>> building a better bay area. >> building a better bay area. moving forward, finding solutions. this is abc 7 news. >> you are watching "getting answers." we are getting answers for you in real-time. nearly 20 years after a jury convicted him of killing his wife and unborn child, scott peterson could get a new trial. with closing arguments happening today, an attorney will join us to explain how likely that is to happen. also, there is a new candidate likely to jump into the race for san francisco district attorney. our media partners at the sf standard will be here to tell us who that is and how this can shake up the race. but first, a ucsf reports has an abortion ban may increase the risk of death for pregnant women

with cancer. and there are other repercussions of overturning roe v. wade. joining us live is dr. catherine van loan, gastrointestinal oncologist and professor at ucsf . think you for being here. >> thank you for having me. >> in your article, you state that one in 1000 pregnancies are affected by a concurrent cancer diagnosis. can you go into more detail about that? >> absolutely. that is currently the statistic we are facing, that one in every 1000 pregnant women will face a concurrent diagnosis of pregnancy -- of cancer during her pregnancy. the most commonly diagnosed cancers are breast cancers, cervical cancers, lymphomas, ovarian cancers, leukemias, colorectal cancer, and melanoma. breast cancer is the most

commonly diagnosed during pregnancy. karina: out of those women who are battling cancer and make it pregnant, what is the percentage of women who may need to terminate? and give some examples of why a woman battling cancer might need to terminate a pregnancy. >> there are two previously published cohorts that attempt to address this answer, and in those cohorts one reports that about 9% of women will have elected to terminate a pregnancy in the context of a concurrent cancer diagnosis, and the other is a determination rate of 25%. of note, most of those terminations are of pregnancies that are still in the first trimester. rarely did they happen during the third trimester. the context in which a woman may decide to terminate a pregnancy in the face of a cancer diagnosis is when an urgent or

emergent treatment is indicated to save her own life. we have rarely faced this decision later in pregnancy. my obstetric colleagues typically will say that a pregnancy is mostly considered viable after about 24 weeks. gestational age of, course a very severely premature delivery is never what we are aiming for because there still is a very high risk of neonatal demise or long-term disability related to prematurity. but again, the indication for a termination of pregnancy is usually a very early in the pregnancy situation and which there is an urgent treatment that is needed to save the mother's life. karina: you say in the states that will ban abortions, likely

up to 400 women could face compromises in their cancer care and potential loss of life. what are some instances where something like that could happen to a woman? >> there has been a report of a case of acute leukemia in which the woman was found to be early in a first trimester pregnancy. in that situation, a woman who is diagnosed with acute leukemia requires emergent initiation of treatment. if the treatment is withheld because of a perceived risk to a fetus, the mother's life is going to be in jeopardy. karina: for someone in your job, how much does the supreme court ruling complicate the care you give women in these cases? >> i think we find ourselves in a very precarious situation. i think a lot about my colleagues who are practicing in states that are going to or have already invoked antiabortion laws.

already, we are seeing and hearing of situations in which lifesaving therapies are being withheld because of a fear of criminalizing the doctor that is prescribing. an example is prescribing methotrexate. it is on old drug prescribed for a variety of chronic conditions, autoimmune conditions, cancer, but it is also indicated for off label termination of an ectopic pregnancy. and we are seeing cases in which lifesaving therapies are being withheld from people with chronic conditions or urgent indications because doctors and pharmacists fear the repercussions of prescribing these agents and misinterpretation that they are jeopardizing the life of the fetus. karina: you went into more detail on all of this that we just talked about in the article. what do you want people to talk

away -- what you want people to take away from it? >> thanks for asking that question. i think when i take a care of a woman who is pregnant and facing a cancer diagnosis, it is an absolutely terrifying situation and it requires a huge multidisciplinary team to coordinate care. we think about caring for two patients in these situations, and of course the priority is to save both lives whenever possible. but these are very delicate situations, and there are unfortunately situations in which a woman is faced with a choice to try to preserve the fetus or embryo, or to pursue life saving therapy for herself. the world medical assembly states that our clinical practice related to termination of pregnancy should promote and protect women's health, dignity,

human rights, voluntary consent, and a thomas trice. my fear -- and autonomous choice. my fear is the decision to overturn roe v. wade has taken a medical decision between a patient and a position and has removed the woman's right to an autonomous choice to protect her own life. karina: it also -- you touched on this. doctors are put in a position where you could face criminal charges for helping a woman decide something so difficult and helping her decide something medical. talk about that, the fact that you could face criminal charges for something just as simple as doing your job. >> i think it is an inconceivable situation that we have never considered ourselves being in, in the medical profession, where we are typically in a position of

trying to do everything we can to preserve life, to advocate for our patients. and i think now our inclination to advocate for a woman's life, to deliver the best possible therapy, is being jeopardized. and in fact, i think it is inevitable that there are going to be cases in which physicians and other clinical providers are used as examples for political purposes, and there will be some criminal accusations for doctors who are in the situation of needing to care for a woman who is pregnant, but also has another comorbidity that requires lifesaving therapy that is not computable with the fetus or embryo's life. karina: dr. katherine van loon, we are unfortunately out of time, but thank you for making time to talk about this and writing about it as well. >> thank you so much for having

me. karina: up next, closing arguments today as scott peterson tries to get a new trial. how likely is that to happen? an i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps. the three what? the three ps? what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54 and was a smoker, but quit. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65, retired, and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80 and i'm on a fixed income. what's my price?

$9.95 a mont if you're ag50 call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. you cannot be turned down because of your health. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. options start at $9.95 a month, plus you get a 30-day money back guarantee. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction to your loved ones with your final wishes. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

back in court. he is seeking a new trial. peterson was convicted in 2004 of killing his wife, laci, and their unborn child. in 2020, the california supreme court overturned peterson's death sentence because of juror misconduct. that led us to today, where we heard peterson's lawyer giving the closing arguments for a new trial. joining us life is a criminal

defense attorney to explain how we got here and what could happen in peterson's case. thank you for being here. >> my pleasure. just so you understand, the fundamental thing the defense attorney will do is a structural error. not look for small errors, but something that goes to the bedrock of a system. you look for structural errors. if you can prove that, you don't have to show a lot of prejudice on appeal. that is what they are going for here, jury misconduct, because the bedrock of our system, the foundation, is the jury of our peers. it is in the constitution. karina: let's go into a little more detail on that juror. peterson's lawyers went into a lot of detail when it comes to that juror. can you simplify as to why she is the reason he was granted a chance to argue for a new trial? >> yes, absolutely. remember also, this is something that is arguably a final answer because if mr. peterson loses on

this, there will be continued appeal. you have to put as much facts on the record as you can. that is why there was the constant arguing and setting forth of the facts, because you cannot raise those at an appellate court later. you have to raise them now. that is why you heard a whole day of factual allegations. they zeroed in on where the two things they had to. one, there was a misstatement. domestic malone does not get you a new trial. bias. you have to push the bias because we do have misstatements quite often from jurors in a jury selection, but you have to prove bias. how hard is that to prove? it is hard because actions and words can have different meanings depending on who is listening, who is thinking about it. they really have to push for this judge to make a credibility finding. she has heard the testimony already, and they are asking to say, you saw what happened here, that was not credible testimony. we want you to find her incredible, not believable, and

defined this bias and we will get a new trial. those are the things they had to hit. they hit them strong. now it is anyone's guess what is going to happen next. karina: it was a domestic violence issue that was involved. why is that such a big deal for her to have that in her background as a juror? >> yes, because this is a case that was the ultimate domestic violence. he is accused of killing his own wife. here you have the ultimate act of domestic violence. this is someone who as a juror deliberating could have some type of trauma. this could have happened to me. all those who are accused of this, i am biased against them. this was tailor-made for the peterson's defense team to accuse her not being truthful about it. there is no way you can either forget about this or not be biased because of it. karina: you just having said

that, do you think there is a good argument there that she should not have been a juror in this case? >> i think there is an excellent argument that she should not have been a juror in this case. the system often makes a lot of people unhappy, and a great system like we have can lead to people being disgruntled on both sides. but the principal matters. in this case, i think she should have been disqualified. the question is whether or not this judge -- put it this way. in retrospect, if this came out in the beginning, she would have been disqualified. no one is going to disagree with that. the question is, is that enough now to overturn the verdict? is there enough bias to prove he did not get a fair trial? karina: so what do you think after hearing all this and knowing enough about this juror? do you think he will get a new trial? so many people are shocked that

he is even getting that opportunity, right? this was such a big case that everybody watched so closely and people are saying, really? he could get a new trial? what y do you think? >> it has all the elements of a great drama playing out in court. he is a very good-looking kid. they have what would be considered a good life going, then this dastardly darkside that must have happened. he does not get a lot of sympathy from anyone in the public at all. i can see why there is a lot of feeling about i can't even believe we are still dealing with this. like any real drama, it rises and falls until the final climax. we are watching the drama play out, which may be headed towards a surprise in mr. peterson's favor. but i am not saying that is the end. if he gets a new trial, he may very well lose that trial, and

we will have this finality which we all really need for a case like this. karina: the judge has about 90 days. we will not get an answer today. to look at all the evidence for them getting a new trial. what is the judge weighing right now from those closing arguments today and what the judge has heard in the past? >> the judge is going to have a couple law clerks and they will spend a good amount of time determining whether or not this ruling will be overturned on appeal. you want to do it right at the trial level. you don't want to make the errors. the appellate court is not going to have the benefit of what was just heard and the credibility determinations. they will take every single piece of evidence because they think they are going to have to agree there was misconduct. the question is the bias. how do you prove what was in somebody's mind, in somebody's heart, based on afterward taking a look at their words and actions? in reality, the judge will spend a long time back and forth about

whether there is a lot of bias, and if there is, should there be a new trial? i don't read tea leaves or try to figure out how a judge is going to rule. it is difficult to find. it will weigh on how they view the law and how seriously they take their job. karina: thank you so much, mark reichel, for weighing in, giving us a depot perspective -- a deeper perspective. we appreciate your time. >> my pleasure. thank you. karina: coming up, there is a potential new candidate in the race for san francisco district attorney. our media partners at the sf

when a truck hit my car, the insurance company wasn't fair. i didn't know what my case was worth. so i called the barnes firm. i was hit by a car and needed help. i called the barnes firm, that was the best call i could've made. i'm rich barnes. it's hard for people to know how much their accident case is worth. let our injury attorneys help you get the best result possible. ♪ the barnes firm injury attorneys ♪ ♪ call one eight hundred, eight million ♪ karina: welcome back. there is a new development in the race for san francisco's next district attorney. former police commissioner john how misaki is likely throwing his hat into the race. our partners at the san francisco standard just published an article on this and

discover -- explores whether hamasaki has a shot, and what this could mean for the interim d.a.. joining us live is standard senior reporter josh kane. thanks for being here. >> let's talk about this. hamasaki pull papers with the department of elections. this does not mean he is a formal candidate, is that right? and what does it take for him to become one then? >> absolutely. right now, john hamasaki has done the initial steps to become a candidate for district attorney. he will have to file some paperwork, nomination forms that includes signatures, and he will have to pay a filing fee that is almost $6,000, and all of that has to be done before 5:00 p.m. tomorrow karina: so we will know tomorrow by 5:00 p.m. verdure? >> that's right. we should have an answer by then, i hope. karina: let's talk about hamasaki. what is he best known for? give us some background.

>> john is best known for his role as a police commissioner. he served a term from 2018 through the spring of this year. during that time, he was champion for reforming the police department, and at times, pretty combative with the police chief, calling for deeper looks into excessive force. also calling for an agreement between the das office and police on how they handle investigations on police shootings and other critical incidents. there was a big brouhaha in february in which the chief threatened to pull out of an agreement with the dispute with the former da. they got into a lot of finger-pointing and shouted at each other during a police commissioner meeting. karina: can you give us some comparisons for hamasaki and chesa boudin, and our current

da, jenkins? give us some of their contrasts on some of the bigger issues. >> brooks jenkins, the current district attorney, was a former homicide prosecutor. she and boudin had their disputes. she decided to quit the office and shortly after that became part of the recall effort. she was a volunteer spokesperson. but we just reported this week that da jenkins at that time was receiving a salary for a nonprofit that has been considered deeply connected to the recall effort. john hamasaki told us in our report today that this story we published just yesterday -- two days ago, was a motivating factor in running. he is not necessarily a clone of chesa boudin, but they share policies and outlooks on how the criminal justice system should work. when we asked chesa boudin who are you going to be supporting,

he said he has not endorsed anyone in this race but he would be open to receiving a call and would consider it if john hamasaki asked for that blessing. you have to consider d.a. brooke jenkins on one side. she has talked about being compassionate and reforming the criminal justice system. she has a clear mandate to try to clean up the streets and hold people accountable, so she will be considered tougher on crime, whereas john hamasaki would be closer to the way chesa boudin was running the office. karina: you mentioned that hamasaki is a known supporter of chesa boudin, who was just recalled. will that impact how voters see him? >> absolutely. chesa boudin was recalled with 55% of voters supporting the recall. 45% were against it. it is not necessarily clear if those are all people who would support boudin's role as the da, or people who were more opposed to the process of the recall and

feeling like if you don't do anything truly criminal you should be allowed to serve out your term. if we look at what we could expect from someone like john hamasaki if you were to be elected this tricked attorney, -- if he were to be elected district attorney, it would be more in line with chesa boudin. karina: are there other real contenders in the race we should be talking about while we have you here? >> there are four candidates total. well, three, i should say, because john hamasaki still needs to get the paperwork in. there would be four total. a third candidate, whose grandfather was mayor, his grandmother was the supervisor. he has positioned himself somewhere in the middle of brooke jenkins and john hamasaki , if he intends to run. because of the ranked choice voting system in san francisco, which rewards people if they

were to be a second-place choice, that could actually position him somewhat as a spoiler, if not a contender, depending on how things shake out. karina: i am looking at the article. you have it right there on your homepage. anything else you want the people to know about hamasaki and what this means for the d.a. race come november? this has already been a tumultuous position. anything else you want to add? >> this is going to be the fourth election in san francisco this year. voter fatigue is very real. reporter fatigue, we don't acknowledge it, we will just keep going. the big thing is when you look at john hamasaki's record, there is his time as police commissioner, but it is also the statements you make as an individual, as a private citizen. he has been very prolific on twitter and quite aggressive at moments in the way he has criticized people.

those are the kind of comments that will be very much vetted if you become a political candidate. we have seen that over time, where old tweets resurface and people all of a sudden are under a microscope. they might not have been there in a lower role. karina: anyone can read the article on your homepage right now. thank you for making time to talk with us today. >> thank you. you have a great day. karina: you can check out more of the san francisco standard's other original reporting on their website, sfsta ndard.com. and a reminder, you can get our live newscast, breaking news, weather, and more with our abc 7 bay area streaming tb app. just search abc 7 bay area i'm jonathan lawson here to tell you about life insurance through the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three ps.

the three what? the three ps? what are the three ps? the three ps of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54 and was a smot qu. what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65, retired, and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80 and i'm on a fixed income. what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. you cannot be turned down because of your health.

no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock so your rate can never go up for any reason. options start at $9.95 a month, plus you get a 30-day money back guarantee. so call now for free information and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. use this valuable guide to record your important information and give helpful direction to your loved ones your wish. and it's yours free just for calling. so call now for free information.

karina: tonight, breaking news as we come on the air. the attorney general speaking for the first time on the search of former president trump's home. the attorney general merrick garland revealing he is moving to unseal the warrant, to reveal to the american people more about what they were looking for. the a.g. saying he personally approved the decision to search mar-a-lago. that the decision was not made lightly. indicating they tried other routes before the search. and now tonight, the judge giving trump's legal team until tomorrow to re so, will the former president allow the american people to see the warrant? to learn more about what the fbi was looking for? jonathan karl standing by with new reporting. and dan abrams tonight on something else we learned today, the key move on all of this months ago.