a polling issue. it also can be a reason for voters to go to the polls if they think that the federal government now is ceasing to do its main role in our lives and keep people safe. >> kayleigh: protect the justices, it should of been done long ago, it should not have taken a call. a long overdue. it's been on a lot of breaking news, fox news alert, a political change in america, supreme court overturning the half century court ruling on roe vs. wade, guaranteed the federal right to abortion. i'm sandra smith on this friday afternoon. >> very busy friday, i'm trace gallagher in for john roberts. this is "america reports." justice samuel alito writing the majority opinion ending roe, joined by clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh, and

amy coney barrett. chief roberts wrote an opinion ban on abortions 15 weeks after pregnancy, but stopped the precedence of roe vs. wade together. all three liberal justices were in dissent. >> sandra: nearly half the states are already prepared to ban or severely limit abortions. this ruling comes more than a month, you'll remember, after the stunning leak of a draft opinion by justice samuel alito, indicating the court was prepared to take this very step. that leak leading to weeks of protests outside the homes of some justices and even a threat on the life of justice brett kavanaugh. >> trace: begin with shannon bream, she is life at the

supreme court. >> good to see you, trace and sandra. walk through this again. what happens here, with the 5-4 opinion, at least on the issue of not only upholding the mississippi law but journey turning roe, send this back to the states. many of them already have trigger laws on one end or the other that are kicking in almost immediately, some of them, others of them will take a little bit more time to kick in, a date in the future. walk through the opinion. justice alito writing no set roe always had some skeptics, he says it was agregiously wrong from the start, reason was weak, and damaging consequences and far from bringing about a national settlement, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the peoples elected representatives. that means going back to the state. clearly dissenters did not agree with that, and people said roe was in trouble, it does not have

the best legal pinning and foundations, and justice breyer matters, justice sotomayor, and says from the fertilization, they can force to bring a pregnancy to term even at the steepest costs, and abortion restrictions, the majority holds permissible whenever rationale, states will free feel to enact all manner of restrictions, and both directions, some opening access to abortion through a due date others say not at all and here in washington, a heavy presence with security today and feels like it's ramping up a bit, too. as you know, i know you will talk about, there have been calls openly for "open season on crisis pregnancy centers" and places of faith and pro life community. we'll see.

we'll watch and wait for tonight. >> trace: back to you as the news breaks. >> sandra: mike davis, former law clerk to justice neil gorsuch. can you give us your reaction in this moment, a big moment for the country? >> this is a monumental decision and president trump should take a lot of credit for what happened today because he transformed the supreme court with justice gorsuch, justice kavanaugh, and justice barrett. he transformed the court back to a constitutionallist court that looks at the text of the constitution and what that text means versus liberal judicial activism who make up policy ends that they want and implement by judicial fiat, historic, monumental day. >> trace: what surprises me, mike, you talk to people and people believe abortion is now illegal, that's not the case. this now goes back to the states and that's how the founders

intended . >> yeah, exactly. u.s. constitution gives the federal government specific limited and separated powers and if the constitution does not give the powers, they believe to the states and the people. abortion regulations will go back to the states, where they were for the first 200 years before the supreme court made up federal law in roe versus wade and five federal judges in washington, d.c. decided abortion regulations instead of local and state representatives back home. >> sandra: get this in here, obviously a lot of congressional reaction. susan collins, united states senator, has put out a statement on the dobbs ruling and considering your closeness with the supreme court, mike davis, i want to get your reaction to this. ask you whether or not this was the case. she issued this, the supreme court is abandoned a 50-year precedent at a time the country is desperate for stability. this decision, she says, is inconsistent when what justices

gorsuch and kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me where they both were inconsistent, sorry, insistent on the importance of supporting long standing precedence the country has relied upon. can you weigh in on that, do you know that to be the case? >> that's just political noise from a politician. the supreme court justices consistently say they are going to follow precedent and the law of precedent includes evaluating precedent to determine whether the precedent is right. liberal politicians don't have any problem when they overturn conservative precedent, only seem to find, you know, only seem to cry about precedent when one of their cases gets overturned. >> trace: they said roe was agregiously wrong from the start, decision has had damaging consequences and far from bringing about a national

settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. ruth bader ginsburg, you go back also warned that roe was always susceptible to challenge. >> yeah, roe versus wade was clearly wrong. look at the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, those were passed after the civil war was to end racial discrimination and slavery in this country, nothing to do with abortion. activists invented the roe versus wade, the right to privacy large enough to encompass abortion and they took abortion regulations out of the democratic process and made it more contentious than you need it to be. if you don't like abortion regulations, move to california. if you don't like covid regulation, move to florida. >> sandra: a month ago the stunning leak from the supreme court changed everything and obviously led to the protesting

outside of some of the justices' homes, even a threat to the life of justice brett kavanaugh. that leak obviously was the draft opinion of what is now the case in this decision that was issued this morning. a month has passed. what damage has been done to the court? >> there's been tremendous damage and that's presumably this law clerk who leaked this, and we have illegal protests, intimidation campaign, obstruction of justice under 18u.s.c. 1507, harassing justices and their families and their homes. the attorney general has turned a blind eye. when republicans take back, they need to open impeachment on merrick garland. this has led to assassination attempt on justice kavanaugh, his wife and two young daughter in the middle of the night.

the attorney general needs to step up here. >> sandra: mike, former law clerk to justice gorsuch, and friends with the justices, appreciate your reaction here. >> trace: martha maccallum, she joins us here on set. martha, great to see you. you look at this whole thing and watch nancy pelosi and president biden a short time ago, they are clearly framing this as a major issue, the major issue in the 2022 midterms. >> martha: neither is approaching it from a perspective of the law or the supreme court. i think it's really interesting justice kavanaugh, who is going to get a lot of heat from susan collins and others for the decision based on what he said in the hearing and mike davis is right. go back and listen to what they said, and we are going to pull the sound bites later from the hearings, none of them, they said yes, i do consider that done federal law. that does not mean it can never be overturned. ferguson, entrenched separate

but equal and that was overturned as well. back to the politics of this, i think this will be seen as some sort of, something to hang on to for democrats, right. we have seen in recent polling it's inflation, crime, abortion. abortion around 11% in terms of what matters most to people. so, it has moved up the ladder after the leak of this document that you were just talking about. and they are going to really try to make this something that can help to motivate, particularly voters in the suburbs, i think areas outside of philadelphia, outside of michigan, places we have seen movement between trump voters who then became biden voters and now inclined to go back the other way. one point, this is obviously an extremely volatile issue, it has changed so dramatically since 1973. for one thing, this is not the case where you have people going

across state lines, necessarily, or you always hear about in terms of back alley abortions. it's not to say those incidents will never happen or some people will be in position they can't access. but more than 50%, close to 60% of abortions in this country are done by pills that come in the mail. remember this. the reason some of these clinics have closed is not just because of what they have seen coming. in some places, it's because business has been bad. the pills are taking the place of these clinics in many cases and abortion has dropped by close to 20% in recent years. so it's changed in terms of how much, you know, this is a very prominent issue for voters across the country and we are going to see. obviously today is a day full of a lot of drama and huge decision. i don't mean to minimize, but how much does it really touch everybody. >> sandra: point taken, and to

that question about susan collins and precedent and what she was told by justice, including neil gorsuch in her office, mike davis striking that down as she doesn't understand precedent. perhaps the case for nancy pelosi about the justices and precedent this morning. listen. an that some of these justices who came before the senate said they respected precedent and privacy. they must have a different view of precedent from what their vote was today on roe v. wade. i don't respect the process that criminalizes a woman's right to her reproductive freedom. >> sandra: my sources at the supreme court were sending me this and said this is absolutely not the case. stating susan collins' record or account of the meetings in her office as false, saying that does not mean the justices of the supreme court cannot

overturn law at times, difference. >> nancy pelosi trying to make this political. suggesting that these justices in their hearing process said that they would, how they would rule if a case came before them and we all knew, having covered the hearings for decades now, that is never the case. whether it's a liberal justice or justices who are appointed by liberal or conservative precedence, they will never commit in the middle of a hearing. this is what i would do -- literally accepting the fact that when something has been left for a long time, it's generally considered to be settled law, why would you even have justices if every single law on the books is something that can never be overturned. so, they are clearly playing politics, they see an opportunity, nancy pelosi said something like they are a bunch of republican activists instead of judges, so those words will come back as well. >> trace: and playing

contradictory politics, the president said if you are a victim of incest or rape, you have to carry to full term and oh, we have to let people cross state lines, he knows there's a remedy but trying to stir things up saying if you are the victim of rape, tough luck. >> martha: the fact of the matter is, the states will make the decisions and ultimately make them based on voter referendums. it's going to be extremely important to voters to choose state legislators, people will pay a lot more attention to the state legislator elections because these are the people who will be deciding based on the votes in the state they live in. so, this is what the decision is all about, it's not about supreme court justices waking up and saying let's overturn roe verses wade. no, they had a case before them, and they decided there was never a right to this in the constitution.

>> sandra: we will see you at 3:00. and now bret baier, bret, i want to get this in here and get your reaction to a lot of the congressional response that we have seen so far this morning and into the afternoon. >> supreme court justice did, they chose to endanger the lives of all women and all birthing people in this country. >> this is cementing of minority rule in a lot of ways. and we are going to have to fight a long road to get it back. >> thank god for donald trump putting up consecutive justices, great day for the country and for life. >> they are not elected, they are not representative of this country, they are extremists who were picked because of their extreme positions. and it's time for us to speak and by speaking i'm talking about the november election.

>> supreme court has a role, and that's to decide questions of law. we decide questions of importance legislative issues and legislatures across the country, in states. this court has made an historic stride in resetting that. >> and of course, bret, add to that, hearing from the president, calling it a solemn moment, a sad day for the court and country, the health and life of women he says in this nation are now at risk as we watch folks gather outside the supreme court, bret. >> bret: sandra, trace, good afternoon. it's an historic day, no matter which side of this issue you are on, it's an emotional issue and one that everybody saw coming in part because of the leak of that draft. we should point out, 6-3 decision, not a 5-4 decision as

the leak said back a few weeks ago. i think that there are some interesting points here. one is that the president, which is very important, came out and said peaceful demonstrations, peaceful, violence is never acceptable, that may be an issue in coming days, we have seen threats online, not only to the supreme court justices, but also for a day of rage in the wake of this ruling. he also said the supreme court took a constitutional right away. in reality, what the supreme court did with this ruling is said there was never a constitutional right to this and if it's not in the constitution, it goes to the states. and the states determine what happens here. and that's this ruling. it's not to outlaw abortion, it is to let the states decide. the other thing he said is that, and this is to be fact checked, by overturning roe v. wade he said america is an outliar in the modern world.

if you fact check and the world, most european nations have either a ban on abortion or some serious restrictions on abortion and we did not in federal law. so, a couple of things he said stood out. most of all calling for peace and the fact this is going to be on the ballot and you are going to hear that a lot to stir up the democratic base. >> trace: 188 years, and talking about the political motivation within minutes of the decision you probably the same i got 100 email, fundraising, both sides looking for fundraising for 2022. so this is clearly a point you made earlier, elections have consequences and president trump being in office and putting three supreme court justices on is one of those consequences. >> bret: big time. and i think you can't fully appreciate the importance of making that decision and how it

affects the fabric of the country who the justices are and what their decisions are. presidential framework, 100%, and head to the midterms, this will be used to fund raise, whip up the base. martha's point, this issue has changed and it's gone down the list of importance, especially in the wake of high inflation, of crime, immigration, are those issues somehow going to be less than this reaction that we are feeling on this day. tough to see in november. we'll see. >> sandra: really interesting to continue to see a lot of the reaction, including a.g. garland's statement, bret, the justice department strongly disagrees with the court's decision, we recognize that travelling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances but under bedrock constitutional principles women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care may be able to go to the

states that are legal. many private companies said they are going to help employees get access to the care, including disney, just putting out a statement saying employees can receive similar levels of care in another location, travel benefits, many companies have announced in the wake of this decision they will offer the employees in some states they will not be able to obtain an abortion. >> bret: it's going to be a big fascinating development. there will be lawsuits tied to that, and how that is implemented by different companies and different states. i think martha's point about the morning after pill and 65% of so-called abortions happen medically with a pill, and how does that get implemented in states now triggering a law to outlaw abortion. 13 states have already legislation that's kicking in as

of today as a result of this ruling. so i think a lot of things yet to be worked out. but one thing that will be worked out, political talking point. already in the races like ohio, you have tim ryan weighing in, and the crucial senate race, you have lieutenant governor fetterman in pennsylvania and that race, and especially along the edges for this to make difference. >> trace: great stuff. good insight, thank you as always. meantime, the bombshell ruling in the hands of states as more than two dozen states are likely to move forward with restricting abortions. david spunt live in washington with more on this. good afternoon. >> david: trace and sandra, good afternoon. outside the supreme court, 2,000 people here. the mood tense, however has calmed down a bit since the ruling came down. people are actually leaving just over the past few minutes, we'll

see what the next few hours hold. on to the states, where do we go from now, associated press first to report that missouri already has enacted a law banning abortion immediately after this ruling came down. others on the list of states, including alabama, arizona, arkansas, georgia, idaho, iowa, kentucky, louisiana, missouri, north dakota, ohio, tennessee, texas, utah, west virginia, wisconsin and wyoming. if you add in florida, indiana, nebraska, those are states close to being added to the list of having strict, strict rulings blocking abortion. so it's going to be about a 50/50 when it comes to states that will offer the procedure and will not. now the issue of abortion returns to the states that simply means abortion access for women will just depend on where that woman lives.

if a woman lives in phoenix and needs or wants abortion, she will go to california next door to do so. speaking of california, governor newsom has said california will remain a safe haven for those seeking abortion, and talk among democrats to potentially reimburse people travelling to the state for the procedure. trace. >> trace: david, thank you. >> sandra: thank you, david. other side of pennsylvania avenue, lawmakers from both sides are reacting to this coverage. our continuing coverage rolls on. >> i was talking with congressional aides, gop aides, and had their statement ready to go in case the abortion ruling came down today, and fast and furious, while we waited for democrat leaders, and republicans by the majority are rejoicing in this, not all, because we talked about susan collins not as happy as others.

tom cotton sits on the judiciary committee, he writes roe was a tragic mistake, taking from the american people and their elected representatives a deeply moral question the supreme court has finally corrected this mistake. congressional democrats, no surprise here. they have used the ruling to galvanize voters in november and help them to expand their control in congress. they want to break that senate filibuster and codify roe v. wade as the president called for this morning. here is house speaker nancy pelosi about those plans. >> there is a plan, and that plan is to win the election, hopefully to get two more senator so we can change the obstacles to passing laws for the good of our country. make no mistake in it's all on

the ballot in november. supreme court has ended a constitutional right. >> so dick durbin has announced a hearing will take place on this ruling on july 12th, but any legislative action, sandra, like blowing up the filibuster or packing the court, talk of that, that's going to run into a dead end. what house democrats have not done yet, and this is important, is approve emergency funding to protect the supreme court justices. there is a bipartisan bill sponsored by senators haggerty and warner, passed unanimously this week, deliver about $20 million, half to the u.s. marshal service and half to the supreme court to address the threats. aides are telling me the court and the marshal service are spending a ton of money on unexpected security needs they

did not budget for, including overtime pay, and republicans are warning there is going to be a lot of security needs ahead in the weeks coming. >> far left is promising this is only the prelude, prelude to the main event if they don't like the rulings coming down the pipe. one activist group is promising the cities will be submerged in "a night of rage," listen to this. and drive home a point if i may, you've been talking about this, how house democrats want to try to codify roe v. wade, they have tried that, passed something through the house, but it fell apart in the senate, not just because republicans did not get behind it, but joe manchin could not get behind it and susan collins and lisa murkowski could not get behind it, even those people found it was not just

codfying roe v. wade, it was actually trying to expand abortion. so, democrats have tried this. they may try a scaled back version but we have to wait and see on that. >> sandra: aishah, thank you. >> trace: it's interesting when you hear nancy pelosi and trying to change the make-up of the courts, changing laws for the good of the country, what she means changing laws to benefit democratics. >> kayleigh: that's exactly right. anyone could tell you roe was wrongly decided, people who agree with nancy pelosi, and the dobbs opinion goes through a litany of voices, laurence tribe, said when you look at roe, substantive judgment nowhere to be found. ruth bader ginsburg, the list goes on.

so the speaker of the house is not intellectually honest to prefer a policy outcome, the decision is not constitutionally sound as cited by many scholars she would support. >> your former boss, donald trump, issued his reaction to fox news, saying this is following the constitution and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago. he says in the end it will work out for everybody. this brings everything back to the states where it has always belonged. mark thiessen has this take in "washington post" thanking donald trump, for the falling of roe v. wade, thank donald trump, the most consequential president when it comes to the supreme court and the greatest pro life president as well. your reaction. >> kayleigh: that's right. when there were many on the christian conservative side of the republican party said we don't know about president trump when he first came on the scene

before he became the nominee, don't know where he stands on the issues, namely the judiciary. he proved himself to the side of the movement. when you looked at his really unmovable poll numbers, at the heart of that, christian conservative movement said we trust this president to appoint justices who will show fidelity to the law, he did just that in gorsuch, kavanaugh and barrett, opinion was 6-3, 3 of whom were trump-appointed justices. and apelate level, and the federal district left, he has left an impression on the judiciary, when you have a president that appoints justices who believe a certain way. >> trace: and before gorsuch and kavanaugh and there was merrick,

he issued a statement, the justice department disagrees with the court's decision. travelling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible, but women who reside in states who banned access to reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal, so it gives you an idea of the politics of roe versus wade versus the actual legality of it. >> kayleigh: and ruth bader ginsburg, it halted, and she was -- and the interesting lines in the opinion were this. said roe abruptly ended the political process, imposed the same highly restrictive regime on the entire nation and declare on page 35, and thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected

representatives. when a supreme court opinion reads more like a statute than a reasoning based on history, precedent and text, that's a problem and if you read roe, a numbered list, trimesters, cite science here and there, it reads like legislation, no supreme court opinion should do. >> trace: science, but the same who went for science in covid you have to follow it and now it doesn't matter. >> sandra: thank you very much. let's bring in an attorney who worked on the dobbs case, and former law clerk for chief justice john roberts. thank you very much for joining us. i want to dig into something, i'm getting some reporting from the supreme court that there are people close to the court in this moment about the statement that susan collins has put out and the rhetoric to basically claim the justices lied to her.

they are saying it's worrisome, especially because of the increased security needs of the justices, the conservative justices in the wake of that leak. i wonder if i could get you to respond to that, supreme court has abandoned a 50-year precedent at a time for stability. inconsistent with what justices gorsuch and kavanaugh said in their testimony and meetings with me where they were both insistent on the importance of supporting long standing precedent that the country has relied upon. obviously important thing to point out there, the justices saying that it precedent basically means that it's the law of the land right now, but that can be changed, obviously. many sources pointing out that she would not have a basic understanding of precedent. your reaction. >> absolutely. so i think there's two key points to make here, and the first is that any nominee for a

judicial office, including and especially a supreme court justice, cannot forecast or predict or promise how they are will rule in any particular case that might come before them. every year the supreme court gets abortion cases. none of the justices have forecast or predicted or promises how they would rule on roe versus wade if it came before them. and as you explain, the fact a case is precedent simply means the case has been decided by the supreme court. it is entitled to respect and must be followed by the lower courts. but the supreme court can and does reassess precedent as a supreme court opinion in dobbs points out, some of the greatest decisions of all time have been decisions in which the supreme court overruled prior precedent, overruled separate by equal

doctrine of mesy versus ferguson. the justices did not lie. >> trace: you were a former law clerk for justice roberts, and earlier reporting the decision was 5-4, no it was 6-3, and justice roberts concurred with the dobbs ruling. what did you think about justice roberts' opinion pulling back for going after roe? >> chief justice robert nowhere says roe was rightly decided. what he says is that the court did not need to overrule roe because they could uphold mississippi law on other grounds, so it's 6-3 opinion, so you have a super majority of the supreme court upholding mississippi's law, applies at 15 weeks, and five justices clearly laying out the case and explaining why roe was wrong on the day it was decided and only worse over time. so the roe was agregious decision and should not have

taken 50 years for the court to overrule that case. >> sandra: in the wake of that leak, obviously, and the protests at the justices' homes, kevin mccarthy drew this conclusion based on the decision that just came out. listen. i'm sorry, sot 16 if you can pull it up. basically makes the point that they were not bullied by the far left. listen. >> the supreme court was not bullied by the far left. threats of violence against the justices did not win. and the truth is, pro life americans are not planning a night of rage. so the reaction to this principle decision by the court, it must be peaceful. and the d.o.j. must step up to protect our justices, their

family, churches, and pro life pregnancy centers from unprovoked violence. >> sandra: your reaction to that. >> i absolutely agree, and i think this was a very brave decision by the supreme court. they decided based on the law and the constitution, not on public opinion. the court is at pains to note in their, they take to task the prior court in casey which decided that roe could be upheld, even though a plurality could not decide, and call the nation the contending size of the nation a night of peace, and it's not the supreme court's job to find a right to abortion in the constitution. so absolutely, department of justice should defend churches and pro life centers and the justices bravely stuck to the constitution text in history, i

commend them for that. >> trace: i was kind of fascinated by the reaction of the obamas, and control room has called for 13, the president came out against the decision of course. michelle obama's reaction. she says, quoting here, i am destined to learn before roe was made law of the land, when women risk losing their lives getting illegal abortions. our hearts may be broken today but tomorrow we have to find the courage to creating the more just america we all deserve. we have so much left to push for, rally for, to speak for, and i know we can do this together. it's interesting to me because as we have noted the former president is a constitutional law student, he's an attorney, so he knows what he's talking about. he knows very well that roe was never a constitutional issue. >> absolutely, as the court's opinion lays out so eloquently, never a right to abortion in the constitution. and moreover, this decision does

not take away rights from women. it allows a state to protect the unborn and also to empower women. there are studies that show that 75% of women, who obtain an abortion, would have chosen life if they felt they would have had to support. so here states are allowed to come alongside women and to make sure they and their children can flourish. >> sandra: ok, we appreciate you joining us, erin, thank you very much on the breaking news. president biden calling on congress to pass pro abortion legislation. lucas tomlinson is live on the north lawn, the latest from there. >> president biden spoke for 13 minutes, beginning at 12:36 p.m. this afternoon, no questions from reporters, he said the supreme court today took away a woman's constitutional right to abortion. of course the majority opinion on the supreme court said otherwise, said a woman does not have a constitutional right for

abortion. president biden calling it a sad day for women and the country, a dark shadow has been cast. the health of women across the land is at risk. he said roe versus wade was the correct decision. and the decision by the supreme court was years in the making. >> make no mistake, this decision is a culmination of a deliberative effort over decades to upset balance of our law. extreme ideology and tragic error by the supreme court. >> president biden's views of abortion have evolved, he's going back and forth to when he was a young senator in 1973, 30 years old, and a practicing catholic. he said roe versus wade had gone too far. of course as vice president he changed the position and presidential candidate in 2019 he said federal funds could be used for abortion. as we heard earlier, president

trump putting three conservative justices on the court. back in september of 2020 when ruth bader ginsburg died at the age of 87, just a few months before the presidential election, president trump nominating aimy coney barrett and mitch mcconnell, fast tracking that nomination, only 30 days for her to be confirmed and president biden also saying that this ruling today will be on the ballot this fall and also the house passing that gun bill, sandra, by a vote of 234-193, 13 republicanss voting for it. gun control measures will be coming over here for the president to sign before leaving for europe tomorrow. >> trace: jonathan turley, professor, always great to see

you. lucas tomlinson broke the news there, your quick opinion. the house just passed this gun bill that was passed by the senate, now goes to the president's desk for signature. what do you think on the red flag laws, a lot of litigation on how you implement the red flag laws going down the road? >> well, that's the key, trace, implementation. not a lot of argument that you should be able to remove guns if someone is a danger to themselves or to others. the question is the due process rights that kick in after that point. some of these red flag laws have lacked due process protections, and have guns taken away anonymously or ex parte meetings with the court. so the questions are on the details that is who can look at the issues after the guns are removed and whether they can we returned if the allegations are

proven to be untrue. that's where you are going to find the litigation. the most important thing is the mental health funding. you know, there is -- i think people like to talk about having a solution to shootings, but we have over 400 million guns in this country. there are going to be shootings. but what we have seen from the massacres, they often involve people who are mentally unstable, but more importantly, known to be unstable before they took the final and horrendous act. >> sandra: tony perkins is speaking right now, obviously regarding the overturning of roe v. wade, we will listen. this is louisiana, i believe. >> what the court has done is changed its mind on abortion, and in the new testament it talks about repentance, and it

means to change your mind. now change the hearts and minds of americans to embrace the sanctity of every human life because they are created in the image of god. [applause] today i have the privilege of moderating the panel and the panel has shrunk for different reasons. dr. carson is the first one i asked if he would come down, knowing we would be in the neighborhood of a decision but not thinking it would be the actual day. i cannot think of someone i would like to be talking this through with than dr. carson who has been an amazing -- amazing leader. [applause] and before i formally introduce him, we were going to have on the panel kristin hawkins, from students from life but her flight was canceled so she will not be able to be with us, and

the solicitor general of louisiana is going to be here later, she got detained, obviously a lot going on today, she's done amazing work here in the state of louisiana on the life issue. dr. carson, founder and chairman of american cornerstone institute, a new think tank, and they do tremendous work. i had him on my program often talking about this, he's going to the heart of the matter and teaching and giving tools to teach our children that you know what, america is not a bad place. america is a great country. dr. carson is a tremendous spokesman of the american dream because he has lived it, is living it, and inspiring others to do the same. 17th secretary of the u.s. department of housing and urban development and i watched him and met with him frequently

during his time in the trump administration and i will tell you what, he never ever backed up in the face of the liberal criticism. he stood for the same principles he campaigned on running for president, the same principles he lived by when he was a renowned world known surgeon. please welcome dr. ben carson. [applause] and i think his wife candy is here as well, she travels with him everywhere. candy, will you stand up? [applause] that's my wife, who travels with me when i'm fortunate enough to have her with me. >> well, thank you all so much

for that very warm welcome. >> sandra: so the camera is having a hard time there, ben carson just began speaking, tony perkins from the family research council issuing his statement in response to the overturning of roe v. wade, a culture of life in america, mourning so many lives lost to get us to this point, promising to redouble support for mothers and fathers in need, especially the great work of pregnancy resource centers, let's bring back jonathan turley, as ben carson is speaking in louisiana. reaction continues to pour in. >> well, the opinion itself did not change much from what we saw in the leaked version. and what was interesting is the loneliest figure in the mix seems to be chief justice roberts. he wrote this opinion which was really what we call

incrementalist and institutionallist opinion. he did not actually argue that roe was correctly decided. in fact, he appeared to agree it was not but he would not have overturned roe and instead of just upheld the mississippi law because he did not want to see that dramatic of a change, essentially it was a sticker shock. the rest of the court followed what they honestly believed was the correct constitutional interpretation, referring to both the majority and dissent. so, some ways it was a stark example of how roberts is becoming increasingly lonely on this court with the incremental approaches. but what happens now, this goes back to the states and we have 13 or 14 states that already protect abortion, we have roughly the same number that is moving to limit it or ban it. this fight will occur and every single state, and that's what

the supreme court in many ways agreed with president biden. when president biden said this is going to be on the ballot, that's what the court said. the court said look, roe interrupted our political debate. it interrupted this process for citizens to decide. state by state where their values lie and the court said well, go at it. that this is up to you, not nine justices but millions of americans. >> trace: and one better on that foint where it goes back to the states, professor, and state by state, i'm wondering if we are going to see battles in the states that banned abortion. you already have some of these pro choice prosecutors saying you know, in my area, in my jurisdiction, we are not going to follow these laws. what do you make of these statements being made in separate parts of these various states? >> well, quite frankly, i think we are going to see a great deal of litigation and a great deal

of campaigning that's a result of all this. you don't have a major shift, like plates tectonics, you don't have major shift without having residual earthquakes and that's what we are going to see here. and in the end, the citizens will be the ones that decide. the state law will be the state law binding upon prosecutors in that state. but where people are on this issue is a very good question. the vast majority of people supported roe v. wade. when you asked them about whether they believe there should be restriction, the majority said yes. in fact, there was a majority in some polls saying they would ban abortion after the second trimester. we are one of only few countries that allowed abortion after the 20th week. you have some states like colorado that passed a law that did not have restrictions in terms of when a pregnancy you

can have an abortion, and then you are going to see other states that are going to move to ban it entirely. >> trace: if i want to go on that point quickly, you go back, it's interesting. you go back to 1972 roe v. wade and viability then was 28 weeks and you have dobbs now which is 15 weeks and somewhere in between you had casey, 23 to 24 weeks. how much does that play into the law, because that's a fascinating concept of how we have changed over the years what we believe is the viability of the fetus. >> one of the interesting things about this opinion, to take a snapshot of where we are, but also where we were, and there's some interesting comparisons. you know, when roe was decided in 1973, 30 states banned abortion at any stage. now, in this case, 26 states asked the court to overturn roe and casey, so in that sense

looks like not a lot has changed. but in polling it has changed. the other thing that has changed is technology. over 60% of abortions today actually are done through medication, through morning after pills, which don't involve going into a clinic. access to that type of treatment is likely not to be restricted by most states, i'm not sure they could if the federal government guarantees that access. >> sandra: quick final question on something that i'm getting word inside the supreme court there is some concern about this claim from maine senator susan collins that the justices, brett kavanaugh and neil gorsuch lied to her in their testimony and their meetings with her. i know you are writing about that, and also just tweeted about it saying both speaker pelosi and senator collins suggesting justices like kavanaugh lied about roe during their confirmations. you are saying that is simply not true. explain.

>> it is not true and it is grossly unfair. i testified at justice gorsuch's confirmation hearing, i'm very familiar with what he said and kavanaugh said. they said they would respect precedent. they did not and could not guarantee how they would vote on roe v. wade. many of us objected to democratic questions that seemed to predicate or condition vote on whether they would guarantee to vote for roe. they did not. their answers were very similar to every justice before and after them in modern confirmation hearings. they said they would accord precedent respect. but stare decisis is not absolute. if it was absolute, we would not have brown v. board of education, we would not have overturned plessy, or same-sex

marriage. footnote lists the cases where it was not followed and the result were celebrated cases. so i think that people are overstating that but i think to say the justices committed perjury is grossly unfair to them and another attack on this court. you had speaker pelosi say these are right wing politicians. that's unbelievable. to disagree with them. >> and her words, she says the decision is inconsistent with what they told her. obviously the concern inside the court would be there is a sitting united states senator claiming they lied to her in a moment there have been protesting outside the court, the homes of these justices and obviously a threat to the life of justice brett kavanaugh. jonathan turley, thank you very much for your time. thanks for joining us. congresswoman mcmorris, she gave

birth three times while in office, highly qualified to respond for many reasons. your thoughts, your reactions, obviously to the huge news out of the supreme court today. >> yes. this is a victory, the court is affirming that every life is worth living. the court affirmed the constitution is silent on abortion, that roe was unconstitutional, and that really what we need to have are the elected officials, the elected representatives and senators debating the issue at the state level on behalf of the american people. but really, the question before america today now is moving forward, this is just the beginning, how are we going to respond, going to approach what is the greatest human rights question before us as a nation, and as a people, and i -- i believe that this is a moment where we must bring hope and healing to our country. we need to bring hope and healing to many moms and that

every life is worth living. >> trace: we know washington state is left leaning, what's happening, what's the reaction in your state, what do you believe the next steps will be in your state trying to facilitate the stuff going around the country right now. >> right. at the state level and washington state, governor jay inslee has made pretty clear his intent that washington state would be a sanctuary state for those that are seeking abortion. it really falls into line with what speaker pelosi and the democrats have been moving here on capitol hill. last fall they passed a bill that would allow for abortion up until birth on demand for any reason, nationalizing, whether the baby is sick, gender, disability, put us in a line, that aligns us with countries

like china and north korea and yet that seems to be the approach speaker pelosi and governors like jay inslee are advocating. very radical. >> sandra: congresswoman, how would you describe so far the reaction you've heard from your colleagues there on capitol hill. we are getting more and more reaction, we played out a lot of sound earlier, but what specifically are your hearing? >> for many advocating for life for decades, thank you to those affirming the god given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. a day to celebrate, and defining moment for the united states of america and my hope, my prayer is that we will, we will reclaim our identity as a nation who cherishes live at all stages.

>> i wanted to put this up here, former vice president mike pence, a new arena in the cause of life has emerged, incumbent on all who want the sanctity of life, given the second chance for life we must not rest and relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of american law in every state in the land. do you feel like that, do you feel there is momentum in states like yours, congresswoman, maybe now you would press this further to try and limit the abortion laws in the state of washington? >> oh, i completely agree with former vice president mike pence and his statement. this really is a defining time for america. every single person is going to

have to ask that question about what they believe about life, and it's not the same as it was nearly 50 years ago. technology, science has evolved. we know, we know every stage of life from conception. we know that at 15 weeks a baby can feel pain, a baby can suck its thumb and you know, move its fingers and toes around. we know that this is a life, this is a human being, a person, and it must be the policy of the united states of america to protect that life, celebrate life at every stage. >> sandra: that is not the reaction everywhere in this moment. many of your democratic colleagues are responding, nancy pelosi began her press conference saying there is no point in saying good morning, it certainly is not one. she went on to say to the republican controlled supreme courters have achieved their dark supreme goal to rip a

woman's right to make her own health decisions and we are trying to turn sound, that maxine waters outside the supreme court, called on pro abortion protestors to "fight, the hell with the supreme court" she says, and i've watched the video myself, we'll turn it for the viewers and goes on to say "the hell with the supreme court, we will defy them." what is your response to that? >> this is fundamentally wrong for a nation who believes in the rule of law, in justice, and the important role of the united states supreme court and speaker pelosi and other leaders like the president of the united states needs to be calling on those protesting, those threatening to stop. this -- this is a decision by the united states supreme court, it needs to be respected and the next steps will be played out

now at the state level through the elected officials. but this is not a time to be calling for violence, for terrorist-type activity. we need to be protecting. we need to be protecting these institutions now more than ever. these are fundamental to our country and the rule of law in the united states of america. >> sandra: kathy mcmorris rodgers, thank you very much. approaching a band new hour, the biggest development from the highest court in decades, a decision set the stage for political fights years to come. striking down roe v. wade, ending a half century of abortion rights. "america reports" rolls into hour two, i'm sandra smith. >> trace: trace gallagher in for john roberts. the supreme court sending the issue of abortion back to the states. demonstrators on both sides out in full force. protests expected in cities across the u.s. and not just in the coming hours or the coming days, sandra.

>> sandra: we have a very busy hour ahead. senator ted cruz will be joining, and reaction from planned parenthood live in a moment. >> trace: shannon bream is live, good afternoon. >> good to see you, trace and sandra. let's walk through the opinion, basically it said roe was wrongfully decided, exceptionally weak, never good on legal underpinnings, and writing for the majority, justice alito says this, apportion presents a profound moral questions. does not robot abortion. roe and casey irrigated that authority. we now over rule those decisions. this now goes back to the states, many of whom had trigger laws in one direction or the other in place. dissent says they think it's going to hurt the court itself.

signed on by sotomayor, breyer, and roberts said this. so few have changed so much, for all of us in the time on this court never more through than today. in overruling roe, the court betrays the guiding principle with sorrow for the court but more for the many millions of american million have lost a fundamental are right, and the chief justice as we thought, writing concur rence. upheld the mississippi law about dt no as far as roe. he said the court's opinion and the dissent display a relentless freedom from doubt on the legal issue that i cannot share, he said i can't go with either one of you. i would decide the question review to answer, whether the previously recognized abortion

right bars all abortion restrictions prior to viability, ban after 15 weeks is necessarily unlawful. answer to that question is no, and no need to go further to decide the case. but they went much further, meaning roe is no longer the law of the land. >> sandra: how would you describe the reaction outside the supreme court? >> both groups were represented, a lot of joyful crying and hugging among the pro life demonstrator, and the pro choice expected it was coming but they have grown throughout the day. a number of top lawmakers, including alexandria ocasio-cortez and others, the chant, no peace, no justice, some we cannot show on the air, and you had the statements by maxine waters, they feel the

science and they are ready to take on the challenge saying they are not going to adhere with what the court is doing. but if anything, the crowd at the court seems to be growing. >> trace: i want to go back and pick your brain a bit on chief justice john roberts concuring. we know it was 6-3, early said it was 5-4, but he said yes, he would be in favor of parts of dobbs but none of roe. fair assessment? >> thought probably after the argument there was this good majority together to uphold that mississippi law, so that's as far as he's willing to go he says i go with upholding that mississippi law, i don't get to the rest of the question, i don't get to roe v. wade, he stopped well short that roe was gone. >> sandra: bring in carrie

severino, thank you very much for being here today as the breaking news comes in, lots of reaction continues to pour in this afternoon. what do you believe the days, weeks, months look like that follows this ground breaking decision? >> as you were commenting, a lot of threats of violence and activity like that, i think you are going to have continued concerns about the safety of the justices. safety of pro life groups across the country, of pregnancy centers designed to help pregnant women are being targeted and firebombed. churches as well, a lot of concern about that. that said, i think as we saw after the leak, after a certain point, people are going to recognize, what the decision does, afford them the opportunity to determine what their own state's awe borings regulations are going to look like. a role to determine what is the proper way to balance the

interest involved, and i think that's actually the right response here, it was never something that should have been decided by unelected judges. >> we talk about roe, casey, dobbs, and people don't get this. is it a fair assessment when you hear some legal analysts say for all intents and purpose, casey did gut a large portion of roe to begin with, and so sort of a new starting point there. >> yeah, casey in many ways like chief justice concurring opinion wanted to not overturn row, but did not want the standard that roe imposed. and as roberts acknowledged, roe court made up out of thin air. but casey did that also. instead of the trimester, they had the undue burden standard.

they were kind of made up as chief justice roberts' own opinion said well, we don't want to overturn everything, but if you are effectively gutting it and replacing the content with a totally different standard, then keeping it in name only. that's what casey did. today it was admirable the court did not try to play these games, or say no, no, are no, we are putting new content in it. no, just acknowledge, it's not in the constitution, now let's abide by the rule of law, let's let this decision be made by the american people and their represents. >> sandra: i'm sure you have heard the stapt of susan collins of maine what justice gorsuch said in the confirmation process is inconsistent with the turnout here, and kavanaugh as well. and senator manchin saying i

trusted justice gorsuch and justice kavanaugh when they testified under oath they also believed roe v. wade was legal precedent and i'm alarmed, a catholic i was raised pro life and consider myself pro life. your reaction to that. >> yeah, i think the statements they made were 100% correct. it was true, roe was settled precedent but we also know there are times the court overturns federal precedent and they never promised they would not do that. susan collins acknowledged when she was getting ready to vote, no one made promises to her. no one will promise i will always uphold this, or do this one thing when presented with a specific question. they can't as judges make those promises. it's possible manchin and

collins were hoping that's what would happen. wishful thinking only gets you so far and they thought judges would do one thing and did another, and they can't commit to do anything in the hearings and they didn't. >> trace: this is president biden speaking a short time ago, he's talking specifically about the health and life of a woman in this nation now being at risk -- we don't have it yet. we brought this up with martha earlier, he's saying now if there is a case of rape or incest that you have no choice, you have to have, you know, you have to go through with this thing. and then he says a few minutes later, you can go to other states, we need to make sure people have the right to other states. he's contradicting himself. if we have the sound bite, go on. but clearly what he's saying, the last part of this, says reaffirmed basic principles of

equality that women have the power to control their own destiny to reinforce the fundamental right of privacy, right of each of us to choose, live our lives. with roe gone, let's be very clear the health and life of women in this nation are now at risk. >> i'm glad he's acknowledging women get pregnant, that is a step. and that biden corrected his comments. it does not create a one size fits all abortion policy, it does not ban it anywherech the states are deciding how to address the issue, some have done that already, some legislating in the days to come to address this issue. but all of them have women's interests at hearts, there are obviously different approaches, some states are concerned about the health psychological risks to women, the risk increasing the likelihood they are trafficked or men would take

advantage of them and can kind of cop out of parenting a child. and wanting to make sure abortions are safe in the way the previous abortion, no longer current, didn't allow certain even health protections of requiring admitting privileges and medical standards, often overturned. so a lot of ways the states' interest in a range of ways will be advanced, not to mention the disproportionate number of baby girls over boys. states have to figure out how to balance the issues. that's going to be an issue for the legislatures, for the state legislatures, for congress to try to hammer all of those things out. >> sandra: carrie severino

appreciate your time today. >> trace: alex, good afternoon. the president spoke about an hour and a half ago and he called today's decision by the supreme court a very solemn moment, saying a case they had taken away a constitutional right from the american people. what he said. >> make no mistake, this decision is a culmination of a deliberate effort over decades of upset balance of our law. it's a realization of extreme ideology and tragic error of the supreme court. >> he called out president trump by name, saying kavanaugh, gorsuch and barrett, were at the core of the decision to upend the scales of justice. president biden said the administration will defend a woman's right to travel to a state where abortion access is available if it is restricted in

her home state. but saying no executive action by the president can reverse today's decision. the president also said the task is up to voters seeking clearly to make abortion a central midterm issue. >> need to restore protection of law on the land. personal freedoms are on the ballot, right to privacy, liberty, equality, all on the ballot. >> on a day like this one might expect to see some protestors outside of the white house here, it does not appear to be the relevant location today, but on protestors, the president did say that he wants all of these to remain peaceful. he said violence and threats are not a part of free speech. sandra. >> trace: thank you. >> sandra: aishah hasnie is live

on capitol hill. >> a flurry of activity in response to the statements coming from senators and congressional members, senator is out, congress, are house side is still in voting. some comments from gop leader kevin mccarthy earlier today. >> today's supreme court decision in dobbs is the most important pro life ruling in american history. by a vote of 6-3, the court affirmed that the power to protect unborn life is returned to the people and their elected representatives. people have won a victory. >> congressional democrats are also responding, using the card to galvanize voters to head to the polls in november and help expand their control in congress

to come back and codify roe. here is nancy pelosi laying out the plan, making it clear what the goal is. >> radical republicans are charging ahead with their crusade to criminalize health freedom. in the congress be aware of this, the republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. they cannot be allowed to have majority in the congress to do that. but that's their goal. >> and sandra, keep in mind, democrats might also lean back into talks about blowing up the filibuster or packing the court but as you know, in a 50/50 senate, that is virtually impossible. sandra. >> sandra: aishah hasnie live on the hill, check back in with you soon. >> trace: planned parenthood senior director for advocacy, communication. sam, thank you for coming on,

approach -- appreciate it. >> today's decision is devastating. what it means, likely 26 states could move quickly to ban abortion. that would affect 36 million women of reproductive age across the country, and it will mean that they have to travel hundreds or thousands of miles if they are able to just to access care some may be forced to have pregnancy against their will, and outside the healthcare system. it's a roll back of rights people have had in the country for 50 years. it is a devastating day for planned parenthood, our staff, our patients, and so many people across the country. >> sandra: you know, obviously it's important to point out, justice samuel alito, what he wrote in the court's ruling today, the constitution does not

confer a right to abortion, row and casey are overruled and the authority to regulate abortion, he wrote, is returned to the people and their elected representatives. so now it is left to them to decide how do you expect planned parent hood to respond in the coming days, weeks, obviously with the president this morning, saying president biden a short time ago that roe is on the ballot this november. >> yeah, and i do want to make the point that i think the public is pretty clear on this. strong majority wanted to uptold roe versus wade. they want access to safe abortion. we are going to fight to protect access state by state, and as many states as we can, we are going to litigate where it is possible. we are going to fight to pass

proactive bills where we can to protect the right. we are going to do our best to direct people who may live in states where abortion is banned to resources and care. go to abortionfinder.org to find resours they might need. >> a small amount don't support roe versus wade, but limit abortion when asked that way. now that the framing of half the country, yes, worst case scenario, half the country abortion would be legal but half would be legal. would planned parenthood, how do you facilitate that going forward, do you shut down facilities in states that do not have abortion or do you move, do you try to shift people in different areas, california is talking about financing people to come from other states to

their state to have abortion. where does planned parenthood stand on that. >> yeah, so, planned parenthood is a federated organization, we have 49 affiliates, so everone is making right now potentially very difficult decisions to make sure that they can provide care to as many people as possible, plan the parenthood comprehensive sexual healthcare, not just abortion. but you are seeing folks who are going to be shifting resources more towards the border where the people could easily, more easily travel to get care. we are going to try to increase the number of patient navigators that we have to help people who might need to travel get the resources and the info they need to find abortion care. we are going to be shifting and looking at ways that we can staff differently and of course, working with all of our partners on the ground to do as much as

we can to still allow people to access the essential healthcare. unfortunately, with this decision today, there is nothing that we will be able to do or with our partners to be able to ensure that everyone who needs care is going to be able to get it. >> sam, quick final question to you. as far as the pregnancy centers that have been the target of pro abortion vandalism, this crisis pregnancy center in asheville, north carolina, one of the several recently vandalized. do you condemn the actions of those who say they are going to continue to fight, i heard you use that word earlier. >> we actually put out a statement with the liberate abortion campaign this morning. we condemn all threats and acts of violence and destruction and that is not what you are saying and will see from those who support abortion rights across this country. you know, the national abortion

federation put out the new report today that showed in 2021, more than 100% increase in attacks on abortion centers across the country. violence is something and threats that is something unfortunately that abortion providers and patients and supporters know all too well. we condemn all acts of it. we are going to mobilize peacefully, speaking out peacefully and making sure our voices are heard. >> sam, thanks for coming in. >> sandra: texas senator ted cruz as promised. great do have you here. >> great to be with you. >> sandra: we appreciate planned parenthood joining us and giving their response to the big decision today. the final question i ask because rep maxine waters said this outside the supreme court. your reaction. >> you see that out here, you ain't seen nothing yet.

women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try to stop us. the hell with the supreme court. we will decide. women will be in control of their bodies and if they think black women are intimidated or -- they got another thought coming. black women will be out by droves, out by the thousands, by the millions, we are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies. thank you. >> sandra: i want to make sure i provide you some of the talk there, it was hard to hear her. you haven't seen nothing yet, women are going to control their bodies no matter what how they try to stop us. to hell with the supreme court, we will defy them. your response. >> i think there is a real risk of violence. we have seen multiple democrats now including maxine waters before that chuck schumer, before that the biden white

house, encouraging violence. chuck schumer stood on the steps of the supreme court and threatened justice kavanaugh and gorsuch by name, said you have unleashed the whirlwind you won't know what hit you, and it's really cynical to see democrats condoning violence. i call upon merrick garland the attorney general to be on watch to stop any violence today, not to allow radicals who want to employee mob violence, to threaten pro life pregnancy center, to enforce the rule of law and pause for a second also and say look, as much as we need to be vigilant preventing violence, i believe it's a moment for incredible celebrations. this is a momentum moment. 49 years in the coming, and

today's decision is a vindication for the rule of law, but it's also a testament to millions of activists, millions of women who march in the march for life, who organize behind the provincial campaign, george w. bush, donald trump, this is 49 years of hard work to reverse the decision that was agregiously wrong the day it came down and now the question of abortion, a question that is deeply emotional that divides america, now the question returns to being decided where it was for the first 185 years of our nations history, decided by elected legislatures to reflect the views and values of the people. >> i know you go back and talk about violence and preventing violence and everybody hope that's the case. go back a week, a couple days,

the white house has yet to condemn the protestors outside the supreme court justices' homes. it was clearly illegal and they would not condemn it. and you talk about merrick garland, he came out and condemned the ruling by the supreme court, we have heard nothing about violence. >> and it's worse than that. not just the white house refusing to condemn the protests at the justices' home, the white house press secretary actively encouraged americans to go and protest at the homes of the justices as you know, that is a federal crime. it is illegal while a case is pending to do that, and i've never seen in my entire life a white house press secretary from the grounds of the white house urge americans to commit a federal crime but i guess joe biden knows his attorney general won't enforce the law because the department of justice has not arrested the people that are violating federal law, and at

least one lunatic heard the steps of violence from the court, and flew from california and outside the home of justice kavanaugh arrested and charged with attempted murder. it is dangerous, wrong, lawless to condone violence. if you disagree with a particular policy issue, the democratic process is how you express that right. you have a right to speak, but you don't have a right to engage in violence and this administration and the democrats who are condoning it and actively encouraging it should be ashamed and they need to stop because they are endangering people's lives. >> sandra: the president did address a bit of that today when he spoke in the wake of this decision and said, he said there should not be violence, that the protests should be peaceful.

i just want to make sure i get that in there. there was no specific reaction to the violence outside the supreme court justices' homes, but did encourage those protesting to remain peaceful. >> and let me underscore that. your point is really important. i was grateful that president biden urged the protestors to stay peaceful and not engage in violence, that was the right thing to do. he's been absent for a long time, i'm glad he said that today and i hope that the message they take to heart and they hart. >> sandra: and said this about roe on the ballot in november. listen. >> this fall must elect more senators and representatives who codify a woman's right to choose. roe is on the ballot, personal freedoms, the drive to privacy, liberty, quality, all on the ballot. >> sandra: senator, look forward

for us and tell us what you see happens next here. >> i think november is going to be an historic election, a lot on the ballot. the failed biden policy agenda is on the ballot, 5, 6, $7 a gallon gas is on the ballot, crime rates across the country skyrocketing, chaos at the southern border is on the ballot. failures of the far left socialist policies are on the ballot and you are right, defending our constitutional rights are on the ballot and sandra, i believe the voters are going to come out in historic numbers and elect a large republican majority in the house and the senate. that's not what joe biden wants but his policies are visiting enormous pain on americans across country. >> trace: you do not believe overturning roe v. wade plays a huge part in the midterm

elections like the democrats believe. >> you are right. a lot of the democrats are hoping it's a hail mary, somehow save what is otherwise heading to just an electoral train where he can for the democrats in november. i don't believe that, and part of the reason is with roe versus wade overturned, consequence is not abortion is suddenly illegal everywhere. it returns to where it was the first 185 years of our nation's history, elected legislators make that decision, that means in bright blue states, states like new york and california, at least for the immediate foreseeable future, there will be no restrictions on abortion. redder states, like my home state of texas, significant and meaningful restrictions and vary state by state, reflecting the values and morays of the citizens, and you could argue for what you think is right. that's how our constitution set it up and i think the democrats

envisioning this suddenly turning around the november elections, i think they are hoping for something that i see 0 evidence of happening. >> trace: senator, thank you. appreciate your time. >> sandra: senator ted cruz joining us live on a huge day, president biden is calling on congress to restore roe v. wade after the supreme court overturned the decision. happened at 10:00 eastern time this morning. big news came in, the reaction pours in. andy mccarthy will be joining us. we'll take a quick break and be right back. >> this is amazing, probably the best day of american history in my lifetime. >> i have been devastated, furious.

(mom allen) verizon just gave us all a brand new iphone 13. (dad allen) we've been customers for years. (dad brown) we got iphone 13s, too. switched two minutes ago, literally right before this. (vo) now everyone can get a new iphone 13 on us on america's most reliable 5g network. for every customer. current, new, everyone. to show the love.

dad, when is the future? um, oh wow. um, the future is, uh, what's ahead of us. i don't get it. yeah. maybe this will help. so now we're in the present.

and now... we're in the future. the all-electric chevy bolt euv with available super cruise™ for hands-free driving. - dad. - yeah? do fish get thirsty? eh. find new answers. find new roads. chevrolet. new projects means new project managers. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. when you sponsor a job, you immediately get your shortlist of quality candidates, whose resumes on indeed match your job criteria. visit indeed.com/hire and get started today. it's still the eat fresh refresh, and subway's refreshing everything, like the baja steak and jack. piled high with tender shaved steak, topped with delicious pepper jack cheese, and kicking it up a notch with smoky- baja chipotle sauce? yep, they're constantly refreshing. y'all get our own commercial! subway keeps refreshing and-

i brought in ensure max protein, with thirty grams of protein. those who tried me felt more energy in just two weeks! (sighs wearily) here i'll take that! (excited yell) woo-hoo! ensure max protein. with thirty grams of protein, one gram of sugar, and nutrients to support immune health.

...the tower cam for a - hey! folks, we seem to have a visitor. it looks like - looks like you paid too much for your glasses. ...who? anyone who isn't shopping at america's best - where two pairs and a free exam start at just $79.95. book an exam today. if you're a veteran, own your home, and need cash, call newday usa. where two pairs and a free exam start at just $79.95. i'm tatiana, here to say you can get an average of $60,000 with the newday 100 cash out loan. that's at least 25% more cash than you get at a bank. it lowers your payments by an average of $600 a month, too. with today's soaring home values, the time to turn your equity into cash is right now. >> benefits for my sister, my

partner, the people around me. i'm not going to give up on it. >> sandra: reaction continues to come in, andy, welcome. we have had several hours to digest this but think about it, actually we have had several weeks if you think about it since the leak to really take this in. your thoughts. >> i think, sandra, the leak turned out to be counterproductive for progressives. i mean, the reason you leak is because you hope it will work, it's an intimidation tactic and maybe we can peel a justice or two off the alito majority and get a better result and that did not happen. if you don't get the windfall, the other side of the coin is we have had seven weeks to explain to people if alito's draft opinion became the law as it did today, that that would not, contrary to what the left is saying, outlaw abortion in america. all this crazy stuff that speaker pelosi is saying about

there's going to be a move to criminalize people -- that's hysterical hyperbolic talk, not in the realm of reality. what we have been able to explain for the last seven weeks is all that happens is you set the clock back to 1973, and returned to the place it never should have been taken away from, the democratic process. and as justice scalia said, the constitution does not speak to abortion. so if a state wants to have abortion on demand, they can have it. if a state wants to outlaw abortion, they can do that as well. but it's not the court's business. so, all that happened here is this gets returned to democracy. >> trace: i wonder, andy, if you think the seven weeks have been productive because we have had a chance to educate the populus what it means or also because we have also gotten a chance over seven weeks to see the response from the left. some of the pregnancy centers and the churches that have been

firebombed and damaged and destroyed and it's fizzle, there has been some condemnation across the country from both sides against these groups, maybe that has taken wind out of the sail, andy. >> i think the radical element will always be the radical element and out there and something we need to worry about as what happened with the case involving the guy who attempted to murder justice kavanaugh allegedly reminds us, right. so, that's something we always need to be concerned about. but we do know from polling that there's a lot of confusion about abortion in america. i mean, when you ask people in polls or have up until now would they like to see roe get thrown out, a lot of people have a problem with that. if you ask them instead would you like to see abortion legal

in some, you know, minor set of cases but otherwise heavily regulated they are in favor of that. i think what people will find once the hysteria is over in the next 72 hours or so, they are going to be able to have the abortion regime that makes sense in the places where they live and they had have a voice in what that regime looks like and that will be emanately better than having the court decide it. if the court decides something, they did in roe, it was not in the constitution, but if they say it's in the constitution, what we are learning is that it takes 50 years, if ever, to get that fixed. so you know, i think people realize this is a much better way to go. >> sandra: i want to get your reaction to this, sandy, sot 18. president biden earlier on the three trump justices, listen.

>> three justices named by one president, donald trump, where the court decision to upend the scales of justice and eliminate a fundamental right for women in this country. make no mistake, this decision is a culmination of a deliberate effort over decades to upset the balance of our law. >> sandra: so there you have it, president biden in his own words earlier today, your reaction. >> sandra i think it had less to do with abortion than politics. i think it's why we are having the january 6th hearings. democrats are not having a very good time politically, look like they are headed for a shelacking in the midterms, who knows what's going to happen en 2024 with biden, but one thing that's clear, they like the idea running against trump or keeping him front and center, deflects attention from everything that has gone wrong for the biden administration.

so i think this is just the abortion iteration of what we have seen with the capitol riot iteration, the effort to keep trump front and center. >> trace: we have to go, are you concerned about the safety or security of supreme court justices. some analysts have said look, this law that clearly prevents people from protesting in front of a justice's home is now over. the decision is made, so can you go and protest in front of a supreme court justice's home legally? >> yeah, you know, trace, i think that is not the only law that is applicable here, there is obstruction of justice as well. but the proposition that if you do a retaliatory attack on not just a judge, but somebody in connection with a litigation, that that is still something that can be prosecuted. so i would not -- i'm concerned about the justice's security because people are crazy and you

know, you have a radical element who is going to do nutty things, but i'm not worried about the ability to prosecute people. what i'm annoyed b the justice department won't do its job when there is a clear statute they could have applied. >> sandra: and ted cruz giving biden some credit saying he was pleased to hear the president encourage peaceful protests in the wake of this ruling. some things coming in right now, alexandria ocasio-cortez, she was speaking to protestors outside the supreme court building, a demonstrator asked what can congress do. she responded we have to fill the streets. elections are not enough. she also said this earlier, andy, your reaction. a.o.c. on court expansion, sot 20. >> president get behind expanding the supreme court. >> i think so, but not only should we look at expanding the

supreme court, but we need to acknowledge the supreme court of the united states has checks and balances, especially against the other branches. congress, the president, etc.>> sandra: we think we need to acknowledge the supreme court of the united states has very few checks and balances. your reaction. >> well, she's a radical leftist. the court doesn't have political checks and balances because it's supposed to be shielded from politics. the idea is that the court is going to make its decisions based on what the rule of law dictates, not what the mob outside the courthouse dictates. and as far as calling for the mob to come out and say it not enough to legislate, we need to do more, that start to sound like incitement to insurrection

to me. >> trace: several companies are responding to the supreme court ruling by saying they will cover travel costs for employees who want abortions but cannot get them in their own states. fox business has more on this. lauren, good afternoon. >> the list is growing, more than 20 states with total or near abortion bans expected now. a dozen have trigger laws that go into effect now or very soon. you are looking at the map of about half the country. states like arkansas, louisiana, wyoming, and that is prompting some major corporations to do something. disney is covering travel expenses for employees that need to go out of state for abortion, family planning or reproductive care. but bob eiger, former c.e.o., said in 2019, very difficult to continue production in states, he named georgia at the time, it

does ban abortions after six weeks. the current c.e.o. has not given any indication disney is going to pull out of any states but something we need to consider now as employees and corporations speak out. netflix, covering travel reimbursement for full-time employees dependents, $10,000 per employee per service. and microsoft, go daddy, alaska airlines, amazon, up to $4,000 in travel expenses per year. uber and lyft, covering travel, yes, but also legal expenses because some of their drivers could be sued for taking a passenger to an abortion clinic in certain states. and for companies that have headquarters in places like texas, i'll use tesla as example, they are going to cover your travel, hotel, if you need

health services that you condition receive in the state you live in, they don't use the word abortion, just health services. one c.e.o. very outspoken, yelp c.e.o., he says, i'm quoting, this ruling puts women's health in jeopardy and threatens to dismantle gender equality in the workplace. you have other c.e.o.s, might be more reluctant to go on record, but some may be forced to. >> i wonder if you have heard of other companies that might want to do both. fund $4,000 for a couple for abortion, would you fund a couple that takes the baby to term, would you help them throughout the way. >> many are putting abortion and family planning in their statements. so they cover both sides. >> trace: interesting. lauren, thank you. >> sandra: jeannie mancini,

president of march for life. just got response from planned parenthood as well, we'll get that in in just a moment. your reaction to what lauren just reported about the private companies like disney telling employees in statements, internal memo, telling our employees they are going to help pay for pregnancy-related care if they have to travel to a different state after this supreme court decision. your reaction to that. >> yeah, just for starters, it's this very simple thing that into hysteria, i want to speak truth for a minute that what we are talking about is an unborn child and its mother, two patients, and the pro life movement cares about both. we want what's best for both of them so i think we are in the moment of hyper reaction to a very good decision which did not outlaw abortion, it simply returned it to the people, and we'll see all sorts of, you know, extreme things, i think

especially over the next few days. but i'm thinking, frankly, about the marchers. so i've been blessed to lead the march for life over ten years now and seen collectively millions of pro life americans, primarily young people march every single anniversary of roe v. wade to the poorest of the poor and most vulnerable in the mother's womb and to mom. so i'm just so grateful for the witness marchers and to the supreme court who rightly so has ruled it's a neutral thing, it's not in the constitution and it should be returned to the legislative branches nationally and in the states. >> trace: i know you commented some of the businesses say they will pay $4,000, what about some of the states like california who said we are going to be sanctuary states, safe haven for abortion and the governor there, gavin newsom, pitching the possibility of maybe paying for

people's travel to come into california to obtain an abortion. >> so, that's what today's ruling allows and so it's good that we are talking about this because many sort of erroneously think it makes abortion illegal, but now states are allowed to reflect the will of the people and as we know, 21 states have pro life protective laws. 19 states are more like california, and have more pro abortion laws. i will say at the march for life we are 100% committed to building life in all states. had our second annual march for life two days ago on the steps in sacramento, and so we'll certainly be advocating for the dignity of the human person despite very extreme policies. but here is what today allows, these different states can enact the will of the people through their legislators. >> sandra: jeannie, we're getting the voices and opinions of many on the program over the past two hours we have been broadcasting here and had

planned parenthood earlier, the director of advocacy for plan the parenthood, sam law. he said this. >> the public is pretty clear on this, strong majority of the people wanted the supreme court to uphold roe v. wade, they wanted, they support access to safe and legal abortion, you know. we are going to fight to protect access state by state. >> sandra: jeannie, your response. >> depending how you ask the questions to the public, things come down differently. so yes, sam has a point, if you ask if people wanted roe overturned, they would have answered black and white no. but sift out what roe does and what would happen if it was overturned, the large majority of americans would be supportive of that. so, let's be clear that the mississippi case that came before the supreme court that was ruled on today had to do with allowing a 15-week ban on abortion and under roe our

country could not do that. so the large majority of americans, i think eight out of ten americans for well over a decade, would outlaw late term abortion. and we are one of only seven countries in the world until a few hours ago that did allow abortion until birth. >> trace: yeah, it is amazing to me because you have on this side, you know, everybody said listen, this puts it back in the hands of the states where it belongs and you have people on your side of the aisle jeannie saying this is where it belongs and what are your state and your voters want to do, that's the way it should be and people on the other side are willing to torch the states that do not want to allow abortion. >> you are absolutely right. it's un-american. you know, i can just speak on behalf of the march for life, our 50th annual march for life. every single year we have peacefully protested on the anniversary of roe versus wade.

proud pro life americans and very mainstream americans and they are just standing up for what they think is the human rights abuse today, that abortion has taken the life of over 63 million americans and wounded many others and so i can speak from people close to me that abortion is not a positive thing for most women and i think the real battle that we are fighting here is the lie that abortion is good for women. >> sandra: thank you very much for joining us. >> thanks for having me. >> sandra: david spunt with what the ruling means, obviously depending where you live in the country. >> david: it does again where you live. people in arizona where abortion will now be illegal will have to travel to california where governor newsom said abortion will be a safe haven for people that want to seek the procedure. i want to show you what's going on right to you at the supreme court, you can kind of walk with

me. different groups, catholic support abortion access, catholics for choice, the other side, the furthest side from the supreme court we have many more pro choice people. it's been pretty tame so far, people asserting their first amendment right. no violence out here. there are a decent amount of law enforcement officers as well as undercover just to make sure things stay smooth. but as far as the states are concerned, i want to show you a map, a u.s. map that shows the states. 22 states right now that are going to be restricting abortion immediately, it's called a trigger law, given the fact that roe v. wade has now been overturned at the supreme court behind me. sandra, florida, indiana, montana and nebraska soon also will do that. so i guess the point of this is where you live does matter because this is going to sends the issue of abortion back to the state so that example that

worked so far is arizona, where abortion will be illegal and california where it will be legal, and merrick garland said the justice department recognizes the fact people will have to cross state lines for abortion and d.o.j. does not seem to mind that happening. >> sandra: hearing cheers in the background, wondering who is walking about. a lot of members of congress are seizing on the moment to talk to the folks. david, thank you very much. >> trace: david kilmeade, laid it out this goes back to the states, if you live in arizona and abortion is outlawed in arizona, you can drive across the border to california and voters get to decide how the state reacts. >> brian: hallmark gun

legislation since 1993, pretty big, and then new york, and then you have roe v. wade come down and most important what president biden said at the end of the speech, guys, calm down, protest, i want it peacefully, also said went out of his way, took half the speech to say this is about politics. make them pay the price at the ballot box, and that they want something titanic to happen, blow up the filibuster, codify roe v. wade in congress and blame president trump for putting 2 or 3 supreme court justices in conservative, named by any republican president. so, president trump just took a bow on fox digital, should, and went out of his way that joe biden mentioned his name. he always says my predecessor or the other guy. i want to take 36% approval rating and build on it by using the guns, and using abortion. >> sandra: when you sat down,

you had mentioned some of the things we are hearing coming from those democratic members of congress, speaking out, calling on those protesting to fight, maxine waters earlier. your reaction. >> you see this turnout here, you ain't seen nothing yet. women are going to control their bodies no matter how they try and stop us. the hell with the supreme court. we will defy them. women will be in control of their bodies and if they think black women are intimidated or oppressed, they have another thought coming. black women will be out in droves. we will be out by the thousands, we will be out by the millions. we are going to make sure we fight for the right to control our own bodies. thank you. >> trace: she thinks it's the rights, 1992, merged on the scene and thinks she can dial that back. it's never been told, and never

paid the price from people in her own party using responsible language. she said get in the face of trump officials because they are trump officials and now we are seeing it all again. so, not only did she not say i learned from losing my temper in the middle of the streets, she's doubling and tripling down on it now, not responsible behavior, and when the buffalo shooting happened they go for conservative rhetoric and stirring things up. >> brian: i was on with geraldo, and alan was staying at his house. and said i fear this is the summer of violence all summer long, thought it was unnecessary decision that you could have split the difference, what chief justice roberts indicated. bottom line, this is it. the states have a choice. that's going to put more

interest in the local legislature, more interest in the governors, and people are going to vote with their feet like they have the past few years. usually it's on things like taxes and quality of life or oppressive governors and officials when it comes to the life. this something else to divide america on. >> sandra: president biden did speak earlier and called on protests to remain peaceful. and what we have seen to far. ted cruz also just joined us and weighed in and said this. >> it is lawless to condone violence. if you disagree with a particular policy issue, the democratic process is how you express that right. you have a right to speak but don't have a right to engage in violence and this administration and the democrats who are condoning it and even actively encouraging it should be ashamed and they need to stop because they are endangering people's

lives. >> sandra: we'll see. we hope and pray it's peaceful. >> we have watched it 3, 4 weeks in front of the houses in virginia and maryland of the supreme court justices and attorney general sit on his hands, even though he had every reason to move. i talked with the governor of virginia, i'm kind of powerless. we had an assassin show up. >> sandra: what i mean is outside the supreme court. we witnessed the what happened outside the supreme court justices homes, and threat to kavanaugh's life. a.g. garland issued this statement, the justice department strongly disagrees with the court's decision. we recognize travelling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many instances, but women who have banned access must remain free to seek that care in states where it is

legal. >> brian: and they are going to move when they can. but also to the other point, a lot of people don't have the money to go elsewhere. >> sandra: we just went up at the end of two hours. it's the end. >> brian: great to be here, appreciate it. >> sandra: a lot going on. trace, great to have you here today. >> trace: a busy day. back to the states. that's the thing. the states control this. >> sandra: sandra smith here in >> martha: thanks very much, guys. good afternoon. i'm martha maccallum. no matter which side you're on, today would not have been possible without these three justices. gorsuch, kavanaugh and coney barrett who with this and other school decisions on school choice and guns have clearly put their stamp of originalism being true to the original