come up with a compromise that everyone will be happy with. he is very slippery like that. and it is important i think for democrats to nail him down as much as possible. because people still have a hard time believing that donald trump cares about abortion. and the point is not what he cares about. the point is what he has done and is going to do. >> that's right. and every state in the union, new york, illinois, california, massachusetts, like, they are going to do it. if they have the power. they are going to do it. it is coming for you. michelle, thank you very much. . michelle goldberg, thank you very much. that is "all in" on this thursday night. alish wagner tonight begins with ali velshi. >> that's an important point. for those who think roe doesn't effect us in california or places like that what you call the orconsense of the gop developing into a 15-week

abortion ban that's what they are thinking is the middle ground now. they've shifted the whole conversation to the fact the middle ground is -- >> now a national ban. that means if you're in massachusetts and you go get that 20-week fetal abnormality scan, and donald trump's government tells you you can't get an abortion, you have to wait until you're in sepsis to get it. >> i think this is a very important point for every american nopo matter where you live to remember right now. thank you making that point. thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. what could you buy with $230,000? think about that for a second. a fhouse, a brand new ferrari? a championship racehorse? $230,000 is a huge amount of money. that's how much donald trump's save america pac has spent per day on the former president's legal bills in february.

$5.6 million in one month, which i should note was more than the pac was able to raise over that same period. everybody knows that the one thing donald trump needs right now is money. trump engineered his takeover of the rnc earlier this month. his top advisor promised not a penny, quote,is of the rnc's moy would gonc to pay the president legal fees. he said the rnc is as much a part of the trump campaign as the trump campaign is part of the rnc, his words. okay, important words because tonight we're learning new details about the trump campaign's new deal with the rnc. the unusual arrangement prioritizes trump's save america pac over the rnc. so while the rnc funds don't go directly to pay trump's lawyers, any donation to the combined entity go to trump's campaign

and his save america pac first, then the remainder goes to the rnc. and, boy, he's going to need it because trump's legal woes are far from over. there's no telling what amount of legal fees he'll continue to accrue over next year with four criminalea trials still looming and then there's the money he owes for trials that are already over. the $464 million bond from trump's civil fraud trial in new york is due on monday, four days from now. not to mention the fact half a billion is accruing $100,000 worth of interest every 24 hours. failure to come up with a bond means the new york attorney general letitia james can start the process of seizing the former president's assets as early asss next week. there's another option for trump which could delay having to pay by monthsde or even years, decle

bankruptcy. trump is reportedly not even considering bankruptcy as an option. why would he be? he's already done it six times before, by the way. what's more bankruptcy on the pile especially when the former president is strapped for cash? it seemed donald's money woes may have finally become a political liability. according to "the washington post" trump doesn't want to declare bankruptcy partially out ofcy concern it could damage hi campaign to recapture the white house from biden in november, end quote. trump is worried about the optics of bankruptcy because it cuts to thecs heart of his identity. the donald built his brandon being rich, living a lavish lifestyle the rest of us wish we could live. hewe started a tv show where th theme song was money, casinos, stakes, high rise apartment buildings. he built his 2016 campaign on

the idea he was so rich he couldn't be bought, symbolicically riding into the 2002 race on a golden elevator. >> our country needs a great leader and we need a truly great leader now. we need a leader that wrote "thd art of the deal." i don't need anybody's money. it'sny nice. i don't need anybody's money. i'm using my own money. i'm not using lobbyists, not using donors. i don'tus care. i'm really rich. >>re really rich. that was then, this is now. trump not only finds himself in panic mode as he tries to secure a nearly half a billion dollar bond, with the general election starting he also hasct to worry about what voters will think about his very real money problems and his opponent is not helping. when it comes to fund-raising

president biden has been consistently outpacing trump, widening the gap between them last month in february biden raised more than $20 million. all told the combined cash on hand for the biden campaign and dnc totaled over $97 million, which is more than double the combined cash held by the trump campaign and the rnc. this suddenly looks like a vulnerable moment for donald trump, and it appears that team biden is prepared to take advantage of it. not only are they planning a major ad blitz with their fund-raising cash, but perhaps more importantly president biden has started to take direct shots at trump's money troubles. when it comes to trump's legal woes, joe biden has refused to comment. but trump's financial issues, apparently those are fair game. in a closed door fund-raiser with democratic donors in dallas last night, biden joked, quote, i know not everyone is feeling the enthusiasm. just the other day a defeated

looking man came up to me and said, mr. president, i have crushing debt, and i'm completely wiped out. and i had to look at him and say, donald, i'm sorry. i can't help you, end quote. biden has now trotted out this joke three times in the past 24 hours. it might be the start of a new more aggressive strategy for the white house. for decades donald trump overinflated his wealth and he got away with it, and now he's starting to pay for it. suddenly what trump has always touted at his greatest strength, now seems like a glaring weakness. and democrats seem ready to pounce. joining us now tim o'brien, senior executive editor of bloomberg opinion, author of "trump nation, the art of being donald." for that he was sued by donald trump and he won. press secretary for president obama and now an msnbc political

analyst. gentlemen, good to see you both and thank you for beingle with . tim o'brien, let's talk about the part of this that is interesting. guys like you have spent a lot of time figuring out donald trump, what he's worth, what his cash position is. but the attorney general of new york and this judge have done that. the truth about the donald trump myth came out in this trial and is now being solidified by the fact he can't raise this bond. >> and some of those myths are being burst in very useful ways. i think one of the things that confounded people during trump's first term, there's this idea he always existed beyond the reach of the law, that he had nine legal lives and he'd only gone through one of them. i think you're now seeing on a financial basis he's getting exposed for decades of what he's been doing, which is inflating, lying, exaggerating, however you

want to describe it. how much money he has and what he does with his money. i think that's one of the things gnawing at him more than anything else in this current round is that the emperor has no financial clothing. he said in a deposition a year ago that he had $400 million in cash on hand, that he was adding to that amount on a monthly basis in significant ways. he either lied under oath, either perjured himself in that deposition. >> or he's a really bad businessman. >> or he blew through that money somehow in the last year, or he doesn't want to touch it because he wants to leave these debts off on people donating to the campaign. for whatever reason he says that money isn't there now. he's going to have to rely on the good graces of other people, and he doesn't have a lot of options. there's talk he's going to seek bankruptcy protection. i think we have already gotten some indications of that. it would have to be a very complex filing.

i think letitia james is waiting to attach his assets. >> like 40 wall street. >> that's right. the reality is there are certain properties that here deeply pri. in the early '90s when he went through those six corporate bankruptcies, he came within an inch of personal bankruptcy, but for aon piece of his father's estate that his siblings gave him so he could have stayed solvent, otherwise he would have gone under personally, too. at that time he basically got on his knees to his bankers and said take what you want but don't take my condo and don't take mar-a-lago. i think then' attorney general' office is hip to the idea there are certain toys more valuable to trump than others, and i think that's got to be gnawing at him as well. but there's going to be a resolution of some sort around this on paend. either theou appellate court is going to step in and say he gets

extra time or maybe he gets to play some shenanigans around what he posts, though i'd be surprised by that. irp don't see a bankruptcy fili coming, but maybe it will. even if he does a bankruptcy filing, he's going to have to have very detailed proclamations in the filing about those assets, the debts held against those assets, and again a public revelation what he has that he neverhe wanted to do. of course what it'll show in the end is a guy when he launched his campaign in 2010 i'm really rich, i'm worth $10 billion, i'm worth 6. he's nowhere close to those numbers, and he doesn't want to pop his own balloon in that regard, but he's probably going to be forced to. >> robert gibbs, donald trump has done so many things about democracy if he were elected. you would think that would be enough, and joe biden has leaned into the idea this is a presidency that continues with democracy and a president that

perhaps undermines it both in the united states and abroad. you would think that would be enough, but apparently it's not. and so joe biden has decided this is the soft underbelly that he can go after. tell me what your thoughts are about atthat. >> yeah, well, look, i think as tim just said the whole notion of donald trump's wealth and this myth of job creation and all of the things that have gone with sort of who donald trump is for a long time is on the verge of being pierced. i mean this is central to that narrative. it's central to quite frankly the voter began to see him as somebody who's a nifty negotiator, somebody who understood business, and quite frankly he was wealthy because ofas all his business acumen, a that would be something a boness to have somebody in the white house that could do all that. honestly a lot of that was built on myth to begin with. this isyt beginning to crumble front of donald trump's eyes through the courts, through campaign fund-raising, and,

look, i think the biden campaign senses it's an interesting moment to go after not just who voters think donald trump is but really to press the advantage with campaign finance amounts. it's really stunning to watch the presumptive nominee be outraised by the democratic nominee in this case 2 to 1, to have that money gap become wider month after month after month. it's been a while where we've been through certainly a presidential campaign where there's a distinct disadvantage on one side with money. and right now trump is approaching theey campaign as i he's going to have that distinct advantage. those $5 donors are worried more and more quite frankly the money they give is going to be part of the $80 million already gone to pay his lawyers. >> let me ask you this,iv rober joe biden has been fairly

judicious about not wading into trump's other legal problems. he just doesn't want to do it because donald trump tell every court who will listen his prosecution is at the hands of his political opponent, joe biden. joe biden never comments on it, but he -- he does comment on this. obviously it's fair game because it's -- it's adjudicated. >> yeah, i think it's smart. look, joe biden his administration obviously runs thee department of justice. i think staying out of those legal comments is smart. i think this -- i think who he is and who his business is and his money in this case is different and it's much more faird game. >> tim, is anything here surprising to you? he said he had $400 million on hand or that's what he testified or maybe he was lying. does this surprise you or is

this where you thought donald trump was in the world? >> i'm only surprised at how he is willing to take this particular judgment to the cliff. you know, you would have thought given the financial stakes it involved, the possible revelations that are involved, how central both his insecurities and myths are saying i'm a billionaire, that it would let it get to a place he'd be exposed like this. >> doesn't that suggest to you he can't raise that bond? >> it absolutely does. also i think he would have gotten a bankruptcy proceeding going sooner if he was trying to forestall this. i think what's now emerging on monday it could be something of a car crash. and he had to have lawyers telling him weeks ago you should prep for something like this, and he ignored them as he always does. and again, it's that he's allowing these existential cataclysms to be visited upon him because he's an undisciplined 7-year-old.

he's not an adult, he's not a rational adult. he's an unwilling politician and he's willing to play fire around his own finances in order to score sort of performance acting and performance art results in the courts and in the media, but it's not good for his business, and it's becoming increasingly bad for his political life. >> monday is going to be a day not to be out of the news. watch what's going to be a reckoning. guys, thank you very much. robert gibbs is a former white house press secretary. thank you both, gentlemen, for your timecr tonight. we've got much more ahead this evening including what's going on withg the judge presiding or trump's classified docs case. why her latest moves have legal experts questioning her h motiv yet again. butti first after blocking three u.n. resolutions calling for a cease-fire in gaza, the u.s. is now putting its own cease-fire resolution up for a vote before the u.n. security council tomorrow morning. what's behind the shift, that's next. tomorrow morning what's behind the shift, that's next

the result of the voting is as follows. 13 votes in favor, one vote against, one abstention. the draft resolution has not been adopted. owing to the negative vote of a permanent member of the council. >> the draft resolution has not been approved due to a veto of the permanent member of the security council. >> the draft resolution has not been adopted owing to the negative vote of a permanent

member of the council. >> since the war in gaza began there's been three attempts by the u.n. security council to call for a cease-fire or condemn civilian casualties in gaza. each time the united states has used its veto power to block those resolutions. but now that is changing. tomorrow morning for the first time the united states will introduce its own resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in gaza. unlike previous resolutions, the u.s. has conditioned its call for a cease-fire on the immediate release of all of the hostages being held by hamas in gaza, but it is still a remarkable change in the u.s. position. it comes as we are learning the republican speaker of the house, mike johnson, plans to make an end run around the biden administration and invite the israeli prime minister, benjamin netanyahu, to address congress about the war. the biden administration is

increasing its pressure on the netanyahu government at the same time that the netanyahu government is aligning itself much more closely with biden's political opponents, with the republicans. joining us now is the senator chris murphy, democrat of connecticut and member of senate foreign relations committee. senator, good to see you again. thank you so much. 2015 is the last time this happened and happened very similarly. netanyahu cut a deal with republicans to address congress in what was largely seen as an affront to barack obama. exactly the same thing is happening right now. netanyahu is going to congress at the behest of republicans possibly in an end run against his deteriorating relationship with joe biden. your thouts. >> i'm not sure i see it as an apples to apples comparison. netanyahu is coming to object to a very specific -- the nuclear

agreement with iran, right? this is a different moment where the eyes of the world are on israel. and i think it is important for the israeli leader to come to the united states and explain to congress what the israeli policy is and why this campaign in gaza, which has now, you know, killed tens of thousands of civilians, is actually going to eradicate a terrorist threat to israel and to the united states. so i don't like when netanyahu, you know, talks only to republicans. i think that's bad for the relationship. but given the eyes of the world are on israel today, i think it would benefit to have him come and make the case to democrats and republicans. there will be many that object to the case he makes, but it's probably better to air that out in the open. >> what happens? as you said there's a reasonable expectation many will object to it. nobody's going to have their

minds changed probably, so what happens then? he comes, people air their grievances. there's still a pending attack on rafah. there's still the death of 30,000 palestinians, still a biden administration in disagreement with the netanyahu administration. what do you think happens next? >> i'm not sure his speech in congress will have a material effect on people's views, but i don't know we should be afraid of listening to the israeli leader even if we disagree with him. look, i have come to the conclusion that there needs to be an immediate pause to hostilities. i would not condition it upon the release of the hostages. i hope that there's an agreement between hamas and israel with intermediaries that allows for the release of the hostages, but i think the humanitarian situation on the ground is so dire today that they need to stop military operations right now and focus on restoring order and combating famine.

that's my position. i don't think my position will be changed by netanyahu's appearance but i don't know we should block him from coming and explaining his position. we're a body that welcomes open dialogue, and we should have that dialogue even with leaders we don't have full agreement with. >> that's a good point. secretary blinken, in the middle east he's hopeful for a concept of a cease-fire you talk about. increasingly the calls for that are growing. it is a remarkable moment that in the morning the united states will call for that. conditioned or not, it's a major move for the united states in the history of u.s./israeli relations. i understand pressure is growing on israel to do it, but are you hopeful that pressure gets us anywhere because benjamin netanyahu is basically campaigning in an election he's not running in about the fact he is the only one who can stand up

to america as if america is the problem for israel. >> listen, of course i am hopeful, but, you know, every day that goes by without an agreement i think should make us all worried. both sides are going to have to not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. and i think many of us worry, and you heard senator schumer articulate this a few days ago that netanyahu's making decisions not necessarily in accordance with what's best for israeli security or american security but what is best for his political future. the longer the war goes on, the more likely it is that the war cabinet holds and he stays in power when the war ends or when there's a long-term pause, there ternly will be a discussion inside israel as to whether to move forward with elections. and i think that that is a very real worry at this moment thinking about the motivations that the netanyahu government

has when it's making decision on the ground in gaza. >> senator, i want to ask you about a completely unrelated topic. this is what we call in the business a hard turn, but it's actually kind of interesting. it's about our phones. you -- the justice department is suing apple for allegedly abusing monopoly power in the phone-based app market. you tweeted today people feel powerless and alone when companies this big have so much power over their lives. for a lot of people they're not sure how to think about this because we all hiv live in this apple wall to garden, so we're not sure of it. it's kind of our lives, are we mad at them? what should they be doing differently? >> listen, we have that relationship with apple, with google, with amazon. we get tremendous benefit from these services. the problem is they're noncompetitive monopolistic practices happen behind a wall we don't see. so we end up paying far more for

these services, for instance the apps on our iphone, and we get a much lower quality experience. for instance, on the iphone the inability to play cloud-based games because that would actually harm apple's market, which forces you to buy more computing power on your phone because you can't get access to the cloud. so it's very right for the government to be stepping up and saying whether or not we see these monopolistic practices, they're illegal. and i do think that americans feel that they have lost an amount of power because apple and amazon and google have so much market share that we have no ability to really compete their services against anyone else. and we would all be paying a lot less for the services that they provide if we forced them into a competitive market. and so this is really important action that the department of justice is taking against apple. it stands next to actions that have been taken against google and amazon. and i'm so glad that the biden

administration is making it a priority to break up these big monopoly powers especially in big tech. donald trump talks a big game coming after but they don't do it. they pass policies that the rich the bottom line of these companies. joe biden coming after these companies to break up their power. >> it's a big signal when donald trump tells people the consumer you may be a big company, bring value to it consumer. these things as you said definitely bring value to our lives to add access to them, but it does take away some choice, does take away some opportunity for us to make choices. senator chris murphy is a democrat of connecticut, he's a member of the senate foreign relations committee. thank you for your time tonight, sir. when we come donald trump says the quiet part out loud on reproductive freedom. plus the judge overseeing the prosecution of donald trump over the classified documents he hid in mar-a-lago, is raising new

alarm bells over court watchers. we'll have more on that just ahead. watchers. we'll have more on that just ahead. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie. and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today.

my name is oluseyi join t and some of mypeople taki favorite momentsvacy throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. it's been 20 days since the judge in the classified documents case, judge aileen cannon, held a hearing to discuss a possible new trial date. the special counsel jack smith is hoping it'll go to trial this summer. donald trump is hoping it'll go to trial never, and nearly three

weeks later judge cannon has yet to make a decision on the matter. she has found, however, to hold a separate hearing on a cup of donald trump's motions to dismiss the case. she dismissed one of them the same day -- kind of. she shot down trump's request to dismiss the charges against him based on unconstitutional vagueness, but she also left the door open to bring that idea back at trial. then in an order judge cannon issued this week, she appears to be engaging with trump's other motion to dismiss this case. this one based on his claim that he had the right under the presidential records act to keep classified documents. judge cannon has given lawyers on both sides another couple of weeks to submit proposed jury instructions about that question, and that has raised eyebrows among legal experts who are watching this case closely, some of whom are describing judge cannon's order with words

like "insane." joining me now mary mccord, former justice department official and co-host of the podcast "prosecuting donald trump." i find his hard to follow. she has second degree both sides to come up with i don't know draft jury questions or instructions about matters relating to donald trump's claim. i don't know that happens or doesn't happen much in law and order. help us make sense of it. >> judges do ask lawyers for proposed jury instructions. they don't do that many, many months before a trial not even scheduled that. oftentimes they'll do that in the midst of trial, they'll ask the parties given how the evidence has come out to propose jury instructions. this isn't even about the real proposed jury instructions. this is like an exercise she's putting the government and mr.

trump's attorneys to, which is like hypothesize with me here, these two competing scenarios, neither of which has any basis in law but do make us wonder if she isn't trying to push decisions she should be making legal decisions she should be making right for you, push those to a time of a jury and asking things like should it be the jury who looks at each document and decides did the government prove its personal or presidential. and the definition of presidential records are records that are prepared for the president or by his staff for him in executing his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties. personal records are the opposite of that, things that are purely personal, not for executing constitutional or statutory duties. and of course these are original classified documents by the intelligence community. so clearly presidential records

that are provided to the president when he was the president in order for him to carry out his constitutional or stachory duties. but she neglects cl of that in these competing scenarios, one in which the jury would decide whether these are personal or presidential. and the other the jury would only decide was mr. trump personal by not returning them to the archives, by simply not returning them does that mean their personal? she's skipping over the legal decisions she's been asked to make in these motions to dismiss and suggesting she's going to leave some issues to the jury that really should not be jury issues. >> that's exactly the part that has those of us not understanding the law scratching our head. the second question she asks, the second jury instruction she's asking the two legal teams about reads as follows. a president has sole authority under the presidential records act to categorize records as personal or presidential during

his or her presidency. neither a court nor a jury is permitted to make or review such a categorization decision. i want to read it for the viewers so they know what we're talking about. this seems like a very, very big deal and seems like a very big legal deal that speaks to the merits of this case. this doesn't feel like a casual thing you put to a jury before you have a jury. >> that's right. and other arguments the government made she hasn't dealt with are things like the presidential records act has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal charges against him, which are under criminal united states code provisions that say you cannot retain national defense information when you're not authorized to have it and you have been asked to return it, and that issue is completely separate from personal or presidential. as we've already discussed, there's no real world in which these documents are personal records. and the danger here, ali, is

that if she lets this go to trial, she could actually take the issue away from the jury. she could do something called grant a motion for a judgment acquittal, a rule 29 motion at the end of the government's case and just say i'm finding the government didn't prove that these were not personal records, and i'm directing a judgment of acquittal, and that is something the government cannot appeal. it's just as though a jury had found somebody not guilty and the government can't appeal that. so i think a lot of people looking at this are feeling very skeptical about what are her motives here and why is she not dealing the legal issues the way she was asked to do, why is she suggesting she's going to push things off after the trial? could be she won't do that, could be she leaves it to a jury? but these are legal questions and she's assuming those responses and not engaging with

the government's arguments. >> thank you as always for joining us. coming up if you thought the overturning of roe v. wade would be enough to satiate conservatives and their assault on women's reproductive rights think again. evidence the dystopian connection things appear to be headed is up next. topian connection things appear to be headed is up next. what is cirkul? cirkul is the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

less than two years ago

south carolina senator lindsey graham made conservatives clutch their pearls when he introduced a bill that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy across the country. at the time it was unthinkable. it was way out there. senate minority leader mitch mcconnell refused to answer questions about it. he said most republican senators, quote, prefer this be handled at the state level, end quote. senator john cornyn of texas insisted this wasn't a, quote, conference decision and that graham had gone rogue. graham's bill was untouchable, third rail. it went nowhere until now. >> the number of weeks now people are agreeing on 15, and i'm thinking in terms of that, and it'll come out to something that's very reasonable. democrats are the radicals on this issue because it's okay to have an abortion at 7, 8, nine months, and even after birth according to that. >> donald trump the presumptive

republican nominee for president wants a national 15-week abortion ban, what lindsey graham suggested, something that would apply to every state including states that have enshrined the right to abortion in their state kauntsitutions. and he calls this, quote, very reasonable. he says democrats, the ones who support access to abortion are radicals. this is a pattern in the conservative movement now that roe is gone. they are shifting the middle ground. what was fringe and unthinkable two years ago is now marketed as moderate. upending access to invitro fertilization, for example, was considered unimaginable until the alabama supreme court did it last month. if you think there's a reproductive freedom that is so socially protected that conservatives could never touch it, think again. for example, here's right wing pundit ben shapiro last year. >> if you mention there are side

effects to taking the birth control pill, which by the way many have known have been listed for a long time. but it you talk about this somehow it means you are an uber religious fanatic. >> that's how he introduced a guest on his radio show there to warn the american public about the perils of hormonal birth control. >> there's a breadth of impacts it has including partner selection. they found women on the birth control pill tend to be attracted to men less traditionally masculine, which is certainly interesting and might have societal impacts. >> women who are on the birth control are attracted to men who are less traditionally mas clan. i don't even know what to make of that. this year this is what young women and teens are hearing online. >> having a period is so stupid, so i just take birth control as a placebo.

what? i used to do that, too, and i can't believe how brainwashed we are as women. >> birth control gave me blood clots. >> how about instead teach our women to live in cycles. >> it fact is you're only fertile for two hours each month. >> your body tells you -- >> if you're also team i'm not trying to take birth control because it's bad for you, keep watching this video. listen to me. we need capsules, when i tell y'all this works, babe, period, on time, every time. >> there's now a world of influencers on social media cautioning women against hormonal birth control and marketing what they say are replacement products. some of them are presenting themselves as medical experts. most of them are not, but these influencers are gaining clicks and followers while contributing to a new medically questionable yet lucrative industry focused

on naturally regulating hormones. according to "the washington post" some of this is backed by pretty conservative republican like republican donor peter teal who's reportedly invested in amen central cycle tracking app called 28. and the online messaging may be helping conservatives push legislation to limiting access to birth control and access to birth control for minors is actually being litigated in the country's courts. it might be unthinkable now, but with a strong enough influencer marketing campaign, it far-right might eventually be able to control nearly every aspect of women's reproductive health care because that's essentially what all of this is about -- control. very reasonable, control. we're going to talk about that with -- of reproductive freedom for all after the break. reprod for all after the break.

since the supreme court overturned roe v. wade giving individual states the option to exercise control over their citizens' reproductive freedom 21 states across the country have either banned abortion outright and restricted the procedure. in louisiana abortion is banned in nearly all circumstances even in cases of rape and incest. however, abortion is allowed when the life of the pregnant person is in danger. but here's the thing, the state of louisiana is very unclear about when that exception applies. the obscurity forces doctors to

question what qualifies as an exception and what does not. will i be prosecuted for saving this person's life? this is not hyperbole. according to a new report, doctors in louisiana are delaying necessary reproductive health care including treatment for atopic pregnancies, a condition if not immediately treated can be deadly. out of fear of breaking the current law, which could land them up to 15 years in prison, $200,000 in fines, and a loss of their medical license. in one case a patient said her care was delayed for so long that her fallopian tubes ruptured. i could have died, she said in the report. i really could have died. joining me now is mini timmaraju, president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all. good to see you. thank you for being with us. i was one of those dupes who thought this was about abortion and whether you believe in a human life and when it starts,

and i thought these were for a little while good faith beliefs. it's fully about control. i mean the ivf stuff, the idea you can't be clear about who qualifies for an abortion in the case of rape and incest, it's really just about control. >> you know, i was with a couple hundred supporters today at an event in california, and we were really digging into this exact issue, ali, that we know it wasn't that long ago that women in this country couldn't buy property or get a credit card without the control of their spouse, right? without the authorization of their spouse. there are women in that room i was meeting today, supporters of our org who remember those days. it wasn't that long ago. it was when our mothers were working in the work force for the first time, when birth control became widely available in society. the fact that society has so fundamentally shifted since women got into the work force is

directly tied to the birth control pill. reproductive freedom, has always been at the core of women's reproductive and social ability. that why it's hard to understand there are those who want to push us back. it is about power control. >> there's a report about what's going on in louisiana. there are descriptions of times in which doctors instead of performing -- instead of prescribing mifepristone are performing cesarean sections on women, which is wild. performing a surgery on a woman -- the quote here she the doctor ended up having to take this person for a c-section to preserve the appearance of not doing an abortion even though this is not a viable pregnancy. >> this is the dystopian situation that the trump supreme court has wrought on this

country. you know, we've been talking about this since dobbs happened that this was the natural outcome that would happen in states are we've banned abortion and made incredibly hostile conditions for providers. we knew this was going to happen, it's happened realtime, and so grateful you're covering it. we have to tell these stories, and we know they disproportionately affect women of color who are most at the margins in places like louisiana. >> mini, we have much more to talk about. i'm out of time for the show, but you and i talk regularly and we'll continue to have this conversation. thank you your time. the president and ceo of reproductive freedom for all. that's our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is up next. when you have a lot of real estate -- i have real estate, you know, a lot of it, okay? right down the road dural, big stuff, great stuff. i ran and everybody knows i'm a rich person. i built a great compa