♪ ♪ howard: we all knew it was coming. the leak of that draft supreme court opinion to politico made clear that the high court had the votes to overturn roe v. wade, and yet since the 6-3 ruling came down friday tossing out a 50- year decision spark protests across the country, the media seems stunned all over again, many pundits being unusually motional along with political leaders. >> now, with roe gone, let's be very clear the health and life of women in this nation are now

at risk. >> the people have won a victory. the right to life has been vindicated. the voiceless will finally have a voice. >> today starts an era of very, very, very big government where government that decides if you're going to have a baby or not. >> some days you get to celebrate and give thanks that you were alive when our prayers were finally answered, and the united states of america finally did the right thing. today is one of those days. >> it's unbelievable. i go between despair and anger. >> it's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country. >> you know, watching the women there, i get emotional. >> voters get to decide how they want to live. that's an extreme ideology that upsets the balance of power somehow? >> the right enshrined in the constitution as intimate as i any right you could imagine has been discarded and destroy by five unelected justices. >> the democrats are being

dishonest about this decision. a desperate attempt to scare their voters into turning out many november. howard: i'm howard kurtz, and this is "mediabuzz." ♪ ♪ howard: joining us to analyze the coverage, molly hemingway, and in los angeles leslie marshall, radio talk show host. both are fox news contributors. mollie, it's no secret most journalists are pro-choice. do you think major news organizations are being fair in the way they're framing this begin that it's returned to elected officials in each state? >> you know, the whole reason i got interested in media criticism was because i saw early on how media portrayed the abortion debate. they're so one-sided, the language they choose, you know, what they choose to describe and what they choose not to to describe. it is in no way surprising way that they covered this return of

i abortion laws to the people. but they did a very bad job of accurately conveying what the decision i says and what american people think about it. howard: leslie, no matter how strongly democrats feel that the decision is wrong, aoc saying the ruling is illegitimate, is it fair for commentators to be attacking the supreme court? and you can respond to mollie's point as well. >> absolutely. isn't that our first amendment right to speak against a court that is not elected by we, the people in and with all due respect to mollie who i like personally and professionally even though we may not agree on much, i don't agree that this is going back to the people. this is going to states. we have 41 bans and we have 26 states, 10 of those statements will not have any tensions -- exceptions for rape or incest. and then, of course, there is the rumblings of republicans if they become in power in the house and senate and certainly

if they get the president she in the next general election having a federal ban. and, obvious, we all read, i think, justice thomas' plans to go further -- howard: leslie, let me just interrupt. mollie says the coverage has been ununfair for a long time and it's unfair today. your take on that, please. >> i don't believe that the coverage has been unfair. i think that the coverage echoes the sentiments of the american people. howard: by the way, i've noticed that when a decision in any court goes the way you don't like, supreme court, you say it's the unelected judges. well, the 1973 roe decision was also made by unelected judges. >> and, in fact, that's the entire point of this decision. what happened in 1973 was that the decision was taken away from the american people. we saw 50 years of so much trauma relating to people falsely alleging this was a constitutional right. there's nothing in the constitution about this, nothing in common law about this and how this is a decision that should be left to the people. and that is precisely what this

decision does, it allows people through their state legislatures or through ballot initiatives to establish what abortion law will be. howard: the high court in 1973 found it was constitutional at the time, and that brings me to the culmination of a half century effort by the pro-life movement to sop what its members view as -- stop what its members view as killing babies. but you're not going to see glowing profiles of the movement as happened when the court legalized same-sex marriage. >> right. and there were so many people who worked so hard. there were people who didn't even sur live to see this day -- survive. it was the conservative judicial movement, christians, catholics and other religious people, human rights advocates who opposed the violence of abortion. this is a wonderfully successful story. but the way that you see it framed in most major corporate media is as something that is reflecting their own personal leftist bias. howard: well, leslie, for hose who believe deeply in a woman's

right to choose, the 1973 decision was the correct one. so is the media argument here -- i know you've seen it, maybe you agree with it -- that the court is out of step with public opinion, but isn't the court often times out of step with public opinion? for example, brown v. board of education, the school segregation -- desegregation. >> what i have seen and, honestly, i feel i would say this if i were a republican, and i think it's wrong. this is a reason that lady justice has a scale, because justice is supposed to be balanced. it's also supposed to be blind, hence the blind bold across her eyes. and what i'm sighing are -- seeing are courts that make decisions that been fit political parties more -- benefit political parties more. and, of course, the can of worke concern is.

we have people here in california and as you know it's knockout -- now part of the california constitution, but federal law trumps state. we have people not just here in california, but throughout the country that are very vocal about this is not the end for them. some people would say this is just about taking the power away from from, you know, the constitution the, should be in the constitution given to the states. no, that is not the goal for, i dare say, most of these people. the goal is to have abortion be illegal in the united states -- >> well, it is absolutely true that human rights advocates do want to protect women and their children, that they don't want people to not have a right to life. that is a very important thing for all human rights advocates who care deeply about women and their children. but the decision was something else also which is what the constitution says. and this is why i wish people in the media would actually know enough to read the decision to understand what it says. it argues in depth about how there never was a constitutional right to abortion -- howard: i'm going to --

>> -- just knowing the basic facts and know -- howard: the constitution says, ultimately, what the supreme court says it said and, obviously, there have been different decisions since roe including casey in 199 2. some liberal pundits are saying this shows senate confirmation hearings are a meaningless ritual. everyone vows to respect precedent, and in this case, you have five justices with john roberts concurring because he didn't want to go all the way on roe, to throw out this precedent, critics would say based on ideology. senator susan collins saying breath kavanaugh -- brett kavanaugh misled her about what he said privately not how he would vote, but giving signal that he deeply respected the roe precedent. >> yeah. carrie severino and i did cover this in our book on the kavanaugh confirmation. you hear people say, oh, aha means you can never get rid of

roe v. wade. everyone agrees that it was very bad law including ruth bader ginsburg who said it was a horribly decides opinion -- howard: not everybody agrees. >> well, it's not as strong a decision. it was already kind of overruled in casey and here now, finally, in roe -- or in dobbs it's fully overruled. but if you actually go back to the prints -- transcripts and see what people said, they never, ever weigh in on future cases. they will always say they respect precedent, and they do. alito's decision gets into this. he lists five reasons why press kent can't with something that you -- can't be something that you hold to. he explains it in in detail. howard: let's arely, you touched on this briefly earlier, there's been a sharp-meaning focus on a lack of exception for rape or incest. and women or girls having to bring those babies to term. if you're in a state where abortion is illegal for whatever reason you can't travel, you

have to give birth. i think it goes to why we're seeing such emotional reactions on both sides, of course, but particularly from the pro-choice side. take that. >> yeah. i think you all know because i shared it before, i'm a victim of rape. i was not impregnated. i have a son and a daughter, my daughter's 14, god forbid she were ever in that position. i cry for these girls, not just my children, my grandchildren. people say, oh, it's 1-2%. you know, 1% is 7,000 women or girls that have been victims, and 1 in 10 rapes is not reported. and often incest is not reported. when you look at the 10 statements that don't have exception powers, they have the highist infant mortality rates in the united states. we have a very broken foster care system across the board in this country. we don't have enough funds in many states for proper education, for proper health

care -- howard: i gotta get a break -- >> so that is a concern. howard: all right. a lot more to say about this, obviously, and strong feelings on both sides and on this panel. brian kill need joins our discussion, but when we come back, the coverage from the political fallout of the end of roe and is this just the beginningsome. ♪ ♪ bought those glasses. next time, go to america's best - where two pairs and a free exam start at just $79.95. can't beat that. can't beat this, either. book an exam today at americasbest.com here we go... remember, mom's a kayak denier, so please don't bring it up. bring what up, kayak? excuse me? do the research, todd. listen to me, kayak searches hundreds of travel sites to find you great deals on flights, cars and hotels. they're lying to you! who's they? kayak? arr! open your eyes!

compare hundreds of travel sites at once. kayak. search one and done.

howard: now let's look at the coverage of political battle the minute the high court struck down roe v. wade. mollie hemingway, with abortion mt. process of becoming illegal in 26 states, do you see the media covering these political fights at the local level with an emphasis on the right for women to travel to states where it is legal or abortion pills taking spotlight as states impose bans?

>> i think, first off, really bad thing that we saw in the media coverage was not accurately conveying what the dobbs decision does in returning it to the states, each state being able to set its own laws, each state having -- many of them have made provisions in case something like this happens. howard: trigger laws, yeah. >> just in general i think too much of the debate is focused on too little of discussion. this is a really complicated issue. women and their children and their partners and we focus so much and lee out -- lee out -- leave out the entire story of unborn children. you never see corporate media asking questions like do you think it should be illegal to kill a baby just because she has downs syndrome or just because she's going to be a girl instead of a boy? these are very real issues that people don't ask -- i don't hear enough people say do you think abortion should be legal through all nine months of pregnancy, right until the cay of birth? that's a very important question to ask politically, can and the it's not being framed that's

giving full weight dot.com applications here. howard: right. i'm sure, leslie, you have a different view of that phrase to kill a baby, but let me ask you this question. donald trump who, of course, appointed three of the justices that formed the 5-4 core majority in overturning roe took full credit saying i did not cave to the radical left democrats or their partners in the fake news media. but trump did not denounce abortion, just said it will work out well for everybody which made me think he's not the only republican who's nervous now about the impact on the election among republicans who, whether they like trump or not, are not happy about losing roe? [laughter] >> well, a chameleons technically take on the cover of their backgrounds. i believe one of his ex-wives, marla maples, asked her to have an abortion when she became pregnant. yeah, look, i'm not surprised.

politicses push for -- politicians push for certain pieces of legislation or they push for certain constitutional rights. one of the bigger issues here, this is first constitutional right, whether you believe it's a constitutional right or not, that has been a taken away -- >> it's not a constitutional right. >> i will agree with something mollie said, please don't interrupt me when i'm talking, my friend, when she said that there were other questions. here's a question i have. this seems to put everything on the female, right? females shouldn't get pregnant. if the female gets pregnant, let's leave rape and incest out of it for a minute, she in morn half the states in this country has to bring that child to term. so if she has to bring that child to term and if she doesn't or can't give the child up for adoption or foster care, where is the responsibility, howard, of the man, of the father? howard: the father should absolutely, absolutely, the father should absolutely be part

of this discussion and have a stake in it. i'm short on time. i want to get a brief answer the from beach of -- each of you. liberals warned that the9 high court wouldn't stop there, they would try to throw out other rulings, and i thought that was speck a lalative and went too far, but in clarence thomas' decision, yes, he says the court should revisit same-sex marriage and contraception. >> the issue is how you come to a decision and not just that you come to a decision. so if the means by which you come to a decision is fraud, you should revisit those issues -- flawed. howard: leslie, now we're facing a divided country when it comes to abortion. mike pence has immediately called for a total neigh wide ban. mitch mcconnell said it's possible if republicans took over congress would move for a nationwide ban. are the media casting this as the issue or a very porn issue for the midterms? -- important issue for the midterms? >> it is very important.

sadly, the democrats don't show up in the numbers republicans do in the midterm es, and i don't think they understood what -- when we said in 2016 look how many supreme court seats might come up, you can't just stay home. the bottom line is people have to get out and vote. i get so angry when i see these marches. that's wonderful, you're angry, we get it. stop marching, start voting. there are going to be boycotts of these 26 states, products made in these states, the list goes on. but that threat and that fear is not hollywood. it's very real. howard: all right. >> my bet is we're going to see if republicans get control a federal ban on abortion. howard: thanks very much for joining us this morning, mollyie and leslie. thank you, okay. it wasn't journalists quoting unnamed sources, it was republican state officials who testified at a january 6th hearing about a pressure campaign by president trump and rudy giuliani starting with arizona house speaker rusty

bowers who disputed a statement by the form president that bowers had told him the state's election was rigged. >> -- anyone, anytime has said that i said the election was with rigged, that would not be true. howard: sorry, we started, let's go to president biden speaking at the g7 in germany. >> managing global energy needs, taking on the climate crisis, dealing with the spread of diseases. and the choices we make now, in my view, are going to set a direction of our world for several generations to come. these challenges are hard for all of us, even nations with resources of the g7. but developing countries often lack the essential infrastructure to help navigate global shocks like a pandemic. so they feel the impact more acutely, and they have a harder time recovering. and our deeply connected world that's not just a humanitarian concern, it's an economic and a

security concern for all of us. that's why one year ago when this group of leaders met in cornwall, we made a commitment. the democratic nations of the g7 would step up, step up and provide financing for quality, high standard, sustainable infrastructure in developing middle income countries. what we're doing is fundamentally different. it is grounded on our shared values of all those representing the countries and organizations behind me. it's built using the global best practices; transparency, partnership, protections for labor and the environment. we're offering better options for countries and for people around the world to invest in critical infrastructure that improves the lives, their lives, all of our lives and delivers real gains.

for all of our people. not just the g7, all of our people. if -- today we officially launch the partnership for global infrastructure and investment. we collectively have dozens of projects already underway around the globe, and i'm proud to announce the united states will mobilize $200 billion in public and private capital over the next five years for that partnership. we're here today because we're making this commitment together as the g7 in coordination with one another to maximize the impact of our work. collectively, we aim to mobilize nearly $600 billion from the g7 by 2027. these strategic investments are areas of critical to sustainable development and to our shared global stability, health and health security, digital connectivity, gender equally and equity, climate and energy

security. let me give you some examples of the kinds of projects that are underway in each of these areas. first, health. two years ago covid-19 didn't need any reminders about how critical investment in health care systems were and health security is. both to fight pandemic and to prepare for the next one because it will not be the last pandemic we under -- we have to deal with. that's why the united states together with the g7 partners and the world bank are investing in a new industrial scale seek seen manufacturing -- vaccine manufacturing facility in senegal that, when complete, will have the potential to produce hundreds of millions of vaccine doses annually for covid-19 and other diseases. it's an investment that a will enhance global vaccine supplies as well as true access and equity for developing countries. second, in the digital area our

economy's future increasingly depends on people's a ability to connect to secure information and communications technologies. we need to strengthen the use of trusted technologies so that our online information cannot be used by autocrats to consolidate their power or repress their people. that's why the digital invest program is mobilizing $335 million in private capital to supply secure network equipment in africa, asia and latin america. and the u.s. government also supported the successful bid by an american company, subcomm, for a $600 million contract to build a global subsea telecommunications cable. this cable will stretch from southeast asia through the middle east and the horn of africa to europe. this'll be essential to meeting the growing demand for reliable,

secure high-tech connect it in three -- connectivity in three key regions of the world. third, gender. when women and girls have the ability and the opportunity to participate more fully in their societies and economy, we see positive impacts not only in their communities, but around the -- across the board. we have to increase those opportunities though if we want our girls to thrive including practical steps to make childcare more accessible and affordable as we continue the vital work to protect and advance women's fundamental rights. the united states is committing $50 million over five years to the world bank global childcare incentive fund. this public/private partnership support by several g7 partners will help countries build infrastructure that makes it easier for women to participate equally, equally in the labor force. fourth and very important, climate and energy. we're seeing just how critical

this is every day. the entire world is feeling the impact of russia's brutal war in ukraine and if on our energy markets. we need worldwide effort to invest in transformative clean energy projects to insure the corral infrastructure's resilient to changing climate. critical materials that are necessary for our clean energy transition including the production of batteries need to be developed with i high standards for labor and environment. reliable transportation infrastructure including railroads and ports is essential to moving inputs for refining and processing and expanding access to clean energy technologies. for example, the u.s. government just facilitated a new partnership between to who american firms and the government of an goal la to invest $2 billion in building new solar projects in angola. it's a partnership that that will help an goapg goal la meet

its climate goals while creating new markets for american technologies and good jobs in angola and, i suspect, throughout africa. and in romania, the american company new scale power will build a first of its kind small modular reactor plant. this will help bring online zero emission nuclear energy to europe faster, more cheaply and more efficiently. the u.s. government is hoping to advance the development of this ground-breaking american technology which will strengthen europe's energy security and create thousands of jobs in romania and the united states. these deals are just some of what's in store, and we're ready, we're ready to get to work together, all of us, to lead efforts, to lead u.s. efforts in my case. i appointed my special presidential coordinator to deal with the rest of our colleagues. i'll lead the u.s. whole of government approach to drive

coalition and the collaboration with the g7 and our partners around the world including private sector and multilateral development banks. i want to be clear, this isn't aid or charity. it's an investment that will deliver returns for everyone including the american people and the people of all our nations. it'll boost all of our economies. and it's a chance for us to share our positive vision for the future with communities around the world see for themselves the concrete benefits of partnering with democrats -- democracies. because when democracies demonstrate what we can do, all that we have to offer, i have no doubt that we'll win the competition every time. thank you. now i invite president van deline to the podium. howard: president biden giving a short speech at the g7 in germany. i wrote down talking about global infrastructure, talking about strategic investments, he

also touchedded on climate change, opportunities for women, childcare. kind of like a stump speech where where you've got to hit all the points. and as well talking about health, digital connectivity, sort of a broad brush look at the international goals that the president of the united states would like the g7 to move toward. actually, the real news was made a few hours ago there in germany when the nations of the g7 decided to ban imbolters of coal from russia -- imports of coal as further sanctions for the brutal invasion of ukraine. back to our regularly scheduled programming, it wasn't journalists quoting unnamed sources, it was republican state officials who testified at a january 6th hearing about a pressure campaign by president trump and rudy giuliani starting with arizona house speaker rusty bowers who disputed a statement by the former president that bowers had told him the state's election was rigged.

>> anywhere, anyone, anytime has said that i said the election was rigged, that would not be true. howard: bowers kept commanding to see -- demanding to see proof of the alleged fraud and recalled a striking comment from giuliani. >> to my recollection, he said we've got lots of theories, we just don't have the evidence. howard: another republican, georgia's secretary of state brad rathens pirger, responded to that famous phone call. >> we didn't have any votes to find. we investigated, i can share the numbers with you. howard: and -- and her mother ruby freeman, both election workers, said their lives were ruined by false allegations. >> i said i don't do nothing anymore, i don't want to go anywhere, i second guess anything that i do. >> there is nowhere that i feel safe, nowhere.

do you know how it feels to have the president of the united states target you? >> human beings we can target for trump's relentless effort to overturn the election. >> the mainstreaming of threats and violence will be a giant legacy of donald trump's big lie. >> there wasn't a bit of information that we got today we haven't had for well over a year. neil: this just seems to make donald trump look off the, just awful. >> just questioning from the other side of the aisle would have added greater credibility, and i don't think it would have undermined this powerful testimony. howard: joining us now from new york, brian kilmeade, the host of one nation with brian can kill immediate and, of course, cohost of "fox & friends." and laura ipg fink, democratic strategist and commentators. brian, the hearings are partisan, absolutely. but the media say the testimony was powerful because with it comes from republican state lawmakers like rusty bowers who

campaigned with trump, wanted trump to win. your thoughts. >> well, i go back to what jonathan turley said. everybody, all those republicans were telling you the inside story we kind of knew about. we knew who the lawyers were that were telling us and telling trump that the election was thrown, that it was not authentic, that he did not -- that he actually won, that they'd been cheated in georgia. we heard about arizona, we heard about problems in wisconsin, but we saw no proof of it. so this is almost a dramatic recount of it edited together because you only have one side of the story. that's what this is. i'm not saying it's not factual, but i think, clearly, kevin mccarthy made a bad tactical error by not putting -- if they didn't want jim jordan involved and congressman banks, i get it. but there are plenty other talented congressmen and women that would haved asked tom pointed questions to say, well, no, that was not the case, this

was the case, and are let me expand why the president thought this and what brought him to this conclusion and at least get president trump's point of view on it. howard: yeah. >> you have anti-trumpers, people who didn't agree on now live testimony and edited testimony out there. if you do an interview, howie, and you only pick out 6 minutes, obviously, those 6 minutes help tell your story. what about the rest? that would have been what the other side would have done. howard: you know who agrees with you, brian, is former president trump who has said publicly a couple times now that kevin mccarthy made a foolish mistake in pulling all his members. people remember nancy pelosi rejected some of his nominees, but i guess even the heavy media coverage, the thinking now among some republicans is it would have been better to have a defender or two or three on that panel. laura, on this question of we're only getting one side of the story, i'm tug -- struck that most conservative pundits at organizations including fox haven't been addressing the specific allegation of this

testimony we're getting, trump pressuring justice department officials, pressuring state officials, state legislators in key statements. instead, we get, you know, is the hearing fair which is perfectly good to talk about, but it's a process question, and do most people care? the answer may be now -- no, but that's a political question. your thoughts on that. >> well, howard, and i have to agree with brian, it was a huge tactical error on the part of kevin mccarthy. there were three members that he had suggested that he pulled, and that's a problem. but don't forget republicans, and as you said, howie, republican pundits could absolutely provide evidence and throw up any sort of opposition, any counterclaims, any facts that they have to offer in the media itself, and you're not seeing that. you're seeing silence on their part because the facts appear to be so damning, the breadth and the depth of the conspiracy, state legislatures. you're seeing the justice department. you're even seeing the defense department making calls to the

italian embassy to investigate conspiracies. i think that's what the january 6th hearings are doing that is so compelling. and with the voices of republicans. we know they're hamstrung because so many are palins are refusing to -- republicans are refusing to testify in front of the committee, but those who do, they're talking about civic duty, the moral imperative of standing up for the country, they're talking about doing that in the face of widespread threats to themselves and hair family members. and i think that is the story that really is resonant coming out of the january 6th committee. and the fact that no one is defending trump outside of that committee, those committee walls, we know that that would be an effective way, but i think it speaks to how much this is not a winning issue for are republicans. howard: what about that, brian? are media conservatives leaving a void by not going on television shows or writing pieces saying, well, no, no, no, this is unfair because, you know, trump didn't really do this or disputed some of the testimony the, or is it kind of

a strategy of it's a year and a half ago, the country's moved on. if we talk about it, we give it oxygen so let's not talk about. >> i think your latter point a's probably the most accurate. i've said this before, i believed from the time when the election results came in until january 6th is the boris moment of donald trump's political career, and had he just said i've got problems, i'm going to have my legal team look at it, going to welcome the bidens to the white house, he'd have a clamoring to have him back in office. it would be a coronation, not even an election. so i think how you lose in life define cans who you are, and even if there are things that bother you, welcome to the world. a lot of times things don't work out in our -- and are so-called unfair. team couldn't prove it, move on. and the people that i think he trusted a lot kept telling him the other side of the story -- howard: yeah. >> don't give up, mr. president. howard: right. >> you owe it to your party to keep fighting, and he kept

listening to that. you look at the start of your show, howie, you have all these other issues, the supreme court decisions, the gun legislation. if those issues are taking this away, why would you bring the american people back to these hearings? howard: well -- >> from a republican -- howard: -- former president continues to pound away at this to this day. laura, we showed a short clip of the two women who said their lives were ruined. the accusation was that there were a bunch of suitcases with ballots underneath the table, turned out they were just seal ised boxes is if they were not properly fed into the machines. does that kind of thing break through the static because it's such -- you know, these are ordinary people who were trying to do a job. do you think that breaks through? >> i think it does. i think anytime you see there are real consequences to instigating your supporters to attack people. and i think that we saw those consequences on display. they were both civil servants who were looking to, who were

patriots who were looking to preserve and protect our democracy. and i think when you attack those people, i think it's important to remember that that this isn't just a hearing room in washington, d.c., these are real people across the country fighting for our small d democracy. and we see the impacts. there really has to be accountability here so this doesn't happen again so, of course, that has resonance. howard: all right. richard donahue testified about pressure on the justice department, former acting deputy attorney general. first, he talks about what trump said to them in an oval office meeting, and then he talks about whether he would resign if a letter was sent by the doj to the georgia legislature. roll it. >> i'm just asking you to just say it was corrupt and leave are the rest to me and the republican congressmen. mr. president, i resign immediately. i'm not working one minute for this guy who i had just declared was completely incompetent.

howard: to your point, brian, as strong as that testimony was, the stuff about leave it to me and the republican congressmen was reported last july, and the stuff about threatening to resign when trump was considering replacing the acting attorney general, two weeks after the capitol riot. so if you have been following this, you knew this stuff. >> there's a lot of stuff that goes on behind the scenes which could have a counterargument. for example, we all work for people or worked with people that sometimes fly off the handle. you know you kind of wait it out, count to ten, go back a little bit later, now that you're calm, what do you think. you hear that's the way the president often works. i don't care how much it costs, we're going to build that that wall. a little bit later, how do we get this done. so a lot of this stuff to put in trump terms the way he ran his white house, to have someone come back and say, yeah, the president says a lot of stuff. sometimes he says this lunchroom's a mess, if we don't clean this up, we're going to

turn it into with a closet. it's a guy just speaking within the confines of the value office. so it would have helped to have pushback. but once again, the president was unhinged during that period. i interviewed him at west point, i've never seen him so angry. that was in between the election and january 6th. as soon as he were done, he just stormed off, and you know -- i've known him for 15 years -- howard: yeah, i know -- >> or 20 years, i've never seen him so angry. so he's convinced he was robbed, there's no doubt about it. i have not seen any evidence, and these are all incremental examples. howard: all right. after the break, the coverage of 15 senate republicans breaking ranks on gun safety and that supreme court ruling knocking down a new york gun law. ♪ ♪

people with plaque psoriasis, are rethinking the choices they make. like the shot they take. the memories they create. or the spin they initiate. otezla. it's a choice you can make. otezla is not a cream. it's a pill that treats plaque psoriasis differently. with otezla, you can achieve clearer skin. don't use if you're allergic to otezla. otezla can cause serious allergic reactions. it may cause severe diarrhea, nausea, or vomiting. otezla is associated with an increased risk of depression. tell your doctor if you have a history of depression or suicidal thoughts or if these feelings develop. some people taking otezla reported weight loss. your doctor should monitor your weight and may stop treatment. upper respiratory tract infection and headache may occur. tell your doctor about your medicines and if you're pregnant or planning to be. (torstein vo) when you really philosophize about it, otezla. show more of you.

there's only one thing you don't have enough of. time is the only truly scarce commodity. when you come to that realization, i think it's very important that you spend your time wisely. and what better way of spending time than traveling, continuing to educate ourselves and broaden our minds? (woman vo) viking. exploring the world in comfort.

howard: as a 15 republican senators including mitch mcconnell broke ranks to help congress pass something not seen in decades, a modest compromise on gun safety after of the heartbreaking mass shootings in texas and buffalo, the pundits ranged from equally divided to unenthusiastic. >> leaders in both parties wasted not a single moment before using the horrifying mass murder in uvalde, texas, to justify gun confiscation. has there ever been a greater, more brazen sellout of any group of voters than what republican senators mitch mcconnell, john cornyn and the rest are doing right now? >> it is minimal legislation by

anyone's score, but it is only legislation that has moved through there in the last 30 years. howard: brian kilmeade, the media are praising this deal that's now been signed into law by president biden, especially republican senators like john cornyn of texas who helped make this happen breaking with their party and the nra in the wake of these terrible mass shootings. does the coverage fairly credit them for something that almost never happens, which is a bipartisan compromise this many a hyperpolarized concern in a hyperpolarizedded congress? >> there's few people that i like and respect more than tucker, i just disagree with him on this. i believe republicans got 80% of what they wanted. they didn't want a ban on ar-15s, they don't have one. they didn't want raising the anal to 21, it is not there. there's money given to states that choose to use it with the criteria that republicans and democrats would accept about red flag laws. the first one was this place called indiana with a governor

called mike pence, red flag law. rick scott, republican governor, red flag law. i believe successfully implemented in florida. so what john cornyn did was went to bat with senator murphy, and senator murphy almost got nothing what joe biden asked for. he wanted the end of assault weapons. that didn't happen. what i think we all can say is something they did do that directly affects buffalo and uvalde. they can look back at an 18-year-old's record to see if he's a whack job, has a history of violence and being unstable, and both those guys would have been stopped from buying a gun. and if you buy a gun for somebody, the straw buyer, they'll be punished too. so if i'm a republican, i'm pretty happy with it. howard: i don't think whack job's in the legislative text, but i'll check on that. laura, donald trump slammed the new law, matt gaetz, the congressman, called dissenting senators of his own party

traitors, but aren't media liberals kind of lukewarm because they wanted much more sweeping action? >> well, that's absolutely true, ask is welcome to washington. i think you never would have seen this legislation without a democratic majority. it was democrats that were compromising on what they wanted, democrats who provided the vast majority of the bill's votes and democrats who negotiated within the terms that, as brian suggested, republicans cocould and would expect. i think that's why you see this carried. if we'd have had a republican majority, you wouldn't have seen anything like this hit the floor because they wouldn't have had the votes. i do think, unfortunately this week, the media coverage did get buried a little bit and hopefully as the election approaches we'll hear more talk about the success because there were so many issues especially with the decision on roe v. wade on friday. howard: without 10 senate republican votes, this wouldn't have happened. the supreme court striking down a century-old new york gun law saying you don't need a -- there

was an explosion of opposition from the new york governor to the new york mayor, president and vice president, and the press portrayed the ruling as kind of way out there. >> no question. 6-3 decision. they said this is second amendment even for new yorkers and six other states that says you can carry a gun unless there's a reason why you shouldn't. all these things that have been outlined in the past, psychological problems, history of violence, things of that nature. but then kavanaugh has that two-pager within it, and it says, listen, name the places you don't want them carrying a gun, a statehouse, a courtroom, 1,000 feet of a school, thursdayly schools, whatever. take out those places and then put some structure to the lack of restrictions. and i think this is more in tune with what the second amendment says -- howard: yeah. >> and i think like with the other gun law, howe by, look where it's working, how it's working, and in new york can we possibly have a cool head under

pressure for the first time in history? howard: all right. >> don't overreact? actually read? howard: i just want to get laura in. obviously, a lot of state battles here. look, it's a 6-3 clarence thomas ruling, but pundits are free to criticize. briefly. >> well, the three -- let's just look at the key change in the cases that they're hearing under the three trump appointees have shifted the court extremely far right, so much so that the rights of states to regulate guns has essentially been taken off the table with this ruling. this is a landmark case for that reason. the opposition to states' rights on the issue of gun control is now cemented, and that has wide-ranging effects for the impact of states to regulate them as well. -- at all. hey. howard: and it's in new york. >> always gets more attention. thanks as much for joining us on these topics. up next, how the legal battle over roe has been covered. ♪ ♪ i got into debt in college

and, no matter how much i paid, it followed me everywhere. between the high interest, the fees... i felt trapped. debt, debt, debt. so i broke up with my credit card debt and consolidated it into a low-rate personal loan from sofi. i finally feel like a grown-up. break up with bad credit card debt. get a personal loan with no fees, low fixed rates, and borrow up to $100k. go to sofi.com to view your rate. sofi. get your money right. ♪♪

finally. our honeymoon. it took awhile, but at least we got a great deal on our hotel with kayak. i was afraid we wouldn't go.. with our divorce and.... great divorce guys. yeah... search 100s of travel sites at once. kayak. search one and done.

howard: joining us now on the legal fallout of the supreme court's abortion ruling is andy mccarthy who writes for national review. andy, i know you think roe was a travesty, but explain to a layman how a constitutional right that the supreme court found in 1973 based on privacy, controversial at the time, can be tossed out as nonexistent in 20 22 because a lot in the media are saying it's politics? >> well, no, it's the law being more faithful to what the constitution says. and, in fact, if you just wanted to micro look at roe and nothing else, howie, roe didn't even last 20 years. i mean, the actual technical truth is that we've been under casey for almost 30 years because roe was so unstable and poorly reasonedded when it came out that it had to be scrapped

except for the bottom line holding of it by the supreme court less than 20 the years later. so it's always been an unstable holding. and at a time where originalism as a legal philosophy has gotten more traction than it had a half a century ago, this is, i mean, the obviously is the pinnacle of that, but it was coming for a long time. howard: yeah. and the product of a 50-year pro-life movement aimed at this very outcome. what about respect for precedent? there's been a lot of media skepticism, nominees of both parties over the years genuflecting at their confirmation hearings about the importance of respecting precedent and the argument that this undermines faith in the supreme court which, by the way, new gallup poll says only has a a 25% approval rating. >> well, i think everybody knows, you know, dred scott is not the law anymore and plessy v. ferguson, precedent can be overruled. and i thought justice barrett in particular in her confirmation

hearing was very good at explaining to people that stare decisis, which is this doctrine of respect for precedent, is not a hard and fast legal rule, it's a legal test to figure out which precedents that we should retain. and if you apply that to roe v. wade, it's never been a good candidate for stare decisis because, as i said, it was unstable from the beginning. it was scrapped by the supreme court, at least the innards of it, less than 20 years later. and the test they replaced it with, howie, in casey was one that invited continuous additional challenges to set up this undue burden test which invited states to regulate. howard: yeah. >> so it was never really stable. howard: yeah. and i understand that a lot of nonlawyers follow this and say, well, 6-3 key majority, but let me turn -- conservative majority. but let me turn to the samuel alito ruling itself because it talked about the 14th amendment

which was the basis for roe and how it was approved in 1868. he says we need to look at how things were many 1868. there were no airplanes or phones there. how did the justices arrive at that? >> well, you know, there's a lot of speech that we have now that they didn't have in 1787 either, right? howard: right. >> a lot of methods that we have now that weren't available when the constitution was adopted. so what you do in constitutional interpretation is you figure out what the enduring principles of the constitution were at the time that the provisions you're talking about were continued and apply those to modern circumstances. and the question the court's asking going forward is if you want to have unenumerated rights enforced, they have to be core to the foundation and the history of the united states, and they're not going to be recognized. howard: all right. andy mccarthy, thanks so much for waiting for us on the show today. that's it for this edition of "mediabuzz." i'm howard kurtz. these battles are going to continue at the state level, the

media have every responsibility to cover them and cover them fairly whether it's abortion, guns, whatever. check out my podcast, you can subscribe at apple itunes, on your amazon device, a lot of different places. we got it all in. most of it anyway. we're back here next sunday, we'll see you then with the latest buzz. ♪ ♪ ♪ ow, ow ♪ ♪ with a big, fresh carrot ♪ ♪ and a whole lot of cheese ♪ ♪ and the mirror from your van is halfway down the street ♪ ♪ well, you can say that -- ♪ wait, what? i said, "someone just clipped the side view mirror right off the delivery van." when owning a small business gets real, progressive gets you right back to living the dream. now, where were we? why, you were fixin' to peel me. [ laughter ]

(music) why, you were fixin' to peel me. who said you have to starve yourself to lose weight? who said you can't do dinner? who said only this is good? and this is bad? i'm doing it my way. meet plenity. an fda -cleared clinically proven weight management aid for adults with a bmi of 25-40 when combined with diet and exercise. plenity is not a drug - it's made from naturally derived building blocks and helps you feel fuller and eat less. it is a prescription only treatment and is not for pregnant women or people allergic to its ingredients. talk to your doctor or visit myplenity.com to learn more.

arthel: emotions running high arrange pro-life and pro-choice advocates after friday's historic supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. millions of people are taking to the streets across the country this weekend. the court's decision to return abortion law back to the states now as millions of americans are wondering what happens next. hello everyone, welcome to "fox news live," i'm arthel neville. hello eric. eric: thank you for joining us. i'm eric shawn. wexp