way. and so, this is an egregious decision. it is a decision that harms women. it can harm north carolinians, and it can harm americans. >> sherry beasley, former chief justice of north carolina supreme court, thank you ver

and then the joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor, and justice souter at great length went through those factors. that was a question presented in the case. >> social richards,, that is what susan collins confidence was based on. >> look, we can go over that hearing again, obviously that was devastating. having kavanaugh on the court is. but the truth is we have to look ahead now, and i think what is so distressing, this is now five people in the united states of america who are now poised to take away the right of every single woman in this country, as rachel said earlier. this is something we've never seen before, this is a right that all of us have lived our entire lives been able to exercise. and that is the most fundamental right to make a decision about their pregnancy. this isn't about whether, or not you feel about abortion. it's about do you want the government to make these decisions for every single person in this country, that's what they have just done. no exceptions, as neil said, this is a devastating opinion. if this should actually come to pass, and it is g

and that going to pinion that justice kennedy and justice o'connor and justice souter, at great length, went to those factors. that was the question percentage in the case. robert pork, showed them how to testify in those hearings. robert bork by telling the truth showed them they should never, ever tell anything like the truth about what they believe or what they know and what they want to do to roe v. wade. nothing shows how far republicans have moved to the right more clearly than support for roe v. wade. roe v. wade was decide as a seven to opinion act 73 with five justices appointed by republican presidents supporting roe v. wade. five of the seven were republican appointed justices. the first president bush who appointed clarence thomas began his political career as a strong supporter of planned parenthood, just like his father before him. prescott bush who served as planned parenthood as treasurer before winning a seat in the united states senate represent connecticut. we watched george h. w. bush personally moved to the right in realtime when he was selected by ronald reagan as

and then in joint opinion of justice kennedy, justice o'connor and justice souter, at great length went through those factors. that was the question presented in the case. >> melissa, let's say i am diane feinstein, and after getting an answer like, that i would think yeah, he is not going to touch roe v. wade, and now here we are. does this now show that whatever these justices say in their confirmation hearings, just gets thrown out the window once they're on the bench? >> i testified against brett kavanaugh in that confirmation hearing and so i may be biased on this, but i said that and i'll say now, that i thought he would be a likely vote to overturn roe v. wade no matter what he said. but if you listen closely, he talked about planned parenthood versus casey in the fact that casey articulate a number of factors that the court has to consider before it can overrule it past precedent. if you go through this draft opinion, if it's true, and this is the draft of the majority, they go through all of those factors. they simply come out with the view that roe versus wade was agree just t

justice alito's opinion, but justice kennedy at the last minute changed his mind, joined with justices souter and o'connor, and came up with the decision in casey which protected the right to choose abortion, gave states greater ability to restrict those rights but ultimately meant in the last two decades we have legal abortion in this country. the interesting part of that is, everyone says that could happen here. i don't think so. there is no justice kennedy on this current court. all of the members in the majority, the five justices who joined, the four justices who joined samuel alito, are very conservative. they come from the antiabortion movement. they were nominated on the promise of reversing roe and i don't see any of these ideologically based justices changing their minds as justice kennedy did. john: this was a first draft. i think it is two months old. it is hard to believe it isn't already obsolete, that there are more current drafts. do you think the language will change? do you think anything will change? >> there may be some moderation in the language, but the reality is, there

antony kennedy, sandra day o'connor and david souter worked to salvage abortion rights. casey reaffirmed rose findings that women had the right to obtain an abortion, as granted by protections in the constitution. when roads that clay standards of when the government could or could not restrict abortion based on the trimester, casey applied a new, undue burden standard. that essentially opened the door for states to enact restrictions to abortion at any point in the pregnancy, as long as the restriction did not constitute a, quote, substantial obstacle, and quote, to women's access. now, according to the supreme court's decision in casey, quote, an undue burden exist if it's purpose or effect is the place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking abortion before the fetus attain viability. substantial obstacles, vague language, subject to interpretation. which many states took as an opportunity to restrict abortion. the very vagueness of that language, which allowed conservative legislators to push the boundaries of what constitutes an undue burden. and, in the

restrictions to see which ones the court would uphold >> the joint opinion, delivered by justices o'connor, souter and kennedy, crafted a middle position they upheld roe, but changed the standard by which abortion laws would be judged. they established instead the "undue burden standard." a law would be invalid, they declared, if it placed substantial obstacles in the path of a woman seeking an abortion >> people got the impression that abortion was safe, roe vs wade was safe all the pro-choice people went home but what happened is, pro-lifers started to pass legislation to test what exactly is an undue burden "let's pass this bill. is that undue? let's pass that bill is that undue? and let's see where the courts draw the line. >> seth: anti-abortion activists basically adopted the same strategy for attacking roe that your 5-year-old takes when you tell them not for the run too close to the pool. "is this too close?" "yes." "what about this?" "yes." "what about this?" "zachary hudson hamilton iii, if you do not move away from the pool right now, so help me to god, i will end you. sorry, guys. i sh

wade and the three moderates here, o'connor, kennedy, and souter joined blackman and stevens to reaffirm roe v. wade. and that's -- that's -- that was the law of the land in 1991 and 1992. let's look at the supreme court now. we have we have tree liberals, five conservatives, and john roberts arguably a moderate, arguably a conservative as well. and that's why he's so important. it's mostly because there are people now who agree with him. >> of all the cases that will be coming before the court, where do his priorities sit? >> he has been outspoken on all of these issues, often in consenting opinions from the outside. he has not written many important majority opinions during his 32 years on the court, but he has spoken out against roe v. wade. now if this draft opinion becomes law, his view will be vindicated. in gun rights, when thomas joined the court in 1991, the court had never held that there was an individual right to bear arms under the second amendment. he started writing dissenting opinions in the late '90s, saying there is an individual right to bear arms. and in 2008, justice

in that school and i don't know if one was, but they may have very well have been able to take this souter down before he killed 14 of our young and brightest students. this is the end of the school year. where kids should be joyous, be happy. now we got this sad situation taking place there in texas. it's just troubling to me. >> bret: last thing, ted. you know, in the wake of sandy hook, which, again, is almost 10 years ago, do you think that the country learned anything or did anything to change in different places around the country in the wake of that shooting? remember, sandy hook had 20 killed. again, young children. it was one of the most horrific mass shootings and this could be the most horrific. we don't have final numbers yet. >> no, we don't. and, you know, i'm sick and tired of coming on this set and hearing 10 people killed, or in a subway in new york. 10 people killed. buffalo, new york, then we find outs that sandy hook we find out here in uvalde, at this state 14 killed, and when we do is we mourn, we groan, we gripe, we talk about what we should do in the future and we m

o'connor, souter, and kennedy. and they said look, row is controversial. maybe it is right. maybe it is wrong. but it has been the lava land for more than 20 years at that, point and social expectations have crystallized around it and the court's legitimacy would suffer massively if we try to overrule it. that is where the supreme court started. they started with roe v. wade. the hardest decision. if you can overrule roe, you can overrule anything. the test they used, which -- got into, is to say that it has to be deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition. which is the threats today marriage. is the threat of laws that prohibit contraception, even among married couples. it is a threat to so much. >> professor greer, i would love to get your reaction to this. but also from the perspective of the impact of overturning roe v. wade and casey, what would that have politically and culturally in this country? if that draft or anything close to it becomes the official ruling from the supreme court? >> absolutely jonathan. we have not been histrionic as democrats,, and espe

justices o'connor, kennedy and souter. they said they will keep the right of abortion, but get rid of the trimester framework. instead they will draw the line at point of viability. prior to the point of viability, the state cannot impose substantial burdens or obstacles on the right to an abortion. usually people ask what is liability, what is that line? it varies based on science and whatever the available technology is. in a big city with access to a large hospital, viability is here. in a poorer more rural area, viability is there. the alito opinion overrules roe and kc altogether and says the right to abortion doesn't exist, so we don't need to draw the line and the state can now draw the line for when they are permissible or not. host: danielle, is justice alito making a choice to overrule both roe and kc or if one falls the other should fall as well, or is he making a choice in going after both at the same time? danielle: in the draft opinion, it especially says the court is overruling roe and casey. the only thing

justices o'connor, kennedy and souter. they said they will keep the right of abortion, but get rid of the trimester framework. instead they will draw the line at point of viability. prior to the point of viability, the state cannot impose substantial burdens or obstacles on the right to an abortion. usually people ask what is liability, what is that line? it varies based on science and whatever the available technology is. in a big city with access to a large hospital, viability is here. in a poorer more rural area, viability is there. the alito opinion overrules roe and kc altogether and says the right to abortion doesn't exist, so we don't need to draw the line and the state can now draw the line for when they are permissible or not. host: danielle, is justice alito making a choice to overrule both roe and kc or if one falls the other should fall as well, or is he making a choice in going after both at the same time? danielle: in the draft opinion, it especially says the court is overruling roe and casey. the only thing