author, grammy and academy award winner. did i get all of it, quest? >> i think so. some of them. >> let me ask you about the wordle today, is it hard or easy? it's been ridiculous lately. >> i have not been in the wordle group. stephanie is in my wordle group. >> congrats on the book, hip-hop is history is available now. that does it for us this morning. ana cabrera picks up the coverage right now. right now on "ana cabrera reports," back to the scene of the crime. that is how former house speaker nancy pelosi is frame k donald trump's first visit to capitol hill since the january 6th riot are. what's on his agenda with republican lawmakers and who's staying away? plus, nearby, the supreme court is preparing to drop decisions this hour, the cases we could get today on hugely consequential issues from presidential immunity to abortion access. and president biden's global

diplomacy, the president meeting with world leaders at the g-7 summit. his message on gaza and ukraine. ♪♪ good morning, it is 10:00 eastern. i'm ana cabrera reporting from new york. let's get right to breaking news on capitol hill where former president trump has arrived in just the last hour, his first visit to the hill since his supporters tried to stop the peaceful transfer of power on january 6th, 2021. a reminder, trump himself didn't go to the capital that day, and he won't be in the capitol building today. instead he's holding meetings with sitting lawmakers nearby. right now he's behind closed doors with members of the house. later he meets with senators. nbc's ali vitali is staking out this meeting and joins us live from the hill. also with us former democratic congressman from new york, steve israel, and former press secretary to republican house

speakers john boehner and paul ryan, brendan buck. ali, what have you seen out there this morning, and what should we expect from these meetings? >> reporter:er significantly since the former president pulled in and entered the building through a back door. but look, the vibe inside the room according to my sources and the sources who are talking to our capitol hill team is pretty jovial. the former president doing things that we often see him talk about at rallies, things like his polling leads and surmising that those numbers might tell a bigger story about where he's at at this point in the presidential election. separate from all of this and really underscoring his visit here is the fact that this is the first time that the former president is back on capitol hill since the january 6th insurrection that he himself fomented, and that many of the members who are on this capitol complex on a regular basis lay at his feet. this is not the only meeting

that the former president is going to be doing today. he of course is kicking it off with the full house republican conference in the building behind me, but then he will go to a business round table speaking there with prominent ceos, and then he'll meet with senate republicans, all part and parcel to a big day on capitol hill that you can really liken to a congressional coronation ahead of the rnc convention this summer. >> ali, stand by, we have some breaking news right now from the supreme court on the abortion pill case. let's go right to nbc's yamiche alcindor. this decision just dropped. i know you have to have a moment to look through it to really get into the details, but what do we know right now? >> reporter: what we know right now is that the supreme court has dismissed this mifepristone case meaning access to the abortion pill remains standing. it's a unanimous decision. this is a 6-3 majority conservative court. they're saying that the doctors who brought this lawsuit against

the fda challenging access to the abortion pill, that they lack standing. this is really punting it, saying that this will continue to have access. if you're a woman who's wondering whether or not you will have access to this abortion pill, for now mifepristone continues to be accessible through telehealth, through mail. this is a big, big decision. the supreme court just two years ago overturned roe v. wade. this is another big decision from the supreme court regarding abortion. we should note that the majority of abortions in this country, something like 63% happen through a medication abortion. this pill means that a number of women are going to still have access to that medication. >> yamiche, keep looking at this decision, if you will. i want to bring in right now leah litman, and she's one of our legal analysts. leah, my understanding is the supreme court is saying this pill can stay on the market as is, as yamiche just mentioned, 63% of abortions in the u.s. in the last year were through abortion medications or used

this type of medication as part of the process. so i guess what does this mean right now when it comes to abortion access in america? >> so in the short-term you're right, this decision overrules the lower court's orders that had ordered additional restrictions on mifepristone or have ordered the fda to remove the medication abortion drug from the market entirely, and so in that sense, it preserves the status quo for medication abortion ensuring that doctors and patients can access the drug because they concluded that the plaintiffs who brought this case, a group of anti-abortion doctors did not establish that they were sufficiently likely to be injured because of the availability of medication abortion, which of course is an extremely safe drug. however, it's important to note that what the court's opinion did not do, is they did not rule out the possibility of what's known as a comstock challenge in the future. it's an 1873 victorian era law that some republicans have

suggested actually amounts to a nationwide ban on not just medication abortion but the abortion procedure as well. and so it's possible that in a future republican administration you could see a republican president and attorney general in both the comstock act argue that medication abortion cannot be distributed. this case merely concludes that the anti-abortion doctors who brought this case were not actually injured and, therefore, could not take the medication abortion drug off the market themselves. >> so what you're saying is they did not rule on the merits. they simply said that the challengers to the fda decision here in the approval did not have standing, and so, therefore, others could potentially file suit again and this could eventually bubble back up. but just to be clear, right now this means nothing changes when it comes to this abortion pill access. that means all of the things that they were looking at that had been approved in later years

following the original approval in 2000, like the ability to get this medication through the mail, like only having to do one doctor visit instead of three, like being able to access medication up to ten weeks in gestation versus just seven. all of those things remain, but leah, we know there is another abortion-related case that the supreme court is still looking at. does this decision have any implications or set any expectations for where they could go in that other case, the one dealing with idaho's abortion ban? >> i don't think the court's ruling on the medication abortion case suggests what the court might do one way or another on the case involving the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, that's the case where the biden administration is arguing that that federal law requires states to allow hospitals to perform abortions in cases that may be necessary to save a woman's health, bodily organs, bodily

function. base in this case, the court said these plaintiffs, the doctors were not injured and did not, as you said, engage with the merits, that is whether medication abortion is lawful or could be restricted for some reasons. it just doesn't say whether the court is going to say on the merits, or what it might say on the merits in the idaho case. >> i want to bring in the president for reproductive freedom for all. i've apologizing for saying your last name wrong, i believe, but thank you so much for joining us. we know the alliance for hippocratic medicine, the group that had challenged the fda's approval of mifepristone had asked for it to be banned in every state, even in the ones where abortion is protected by state law, and that's what we're seeing, right, is that each individual state right now is able to implant its own laws. does this decision impact the fight over abortion or reproductive health restrictions at the state level? >> yes, i mean, this case, first

of all, i want to start by saying this case should never have been heard. the court made it very clear that the plaintiffs didn't have standing, lacked standing, and there were -- there was a larger global issue here about fda authority, right? the original case was disputing the fda's authority to approve mifepristone 20 some odd years ago. medication abortion is safe. it's been legal for over 20 years. it is safer than tylenol, so those are sort of the fundamentals of the case. but now what we're looking at is how does this affect abortion bans? we always thought this case, by we abortion rights advocates, was a way to implement a back door abortion ban, to restrict abortion access in states that have made abortion legal, including states that have constitutional protections in their states for abortion. what this decision does today is it clears the path -- it clears the path for states to ramp up access to abortion, medication abortion like california has done, really opening up medication abortion access to folks from other states.

it clears a lot of uncertainty for practitioners and providers in states without abortion bans, but it also makes it easier for folks in states with abortion bans to travel and access abortion care through telemedicine, through brick and mortar pharmacies. it makes sure medication abortion is accessible and legal in all 50 states. it also is a big win for the biden administration and the fda. it solidifies their authority, and it shows that they're willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to fight back against these ban. >> donald trump has repeatedly said that he thinks abortion should be up to the states, so do you think this decision will impact at all where he lands thon issue if he's elected? >> no. i think donald trump has been pretty clear over and over again that he is very proud of overturning roe. he brags about it.

he makes it -- whenever he's in front of an anti-abortion crowd, he's really unequivocal about how proud he is to overturn roe, and then he thinks actually patients and providers should be punished. he's also really intertwined with the folks behind project 2025. his advisers are talking about using the comstock act, an 1800s law to circumvent congress and push a national federal abortion ban, and he's also talked about restricting access to contraceptions. i don't think this is going to change much about where donald trump stands. i do think that there are going to be republican efforts to hide their position on this. it's pretty hard to do so when you're on the record writing about the fundamental case that's led to this catastrophe in this country, and that was dobbs. >> i want to bring in msnbc legal analyst lisa rubin because lisa, the dobbs decision was really the last big abortion case. so this is a big one after that obviously, justices kind of

punting on this specific issue, but for now it means more access or at least the same kind of access that women already had remains here in america. how do you see the big picture in terms of where we are right now when it comes to women's reproductive care? >> i think where we are, ana, is a place that is very dangerous because while this decision preserves for now women's access to mifepristone, you and i both know that it's not the soul means by which women have abortions this this country, and is particularly not the seoul sole need for women who are in medical distress. the texas woman who has become an accidental advocate for abortion care after being denied emergency care in texas, when i think about her, her life is no different now and the lives of people like amanda zerowski are no different as a result of this decision. this decision doesn't change

anything about the number of states that are firmly anti-reproductive choice and access who are still trying to restrict access to mifepristone in their state. while it is absolutely true that women will continue to have access by mail, at least for now, to mifepristone, it is also true that in certain states, they will try their darnedest to ban the sale retail of mifepristone. they will maybe also make it difficult for doctors in that state to prescribe mifepristone. we're looking at an environment where the ultimate issue, which is the authority of the fda to say how and when women have access to mifepristone remains undecided and for another day. >> and again, our breaking news right now, the supreme court ruling on the issue of abortion pills and saying abortion pills can stay on the market as is, specifically referring to mifepristone. and i want to bring in democratic congresswoman zoe lofgren of california. congresswoman, thanks for joining us. what's your reaction to today's decision? >> well, you know, kind of

wondering why did they take this made up case to begin with. this was a made up case for an agenda, and it was bizarre that they took it, and i think obviously it was a hot potato. now they've gotten rid of it. but it doesn't mean that the women of america are free. as we know donald trump recently celebrated the overturning of roe v. wade as a beautiful decision, and so he really is in favor of the federal government deciding these very personal decisions for women and their families across the united states. we have a lot of risks right now and that's not over. >> do you see this having any impact on what happens there on the hill? we know that democrats have been making a push for reproductive rights recently dealing with contraception, dealing with iv

f, and of course there had been earlier pushes to codify roe into the u.s. constitution. what's next? >> well, there is an effort to get protection for contraception on the floor for a vote. there's a discharge petition, which i signed yesterday. i think we need 18 more signatures to get it on the floor. but of course, as you know, republicans in the senate recently blocked protection for contraception. it's worth remembering that when the court overthrew roe v. wade, they essentially eliminated the constitutional right to privacy. and that is the basis for a number of american freedoms, the freedom to marry whom you want, the freedom to have access to contraception, so there is a lot of risk to american women of the federal government coming in and taking control of their lives and their health care. >> on this specific issue, there was a lot of concern by

pharmaceutical companies, by people in different realms including the american cancer society saying if they can insert themselves, judges, the courts, into decisions around drugs that require fda approval, that that would really open pandora's box. why do you think the justices didn't rule on the merits here? >> well, you know, it's just speculation, but obviously federal judges are in no position to make scientific decisions. the fda has a very elaborate process evaluating trials and the like, and it's not just this drug, but any medication that goes through this rigorous process, and if the federal judiciary says that they can just redo it, we're at risk for a lot of trouble. i'm just guessing that the supreme court understands the

can of worms that this is. they -- this was a fake case to begin with. it makes you wonder why they took it, but having done so, perhaps they realized what a mistake it was. >> there is another significant case regarding abortion access before the court. i touched on this a little bit ago. it deals with idaho's abortion ban, which is a near total ban, except there are exceptions for the life of the mother, if the life of the mother is threatened but the question is at what point is the life threatened versus her health threatened. are there any actions democrats can take without control of the house? >> no, i mean, the republicans control the agenda, and they are on the side of the federal government taking over women's health care. you know, the idaho law has resulted in ob/gyn's fleeing the state. women in idaho are having a hard

time getting prenatal care because doctors are afraid that if they make a mistake, they will be prosecuted. it's a very long sentence if they are convicted. you know, the idea that you have to be at death's door to get medical care is really absurd. >> congresswoman zoe lofgren thank you so much for joining us with your perspective. i want to go back to yamiche alcindor. any others that we need to touch on here? >> reporter: that's right, well, the big case of course today was mifepristone and preserving access to that abortion medication. we have 26 other cases before the supreme court that have yet to be decided on, and there are some big, big cases. there's another abortion case focused on a law in idaho that's a total ban, almost a total ban on abortion. it's really questioning whether or not you can get emergency care if you're going through an abortion, the biden administration saying that that law is in direct contrast to

federal law. there's also the trump immunity case. that's the case where former president trump is arguing that he is absolutely immune to any actions he took while officially in office as the president of the united states during his tenure. the big case we've been watching there. he's been charged by the special counsel jack smith with a number of things related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election. we have a number of other cases including gun cases, one focused on whether or not domestic violence abusers and people who have been convicted of domestic violence violations, whether or not they can have their access to guns restricted. that's just a number of the cases that we're looking at. today was a big day. we had a couple of days where we were looking the these cases and we weren't getting anything that rose to sort of national prominence. today with this mifepristone case and this court saying unanimously here that the doctors who brought this case, that they do not have standing here, that is a big decision here because so many women that i talked toll personally that i've gone to this states like

alabama, states like arizona, they were watching this case so closely. there was a lot of worry, whether or not they were going to have access to that pill. it is important to note that that case, as we said, was dismissed on standing. it opens the door that other people could possibly challenge the fda's approval of that medication, but it's an important one to continue to watch in that space. of course i just have to also note the politics of this, right? all of this is happening just months before the presidential election, and you can imagine that there are going to be democrats who say, look, this is a case that has been decided now just dismissed because of these doctors lack of standing, but there could be another case that hits on and limits access to abortion medication in this country. i expect democrats and republicans to be talking about this case today and for abortion to continue to be a top issue as the presidential election new year's. >> we hear sounds like protesters there outside the supreme court. are they specifically protesting related to this case?

>> reporter: it's a great question, i think from what i can hear that they are protesting this case. i should tell you that while today there aren't that many protesters here, when the oral arguments for this case, for the mifepristone case were being heard, there were literally hundreds of people, streets that usually are open in front of the supreme court and across from me, the capitol building, they were closed during oral arguments. it's not surprising you have protesters who were coming here. the vast majority of the ones that i've seen were people who were in favor of abortion rights and who were very, very anxious that this 6-3 conservative majority court that overturned roe v. wade that they were very worried this abortion medication would also be taken off and not be allowed to be accessible to women. so i can't exactly make out what they're saying. it is not surprising, again, that there's action here and maybe this will get bigger as the day goes on. we'll be here all day reporting on this, of course. >> yamiche, you just mentioned. it's a 6-3 breakdown there on the court. six conservative justices, three

more liberal leaning justices. what's the breakdown on this decision, and who wrote the opinion? >> so brett kavanaugh wrote this opinion. people might remember brett kavanaugh from the blockbuster confirmation hearings. he was appointed by former president donald trump. this was a unanimous decision that meant that all the supreme court justices, conservative and liberal decided that the doctors who were opposing and who sued the fda to try to stop access to mifepristone that they did not have the standing. i want to read a little bit. several justices during the oral arguments noted that doctors who oppose abortion, suffering from abortion-related side effects. you heard in the oral arguments, a lot of skepticism from conservative and liberal justices that these doctors were going to be able to show that they were going to be harmed by having mifepristone on the market here. this is a unanimous decision, though the supreme court is a 6-3 conservative majority here, ana. >> stand by, we'll bring back

lisa rubin. medication abortion is available right now in 36 states and washington, d.c. is that still at risk? >> for right now it is not at risk, but in the political environment where republicans control both houses of congress or where the presidency is held by a republican, do i think it could be at risk? absolutely. why? because as professor litman mentioned to you, the comstock act, it's a federal act that's currently in place prohibits the mailing of certain things interstate. some people sfwerpt to prohibit the mailing of mifepristone and the other drug that goes with it to comprise abortion medication. they may not be wrong on the actual text of the law that prohibits the mailing. so given that, this law has not been enforced for decades. it hasn't -- it was considered sort of dead under the roe v. wade regime, but in a post-dobbs universe, what is the

enforceability of the comstock act? that's a question that the biden administration doesn't want to answer and doesn't have to answer. they've essentially said we're not going to enforce the comstock act and believe that the food, drug, and koz mikt act has given the fda the authority to continued use of these drugs and we will continue to do everything we can to make mifepristone available under federal law. in a world where power changes rapidly, one of the things that those who brought this case would love to see happen in the absence of being able to accomplish their objectives through this case is enforceability of the comstock act. you may also see a number of states more aggressively say, well, wait a second, if the supreme court is not going to save us and say that mifepristone was inappropriately approved or that that approval was inappropriately expanded when women got greater access to mifepristone, for example, earlier in their pregnancies, well, then we as red state who is believe abortion should be illegal, we need to take greater

action ourselves. you could see a collision of states rights on one hand and the power of the fda on the other come back again up through the courts and out through the supreme court. i want to go to ali vitali who has some reaction from the former president, donald trump. ali, what's he saying? >> reporter: ana, at this point from our sources in the room, it's clear that the former president at least broached the topic of abortion, though largely my understanding at least at the top of this meeting is it was a lot of platitudes, a lot of preaching about the need for republicans to be unified. but in the minutes after the supreme court announced its decision on the abortion pill, it's not clear that trump reacted directly to that, but instead was speaking about the issue of abortion access generally. multiple sources in the room telling us on our hill team that trump told his conference that in this post-roe environment, the party needed to talk about the issue correctly. he acknowledged apparently at

one point according to our sources that this is an issue that has cost republicans in the past, and it's too important for them to ignore. he did, of course, reiterate the stance that we've heard from him time and again that this is an issue that he prefers to be back in the hands of the states, back in the hands of the people. that of course is squarely where it is now, but an acknowledgment, seemingly from the former president that as he's in the room for this congressional coronation of sorts and among allies within his own party, that he is beginning to tick through key policy points that are going to be important in the months ahead as he tries to retake the white house and really bring many of these members on his coat tails with them. our sources still telling us while abortion was an issue that did come up from the former president, so too did issues like china, the economy, inflation. all key things we heard from republicans and the former president publicly now being discussed privately in this room where i'm standing outside of.

i want to bring in brendan buck, he is the former press secretary for speakers boehner and paul ryan. thank you so much for jumping on and talking about this issue as we hear how donald trump is handling it in this room where he's meeting with republican lawmakers. what do you think america can expect if he returns to the oval office and has some republican control on the hill? >> yeah, as ali noted, i think donald trump is very aware of the politics of this issue and how dangerous it potentially is electorally for republicans. i think you have a lot of republican campaign operatives breathing a sigh of relief this morning. as has been noted, this is a bit of a fluky case. donald trump has obviously talked a lot about wanting states to be in charge of this. what ends up happening in situations like this is you are

now at the whims of roe lit gants or state legislatures going far beyond what most people would consider the reasonable restrictions that republicans have long talked about. i don't think donald trump -- the reason he's kicking this to the states is i don't think he wants anything to do with these issues if he's elected president. now, there may be pressure among some republicans in congress who wanted to do more on this, i don't think it's very realistic they would ever have the votes to do anything at a federal level. it's a very difficult balancing act for donald trump. he wants to take credit with social conservatives for getting the conservative supreme court. he's also very aware of the enormous blowback that we've seen in many recent elections. it's a motivating issue for democrats and republicans don't have a very good answer for this. republicans need to talk about this the right way, he says. we haven't quite figured out a way to talk about it that doesn't alienate a huge portion of voters. >> what is the right way for

republicans to talk about this, especially when you consider from more recent surveys, pew research center found 6 in 10 americans say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. that is the vast majority of the american people who are seemingly going against the grain of where republicans are on this issue. how vulnerable does it make the republican party when it comes to november's election? >> quite vulnerable, particularly if this is a live issue, and that's why i think what happened today is probably quite good for republicans electorally. look, we've had a lot of people do the sort of far right stance on abortion. we've seen that blow up. but remember glenn youngkin in virginia tried a very different are approach. he pitched a 15-week ban. arguing that that is a middle ground, he was sort of leaning into it instead of running away from the issue, and that didn't work. he suffered losses at the state

house that were unexpected. so i don't think anybody's figured out a good position because there clearly is a solid majority, particularly obviously women who have been a very difficult demographic for republicans recently. the best answer, i think, for republicans on this issue is to change the subject right now. >> all right, thank you, brendan buck. let's go to nbc's monica alba who is traveling with the president who's at the g-7 summit in italy right now. are we getting any word from the white house or the biden campaign on this decision today by the supreme court allowing mifepristone, this abortion pill to stay on the market as is? >> reporter: it's a topic that the white house and the biden campaign have talked about repeatedly as overall being one of the most salient they think heading into november's election. the larger question and issue of abortion access. i suspect you will hear from the white house. we are getting some reaction in from the biden campaign, from a

senior adviser who tells us essentially that anybody who looks at this ruling and takes away potentially this idea that this medication could be safe and protected for some time, shouldn't really think that way, and they're putting this fully into the political context of if donald trump were to be elected and returned to the white house, it is likely he could try to ban mifepristone nationwide. we know that certainly he has made comments in recent weeks and months about his stance on abortion access and while he has been a little bit unclear on whether certain states should have the rights to make decisions about abortions versus an overall situation, we know that he and many republicans have talked about, of course, restricting access and making it even more difficult. but specifically when it comes to this, this is clearly an issue that the biden campaign and the entirety of the re-election effort will be talking about in a really

magnified way around the dobbs anniversary, which is coming up in about a week and a half on june 24th, and we do expect that the vice president who has been a really key messenger on this for the administration will mark that anniversary in addition to the president, and that will come just days before the first general election debate on june 27th. so you can expect that certainly leading up to that and as a key part of that, reproductive rights will be front and center, and you have really heard from this white house over the last year and more engaging with doctors, speaking specifically with women who have had their own personal stories about needing access to medication abortion or to other abortion providers and what they are able to offer for a variety of reasons, and that those kinds of stories have been highlighted at everything from the state of the union to round table events that the first lady has had. so this is really overall

something that the president and the white house feel that many americans will vote in a certain way on when it comes to november, based on what we saw in those midterm elections in 2022, after the fall of roe and in almost every single special election or ballot measure that deals with abortion access since then. that's something that repeatedly when you look at polling, something that the white house and all of the biden aides and advisers that i speak to continually point to, that when it comes to this issue, it's really something they think will be incredibly motivating and mobilizing, but they also don't want people to be complacent based on just this ruling alone because the future is still in doubt depending, of course, on who's in office, what kind of laws are proposed and what kind of things could be enacted. >> monica alba, thank you very much. and we'll continue to watch if the president makes any remarks related to this at some point

today as he continues his g-7 trip. i just want to read directly from the statement coming from the biden campaign, a senior biden campaign adviser saying, quote, it would be a devastating mistake for voters or members of the media to take away from today's ruling that medication abortion is now safe from mga attacks. if given the chance, donald trump will ban medication abortion nationwide. in fact, his allies have a plan to do so using executive actions that would circumvent both the courts and congress. the president, former president i should say, has not been clear on exactly where he stands on this issue of medication abortion other than to say it should all be left in the hands of the state. i want to bring in dr. kavita patel, an msnbc medical contributor. thanks so much for coming in. first your reaction and how you see this ruling today? >> well, it's relief on one hand. i completely agree with the notion this is still not over. the way the courts worded it, they really did say, i'm not the lawyer. they left it pretty open that you can have legislative action.

the president can take action, just as a reminder, it's the president that could put up an fda commissioner where this could easily roll back to much more restricted access. remember, a lot of what's done has been done in the biden administration building on decades of evidence. this is a safe, effective drug that can be delivered across state lines in the mail through many procedures that we can do as doctors very clearly. but that's not necessarily codified in the opinion today as keeping it safe. it just said unanimously you didn't have enough to bring it to us. but hey, there are all these other things that you could do to try to get your actions heard. that's what i took away. >> lisa, as you've been reading a little bit more of the opinion and listening to what we've been discussing, what stands out to you right now? what thoughts are on your mind? >> well, first of all, it's a wholesale repudiation of the arguments that were made at oral argument in the briefing as to why the folks who brought this case should have been able to bring this case in the first place. their arguments were essentially

as doctors who opposed abortion, they shouldn't be in a position where they had to divert their attention from other patients needing their care, if a woman who had taken mifepristone suddenly needed their attention. that was quite an attenuated argument and also a departure from how the supreme court traditionally sees what it means to have standing, which necessitates that you come to the court with a direct and actual injury. and here you've got a unanimous court saying this isn't it. you know, as brett kavanaugh says in the opinion for this unanimous supreme court, justice scalia always used to reduce standing to a phrase, what's it to you? and here he basically says these folks didn't have anything that they could bring to the table that really made it concrete that they had been injured. yes, they had a political objection to mifepristone. yes, they had a moral objection to mifepristone, and maybe a policy objection too, but that didn't get them over the hurdle necessary to have their case heard by this court or even the lower court that granted the relief in the first place that

rolled back approval to mifepristone. but as dr. patel says wisely, that doesn't mean there aren't multiple other avenues for them to seek the relief they want. this is the first of two abortion cases we're expecting to hear this term, and i don't think the second one is going to go in a way that pro-abortion access advocates are going to cheer. that case is based on a federal law called em tall la that has to do with what kind of emergency care hospitals must provide when a patient presents there, and the argument by the solicitor general is if a woman comes in and needs an abortion to stabilize her medical condition or save her life, that law takes precedence over idaho's law. idaho argued that's not what the government wants. the government wants us to provide abortion on demand, if a woman comes in she's suicidal, that's the government's position. the department of justice says that's not what they want at all, but a woman shouldn't have to be close to death to get the

emergency care mandated by this federal law. it would be enough, for example, if she had organ damage or organ failure result of a hospital deciding not to treat her under this law. i don't think that decision is going to go the way abortion advocates want it to. it will crystallize and make stark how much in danger women's lives still are even with a very much wanted pregnancy if they have complications that necessitate getting emergency care in a state that doesn't allow abortion. >> doctor, what is the mood like right now among health care professionals? doctors who are seeing women who need care and are wondering can i help them legally? >> yeah, i have to be honest up until today, especially we're just delivering care. we're not necessarily tuning in to like every minute of the supreme court's actions. but i will tell you the mood was pretty despondent that people were a little concerned that this is a politically motivated court and that they won't necessarily see -- this shouldn't even have been brought to the higher court.

the data upon which the plaintiffs made this claim was completely false data that said that there were all these inflated er visits due to medication abortion and that has been since debunked and withdrawn by peer-reviewed journals. so doctors feel like science is on the bench in a political way, but not necessarily. so today so literally i've been -- instead of reading the 38 pages of the opinion, i've been trying to kind of track what my friends are saying, and they're all relieved but a little bit of like to lisa's point, like what next? so it's not necessarily whew, we've beat that and let's go on and be doctors and take care of our patients. it's okay, one battle down, but there are so many more. what people need to understand about most of us in the medical profession, we don't want to be caught up in legal battles. it has already been clear now no matter what the supreme court says is that our care is being interfered by all of these entities and by people who don't even put the science first.

>> and on the science of mifepristone as you point out, some of what the fda wrote in the brief was pointing to how safe this drug is. it says this drug was less dangerous than using viagra or getting one's wisdom teeth removed. the safety profile comparable to that of ibuprofen. these are drugs that people use regularly and don't think twice. i just wonder if some doctors who had challenged the fda approval here, lisa, didn't have standing, who in the heck would? >> well, i guess -- you know, it's funny because i posed that question to an unnamed law professor friend of mine just now over text saying like, if they were going to try and come back with better plaintiffs, what would that claim look like? who would be in that position? and i suppose it would be someone who would say i was physically injured by mifepristone use, and my body is not the same. i don't have the capacity to carry children, something like that. i'm not aware of cases like that out in the public domain, and my

guess is if alliance defending freedom, which was an organization created to bring this case, if that network of people had been aware of women who had claims like that, they would have been the plaintiffs in this case to begin with because their arguments would have always been more compelling than a group of doctors who essentially had nothing more than a conscience objection that could have been dealt with through hospital policy and existing law. >> help us put into perspective how frequently used this abortion medication is. >> over -- not just over the last year when they've been able to kind of allow for more access to the this drug, but even preceding that, this has been the majority of abortions are performed by medication. so this is safe and effective. we always offer women a choice. we talk to them about what is involved, and so this is the plurality of abortions provided in the united states, and we now know from all the data in the last year since dobbs that this is something that people are seeking out and that prescribers are trying to make sure that

they have these conversations because they know how difficult access can be in certain states, even though federal law, federal regulations allow for us to prescribe this, different states make it incredibly difficult. >> joining us is the chief medical officer for planned parenthood missouri. we know missouri has tightened abortion access significantly since the overturning of roe. what does today's decision mean? >> you know, today is certainly a win for access. i don't know that it is the sweeping win for science that we were hoping for, but it does mean that for right now more than 60% of the people who are accessing abortion can still access the abortion of their choice. we know as you've heard over and over, medication abortion is incredibly safe. it is probably the most studied medication that we have, especially in the realm of sexual and reproductive health, and so today is the win for access. it means that today we can continue to provide people access to pregnancy termination

in the way that they want and that they deserve. >> and so i guess what do you see as the next step in this fight? >> well, you know, the truth is we know that anti-abortion extremists are not going to stop. they weren't going to stop when roe was overturned, they aren't going to stop at losing this case. we will take the time to read that 38 pages and figure out what the next strategy is, but as you've heard, you know, time and time again, for us on the ground every day is just meeting patients where they are, making sure that we are doing everything we can to reduce barriers to access, making sure that folks who are in those banned states are either getting to states where access is protected or have the knowledge and information to manage their abortion by themselves. so you know, the fight continues, but today is a moment to take a deep breath and to be grateful that folks still have access to this safe and effective method.

>> dr. colleen mccnicholas, thak you very much. and with us now melissa murray, msnbc legal analyst. how surprised are you that this was a unanimous decision and that the decision was written by bret kavanaugh? >> not really surprised. on our podcast we said that the court would dismiss this on jurisdictional grounds, and they did. they've been really focused on trying to get out some unanimous opinions. that heeds the narrative that this is a more consensus driven court than a conservative extremist court, and i think this sort of feeds boo into that. again i want to emphasize this is not a sweeping victory. it does preserve access to medication abortion for now. this is not a decision on the merits. this does not credit the fda's approval of mifepristone. it simply says these are not the right plaintiffs to bring this case, and the anti-abortion movement is going to find the right plaintiffs. and lisa mentioned that unnamed

law professor, it's me, hi, i'm the unnamed law professor. i think she's exactly right. they're going to look for women who were injured by mifepristone. if they can't find women, doctors who have very clear economic injuries or who have been denied conscience protections and have had to provide mifepristone against their conscience wills. that is going to be coming down the pike. what no one has talked about in this 38-page opinion is that it was unanimous but justice clarence thomas, one of the most stalwart objectors to abortion on the court filed a separate concurrence, and in that concurrence he railed against the court's third-party standing doctrine. he said if this particular organization lacks standing, then other organizations including abortion providers, abortion clinics who frequently bring lawsuits challenging abortion laws on behalf of their patients also lack standing. so he is laying the seeds for this to eliminate standing for

the traditional panoply of providers who would bring these cases on behalf of their plaintiffs. there are seeds in this opinion and concurrence for a more dangerous future for those challenging these laws. >> according to polling, i keep coming back to where the american public is on this. this is polling from "axios" and ips so, 72% favor letting women keep access to abortion pills. the majority of republicans, 51% are signing on the side of reproductive health. what does it tell you that a decision that impacts all of america is left in the hands of these nine justices? >> well, to be clear it's not just left in the hands of those nine justices. before it got to those nine justices there were decisions and laws enacted by gerrymandered legislators, where

most of these lack scientific background, lack medical background, lack uteruses, they're mostly men. many of whom are not even of reproductive age or well past the bandwidth of reproductive age. we live in a distorted democracy where majority will has been very hard to express in our traditional legislatures and the court. it continues to fuel that distortion by crediting jerry mandering, and by blessing these laws as they did in dobbs in 2022 that make it harder for the majority to extheir will, to express their desire for women to control their additions about bodily autonomy. >> thanks to everyone who has joined us on this breaking news this hour. up next, we're going to go back to capitol hill where donald trump is meeting with republican lawmakers at this hour. we'll have the latest after a very short break. stay with us. a very short break stay with us

the all new godaddy airo helps you get your business online in minutes with the power of ai... ...with a perfect name, a great logo, and a beautiful website. just start with a domain, a few clicks, and you're in business. make now the future at godaddy.com/airo nothing dims my light like a migraine. with nurtec odt, i found relief. the only migraine medication that helps treat and prevent, all in one. to those with migraine, i see you. for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura and the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults. don't take if allergic to nurtec odt. allergic reactions can occur, even days after using. most common side effects were nausea, indigestion, and stomach pain. it's time we all shine. talk to a healthcare provider about nurtec odt from pfizer. (aaron) i own a lot of businesses... talk to a healthcare provider so i wear a lot of hats.

my restaurants, my tattoo shop... and i also have a non-profit. but no matter what business i'm in... my network and my tech need to keep up. thank you verizon business. (kevin) now our businesses get fast and reliable internet from the same network that powers our phones. (waitress) all with the security features we need. (aaron) because my businesses are my life. man, the fish tacos are blowing up! so whatever's next... we're cooking with fire. let's make it happen! (vo) switch to the partner businesses rely on. bent finger appointment in 30 minutes. you got this. one - remember, i don't want surgery for my dupuytren's contracture. two - i don't want to wait for my contracture to get worse. three - i want a treatment with minimal downtime. four - i want a nonsurgical treatment. good boy.

and five... and if nonsurgical treatment isn't offered? i'll get a second opinion. let's go! take charge of your treatment. if you can't lay your hand flat, visit findahandspecialist.com to get started.

my frequent heartburn had me taking antacid after antacid all day long but with prilosec otc just one pill a day blocks heartburn for a full 24 hours. for one and done heartburn relief, prilosec otc. one pill a day, 24 hours, zero heartburn. we are back with the other big story this morning, donald trump meeting with republican lawmakers today in our nations capitol. allie vitelli is there. you've been talking to lawmakers coming out of that meeting. one of the been telling you? >> reporter: the whole thing lasted about an hour. lawmakers coming out to give us readouts similar to what

resources in the room of dallas. this was a meeting that ranged from a happy birthday course to the former president to a deeper policy discussion. i see what of the lawmakers who just came out of the room, i eager to talk to. i'm going to show my height and step down from my box and talk to congressman max miller from ohio., what stood out to you. i heard it was pretty wide- ranging. >> a lot of members will take whatever they want to take from the president. i saw very strong vision. presidents from painting a picture of what he accomplished in his four years of presidency, which was a secure southern border, energy independence, no foreign wars, no labor shortages, and inflation wasn't a problem. i believe he painted that picture in an optimistic way and i look forward to him returning to the white house to publish those goals once again.

>> it strikes me this has been a conference, and i have talked about this many times, that has had some trouble with leadership houston former speaker kevin mccarthy and, i heard from some of your colleagues that he said at one point in the meeting to congressman marjorie taylor greene, are you being nice to make? >> president trump's once the republican conference to be unified. but i would love to hear them say is i will do anything i can to help any republican member get elected who i haven't endorsed against, which is only a couple of them in that room. that shows me cares about this body, he cares about this republican conference, and once republishes agenda when he's back in the oval office. i believe he has ordered this out in a beautiful way and painted a great picture. >> reporter: the thing that strikes me, i have to say, this is the first and he has been back on capitol hill since the january 6th insurrection committed that, but question >> it did not. as you can see here now, the only protests that are outside the capitol club are people protesting israel and maybe ukraine and a couple other things that are all foreign- policy related. that is why i'm glad the president came here today, to

talk about our country, to fix our problems that we have here on the ground and to talk about it. that is what he successfully did. straight behind all of us, there's not much going on. it doesn't seem like there's a lot of volatility. >> reporter: congressman, thank you for talking to is life. i appreciate it. just to wrap it up, i think the thing that wasn't talked about in the room is the thing that strikes many of us on the capitol hill complex regularly, which is that this is the first time the former president has been back to the capitol hill area since the insurrection on january 6th that he helped to foment. >> he will meet with senators as well later today. so, more to come. thank you so much, allie vitelli, for that interview and for your coverage. our other breaking news this money, this time overseas in italy, president biden meeting with fellow world leaders at the annual g7 summit. joining us from italy, monica alba. you had double duty today, getting the reaction related to the mifepristone ruling and the president's focus there in italy, what is top of his

agenda on this trip? >> reporter: for all of these leaders, certainly the war in ukraine continues to be something where they try to get together and have broad agreement on how to continue to defend ukraine. will more military aid, and for this new plan the president is going to be talking about a little later today when he has a joint press conference with ukrainian president volodymyr zelenskyy. that is essentially to use frozen russian assets to try to continue to fund and funnel money to ukraine. we understand that likely in the form of $50 billion or so, that will be coming to ukraine through this agreement from the g7 leaders. there is an open question about exactly where that may go in the future and for how long. it comes against the backdrop of these questions in the u.s. about funding the war in ukraine and taxpayers wondering how far their money is going there and for how long it

should continue. according to recent polling, if you really look at what the numbers were like after the war started in february of 2022, more than 40% of american suggested that more money should be going from the u.s. to ukraine. now, in april of 2024, it is down to 24%, saying that the u.s. isn't providing enough support to ukraine. of course, the president fought very hard with those on capitol hill to try to get more funding approved for ukraine, to provide more of the critical weapons and essential air defense capabilities, which now they have been able to do but there is still more they say they would like to provide. >> president biden will be signing a lateral security agreement as well as related to ukraine. we will be watching it all and reporting it out. monica, thank you very much. that will do it for us, this

very busy hour, thank you for joining us. i'm ana cabrera, was a ds vallarta picks up our coverage next. next. six digestive symptoms. the power of nature. iberogast. are you keeping as much of your investment gains as possible? high taxes can erode returns quickly. at creative planning, your portfolio is managed in a tax-efficient manner. it's what you keep that really matters. book your free meeting today at creativeplanning.com. ♪ i have type 2 diabetes, but i manage it well ♪ ♪ jardiance! ♪ ♪ it's a little pill with a big story to tell ♪ ♪ i take once-daily jardiance ♪ ♪ at each day's start! ♪ ♪ as time went on it was easy to see ♪ ♪ i'm lowering my a1c! ♪ jardiance works twenty-four seven in your body to flush out some sugar. and for adults with type 2 diabetes and known heart disease, jardiance can lower the risk of cardiovascular death, too. serious side effects may include ketoacidosis that may be fatal, dehydration that can lead to sudden worsening of kidney function, and genital yeast or urinary tract infections.

a rare, life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop jardiance and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this infection ketoacidosis, or an allergic reaction. you may have an increased risk for lower limb loss. call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of infection in your legs or feet. taking jardiance with a sulfonylurea or insulin may cause low blood sugar. ♪ jardiance is really swell ♪ ♪ the little pill ♪ ♪ with a big story to tell! ♪

good morning. 11:00 a.m. eastern, 8:00 a.m. pacific. we began this out with with breaking news from the nation's highest court, where just in the last hour justices unanimously rejected a bid by a conservative christian legal group to restrict access to an abortion pill used by millions of patients every year. justice brett kavanaugh right