precedent coming out of south carolina. a former confederacy saying go back to your old ways and make it harder for people to vote. this is the reality of america today and this is the grounded and experiential reality. >> this is an obvious comparison to the issues going on with voting rights. i'm reminded of the decent in shelby county. and she wrote essentially this -- undercutting the voting rights act was like throwing away your umbrella in the middle of a rainstorm. there is much of that. women are able to have their children adopted.

they argue extensively that women are doing very well in this era. and in response to that we hear forcefully from the solicitor general saying this is a fundamental right and we cannot take away fundamental rights without good reasons and she does an excellent job taking away the cases that justice kafr kavanaugh speaks about the issue. >> how do you see this and what are we going to see going forward? what will happen? how long will they take?

>> the attorney general continued to make the case saying this is like the brown vs. board of education. and he concluded by saying this. this is not brown versus board of education. this is the opposite of brown. it over ruled one of the maybe worse supreme court cases that was so fundamentally intentioned with our nation's ideals. it said we don't leave that up to a majority vote. we get into the thicket and say this is off of the table. justice cavanagh was saying let's leave this up to the people. >> let's not dirty our hands on

decisions like this. let's be objective and remove ourselves from that. it has been precisely the effects of people saying "i'm not going to get involved on that. >> yeah, i think part of, and i want to echo because neil is outraged, justice olida who was comparing this actively, saying "we overruled that, so shouldn't we over rule this? but what is so important to get to here is that this is exactly why we talked about the process of confirmation. and the fact that there was such an intensional effort to design this court. and one of the things that justice roberts has cared about

is saying precedent has to be about principal. not infusing our opinions into decision making, but that is what we're seeing and hearing. they're saying i'm a white man, i don't have a problem, i'm fine. one of the things that ruth bader-ginsburg talked about is the difference that it made to have a woman in the back room where it happens to say here is what we're missing about the experience. when justic

talk about the real consequences of affirmative action. here the question is do we have justices actually listening? and really applying the principals of precedent? that was a huge conversation that was happening in sub text. but i think we have to lift that. >> and you told us that some justices just want you to say what i want you to say about how i feel about this already. >>. >> absolutely, and i heard language today that i have never heard from the supreme court today. they said look, in mississippi

this abortion law was passed and introduced in the legislature because they went to the floor and said we have a new supreme court thanks to donald trump, now let's pass this law. but now question pass that law. and what justice pryer said is how will the american people react when the only thing that changed is the personnel on the supreme court. not anything about medical science. >> will this institution survive the stench that this creates? that the constitution and it's reading are just political acts? >> that is the folly that she loved. trying to get them to focus on the integrity of the court. and i thought one of the most discouraging parts of the

argument, for the opponents, had to be hearing that fall on deaf ears. they had to hope they would hear the chief justice make an assertion that the integrity of the court matters. they get no principaled conversation with them. it is a watershed case like this. it falls on deaf ears because is let's let the people decide. >> yeah, just caution, but don't know whether or not it fell on deaf ears with the chief, but he is so concerned about propriety, he must have cringed, i have seen them do it once, but i

think he will mental i will be factoring that in, let's hope massively into the calculation. >> i think that is right, but even if he is inclined, they would still need to pick up one more shoet and i didn't see that today. >> i was going to go to this point about justice roberts. i did think it was concerning even if he wasn't going to tip his hand to his own views or concerns, that he continually went back to 15 weeks. 15 weeks. tell us what is wrong with that. and that was the signal, i thought, that suggested that he was trying to figure out how can i thread this needle that says we're not completely slowing out all of the precedent, but we're going to allow states to pull this back, make it harder, including how many weeks the

state can regulate a woman's access to making choices about her own body. >> i just want to ask you again, because it is such an interesting and this is such a rare privilege to be able to listen in, right? to hear how the process is carried out. i just want to ask you again, not as an attorney, but as someone who has lived in this country and experienced what so many of us have. what were you most dispinted by? >> there was so many things, i'm going to name two. so i have, as we talked about, a brother. and i have a brand new baby niece. it was such a pleasure to find out, but she is a month early, she is premature, just a month, nowhere near 15 weeks, so understand the fear and concern

about this little teeny tiny new baby being fed through tubes. and to hear that 15 weeks is viable, is simply beyond any reckoning to me as smom who had full term babies, but also as a aunt. if you're black, native american, latina. the majority of twham will not be able to drive the 100 miles or to survive, you have a higher risk if you take a child to term

than if you abort a fetus. that will be denied to william of color, women with resources will find a way, will get on a plane, go whereever they need to go. in particular of women of color. that was coming up in the argument and it was completely brushed or. >> as we wrap up, what's next? >> the justices will take a temporary, preliminary vote on friday. they will have lunch. they will be in a conference room. we won't know the outcome of that decision nor months. i expect he will keep it for himself. then the desenators, those that

disagree will write their own opinion, and in the last week of june the american people will find out has roe vs. wade been overruled. >> thank you for being with me. it has been a treat to be able to experience, being able to be by your side, it has been eternally extremely rewarding. thank you, that wraps up our special coverage, thank you for the privilege of your time. privilege oe . were delayed when the new kid totaled his truck. timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone. and the fact is, thousands of people so it was a happy ending... are trapped paying too much for wireless. but when you switch to t-mobile they will pay off your phone so you can keep your

current number and your phone! switch to t-mobile and we'll pay off your phone. now up to a thousand bucks. dry eye symptoms driving you crazy? inflammation might be to blame. inflammation: time for ache and burn! over the counter eye drops typically work by lubricating your eyes and may provide temporary relief. inflammation: those'll probably pass by me! xiidra works differently, targeting inflammation that can cause dry eye disease. inflammation: xiidra? no! it can provide lasting relief. xiidra is the only fda-approved non-steroid treatment specifically for the signs and symptoms of dry eye disease. one drop in each eye, twice a day. don't use if you're allergic to xiidra. common side effects, include eye irritation, discomfort or blurred vision when applied to the eye, and unusual taste sensation. don't touch container tip to your eye or any surface. after using xiidra, wait fifteen minutes

before reinserting contacts. talk to an eye doctor about xiidra. inflammation: i prefer you didn't. xiidra. not today, dry eye.

mom, hurry! our show's gonna start soon! inflammation: i prefer you didn't. i promised i wouldn't miss the show and mommy always keeps her promises. seriously? oh. - what the- i don't suppose you can sing, can you? watch the full story at www.xfinity.com/sing2 good day. this is "andrea mitchell reports" on msnbc. we are respecting new remarks from the president at this hour

on efforts to boost the supply chain. we will answer questions on the omicron variant and we'll have more on president trump's covid status when when the into the first debate with joe biden. >> and it was an intense two hours of q&a. most abortions being banned after 15 weeks, and for providers in the state and the solicitor general arguing, but fierce watchers spent the morning picking apart questions and comments from the three trump appointed members of the court. >> to be clear, you're not arguing that the court is the

authority to itself, or that this court has the ability to prohibit abortions, correct? >> you're arguing that the constitution is neither pro-life or pro-choice but leaves the issue for the people of the states or perhaps congress to resolve. >> we're saying it is left to the people. >> so if you were to prevail, the states majority of states could or would continue to freely allow abortions, they would be able to do that even if they prevail under your view, is that correct? >> just a little bit of what we heard this morning. joining me now to discuss all of this, we have a huge panel, pete

williams, yasmine, harry lippmann, and former u.s. attorney joyce vance. thank you all for being here on a monumental day. pete, i want to start with you you have been tracking this case quite closely and you have been listening to the justices throughout the term bhap are your key take aways from what we heard today? >> the first thing to remember is that this is the first tyke they have to talk to each other about the case and i think today is a demonstration of them really talking to each other, not to the lawyers. if the court does strike down roe it will look like a political institution and it did so only after donald trump put new appointees on the court.

the stake of the decision, so that is the first thing. secondly, it seems clear after this argument that the mississippi law is going to survive. it would limit abortion after just 15 weeks. the conservatives seem to be, some of the court, seems to be going all of the way to over turn row, but the others, perhaps justice roberts and justice amy comey-barrett. the new standard should be that if you ban abortions after 15 weeks, over 90% get abortions at that point and the clinic in mississippi at the heart of the case only performed one additional week. so it is pretty clear that mississippi law is going to survive and that the standard that the supreme court used for

50 years to decide when states have violating their rules on banning abortion, of viability, banning it before the fetus is viable, is dead. the only thing not clear to me is if the court will say it is overturning roe v wade, but the dividing line is now a limit. >> pete, help us understand the real world impact of that, if it is allowed to stand, what you are effectively saying is that we would see states all across the country, as many as 20, practices, if not more, potentially impose the stuff new laws. >> i think the number is probably more like at least half of the states, maybe 24 or 26. but about half of the country and about half of the country abortion would be illegal, it

would be allowed, and if you live, if you're a woman that lives in a state where it is banned, it is an extra burden to find a clin wrik this can be an option for you especially women that don't have the means to travel or can't easily get afwra work nap is where it will have the biggest effect. but i think we have to emphasize, this is the flash snap judgment. when they sit down to write this, and look at overturning one of the most long standing precedent precedents, i don't know but it seems clear that the mississippi law will preside. >> thank you for your great reporting and helping us understand what we just heard. we're going to continue to drill down on everything that we just witnessed. melissa, i want to go to you

know. let's talk about these trump appointees. i think pete raises a fascinating point, the justices were talking to each other. this is their first time to really delve into into this case and talk about what their concerns are about it. what did you hear from the justices, so much focus on the trump appointees? >> the trump appointees seem to be in very different corners. justice cavanagh seemed to be pressing the question of neutrality. the question that the question could be returned to the states and they could make a decision based on the sensibilities of their own constituencies. a solicitor general that advocates for the united states government said situations with fundamental rights, we never left those to be determined by

the democratic process, that is the role of the court to protect them from the whims of the justice department itself. amy comey-barrett offered information suggesting she was not willing, but she continued to press unusually on safe haven laws. laws that allow individuals to surrender their children at fire stations, police stations, and they would then be turned over for adoption. and the advent of the safe heaven laws free women of the burdens of parenthood. as she understood it, it emphasized the burdens of mother hood, and it underlies what comes out of those cases. he seemed to have little patient for these about the rights of

women and more particularly seemed to be more squarely in the camp that this is not a right to constitutionally protect them. >> there is going to be a lot of focus on what we heard from justice amy comey barrett, let's play a little bit of a key exchange that we heard. >> you're saying the sburd the baring of the child, not the affects of your work life and things like that. >> one was a strand of cases with body autonomy, and another

was -- >> what do d you hear there in that exchange between justice barrett and the attorney arguing on behalf of abortion providers. >> when you look at this issue, they are asking is this a fundamental right or left to whims of state legislatures. but often wlout considering the fundamental right that's are at stake. so her conversation here is perplexing. she seems focused on the burden of parenting as the most important reason that women would want to maintain fundamental rights in this area. the lawyers of course refocus that attention on this notion that one in four american women have abortions in the course of

their lives, that carrying a pregnancy to term is can be risky and dangerous, and most important they it should be left to the women. who gets to make the decision? is it women or state legislatures. >> there was a lot of focus on what specific right they were arguing for. do you think the attorneys did a clear enough job? to make the point of what they were arguing for? >> yes, they did a clear enough job, and the abortion of the principal that has enshrined.

the interesting point is they will, and that means if they get rid of viability, it is a judicial free fall. mississippi agreed with this. neil gorsuch agreed with this. where do you go from there? they will be in the business of incrementally deciding about ever and ever more restrictive state statutes that trim things back with no obvious stopping point for them. i agree that barrett and chief justice roberts were looking for middle ground and that probably the court overall will impose one, but it will leave them open to even harsher charges of

decision making. >> just to follow up with you on that point, that middle ground would essentially uphold the abortion ban after 15 weeks potentially, but potentially not over turn roe v. wade. >> they won't say the words, but they will say that availability doesn't matter as long as it is undue. maybe it is not so big. so what will it look like? it will look like a judicial muddle. it's not such a an undue burden. of course as pete says what about 12? ? what about nine? i think it won't look like

anything too clear, but it will say for this statute itself, we're okay and the principal does not governor and it is not constitutionally driven. >> let me speaking of the speech of the court, let me play a comment that i think got so much tent attendant about what it could mean from the future of the court. >>. >> the sponsors said we're going it because we have new justices. the newest ban that mississippi put in place, the six week ban, they said we're doing it because we have new justices on the supreme court.

will this institution survive the stench that this creates? in the public perception that the constitution and it's reading are just political acts? i don't see how it is possible. >> joyce, incredibly powerful words there, what do you make of what we heard? >>. >> she was actually making an argument to the chief justice with those words. his vote would be essential to a five justice majority for the opponents of the mississippi law. there would still need to be one more justice that would join forces, but it is critical. he is concerned about two things, precedent and adherence

to the rule of law, and also about the public's opinion of the court. not because he cares or would use it as a beauty pa jekt, but it definites on public confidence. the mississippi legislature views, and it will change their rulings because of it, he would have great concerns about the confidence that the public would have in the court. as the justices so often do, speaking to him in this argument with these comments. >> just fascinating. i want to bring in yasmine who has been standing outside, they are outside voicing what they think about this critical issue. what are people telling you? what does it feel like to be out there? >> i mean, listen, while they

have been talking on the inside, right? mentioning how people feel out here, let me give you a sense of what is going on out here. there is a barrier perhaps the two sides. you see the red and blue jackets. that is liberty university. they sent 21 buses here for the day to protest against abortion rights, let's walk into this line here. i don't want to show some of the more graphic images here, in this barrier is folks protesting

in favor of abortion rights. chuck schumer was here earlier today, lawmakers have come throughout the day. they have been talking about bringing that to the floor to be voted on, let's walk back this way, jim, there is a center for reproductive rights that was speaking inside. they addressing the supreme course justices. how do you feel like things went today? >>. >> i think we were able to make all of the points that we wanted to make, which was emphasizing the press tent, that the court has never taken away a constitutional right, and how important this is for women, their health, their lives, and their ability to work. >> what about the justices that

we were all hoping to hear from? >> they asked a number of different questions just thomas asked some questions about hiss tire and tradition, and justice barrett and justice gorsuch were trying to figure out if there is a work able standard and looking at if there is actually a middle ground. julie, thank you. >> thank you for spending time with us. >> that is literally the definition of motion in history.

incredible job grabbing that interview with julie rickelman. what you heard from her i think is significant. the fact that she felt that she got a number of questions from the conserve justices including those by former president trump not looking at middle ground here. we'll have to wait and see, we expect a ruling potentially this summer, but just an incredible interview. who captured all of the passion unfolding outside of the supreme court as we just heard those landmark and historic arguments in the high course. i want to thank everyone for some really incredible discussions breaking down what we just heard. >> we want to bring you breaking tragic news now. a fourth victim has died

following the shooting in oxford, michigan on tuesday afternoon. shaq brewster is in mississippi, he is following all of these developments, what else do we know from police at this hour? >> we know his name was justin schilling. he passed at 10:00 a.m. this morning and now he is the 4th victim to die. we know we will hear from the sheriff, the county sheriff later this afternoon, but we also know a 15-year-old suspect is in custody but he is not scoop rating at this point. they expect to file charging on him officially later this around, but he is not talking and his parents have not giving

investigators permission to talk to him at this point. we also got a update on what happened in the school. they now say that 30 rounds were fired in that shooting. that was up from the initial reports of 15 to 20 rounds they believe were fired. at this point we believe there is about six people in the hospital, two we believe in critical condition. so members of the community are asking and calling for prayers and thoughts, and those families grieving right now. of course a fourth victim now with the announcement of that 17-year-old passing away. >> shaq, i know we're expecting another update from authorities there later on this afternoon. we'll bring that live to our viewers. thank you for that great reporting. new today, the cdc is requiring airlines and airline operators to hand over contact information

from passengers that have arrived from eight southern african countries. and as the biden administration is considering tightening guidelines for all international travel. the white house saying the administration is considering more stringent testing requirements. joining me is an assistant profession at the nyu school of medicine in new york. good to be with you. thank you for joining us we really appreciate it. let's start with new news today. the w.h.o. is advising people who have underlying conditions to post tone travel. what do you make of the biden administration considering tougher testing. >> i think specifically targeting older people over the age of 60, i think this is

really the right cautious advice to be given. we don't know if it is immune ebating. so while we're still trying to get some answers, i think it is the appropriate advice to council people over the age of 0 not to be traveling until we get those answers. with respect to the tightening up of travel recommendations, restrictions, i think it is also the right thing to be doing. we should have done this sooner, we should have required testing 24 hours prior to travel. that should have been done with the rise of the delta variant that has a much shorter

incubation period. so even before the emergence, there was a window period where you could test negative prior to boarding a plane, but be incubating the virus. >> that is an important perspective there. you're saying we don't know about the efficacy of the vaccines and fighting the new variant, we hope to know more according to the pharmaceutical companies. i guess the question is there is a strong push for people to get vaccinated, and some are saying there could be a drop. should people be getting vaccinated if they don't necessarily work? >> if you have not been

vaccinated. there may be a reduction in protection in the vaccines, but they're still going to provide a lot of protection. i think if you're already vaccinated, get an additional dose, that could help overcome that third dose. so it is absolutely the best thing you can be doing right now. >> doctor, thank you for your perspective in a very fast moving news day, we really appreciate it. >> any moment now, the president is expected to speak at the white house. plus, covid confidential. explosive claims from the white

house. e claims from the white house. i use liberty mutual, they customize your car insurance, so you only pay for what you need. wooo, yeaa, woooooo and, by switching you could even save 665 dollars. hey tex, can someone else get a turn? yeah, hang on, i'm about to break my own record. yeah. only pay for what you need. ♪ liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty. ♪ want your clothes to smell freshly washed only pay for what you need. all day without heavy perfumes? now they can! with downy light in-wash freshness boosters. just pour a capful of beads into your washing machine before each load. to give your laundry a light scent that lasts longer than detergent alone, with no heavy perfumes or dyes. finally, a light scent that lasts all day! new downy light, available in four naturally-inspired scents. and the fact is, thousands of people

are trapped paying too much for wireless. but when you switch to t-mobile they will pay off your phone so you can keep your current number and your phone! switch to t-mobile and we'll pay off your phone. now up to a thousand bucks. imagine having someone else do your books for you. as your quickbooks live bookkeeper, i'll categorize expenses, reconcile accounts, and close your books. cool. - yep. know where your business stands. intuit quickbooks live bookkeeping. ♪ ♪ wow, we're crunching tons of polygons here! what's going on? where's regina? hi, i'm ladonna. i invest in invesco qqq, a fund that gives me access to the nasdaq-100 innovations, like real time cgi. okay... yeah... oh. don't worry i got it! become an agent of innovation with invesco qqq

any minute now president biden will speak about supply chain issues. but first, a sunning revelation that the former president tested positive for covid-19 three days before his first presidential debate with joe biden. this was dropped in a new meoir saying a second test was a negative result. the former president responded to the report calling it fake news. joining me now, the nbc news senior capital hill correspond debt garrett haake. >> and jeff mason, thank you all of you for being here, i really

appreciate it. i want to start with you. tell me what you're hearing, the reaction from your sources about what we have learned. the fact that former president trump tested positive before the debate only to test negative again. >> i think most folks are trying to move past the former president's covid related issues, and most of the former president's issues in general. it has not been a major topic of discussion here on capitol hill today, but it speaks to one of the issues. the only party taking covid risks seriously. they point to the fact that we may simple into a shut down this week with some more conservative republicans trying to defund mandates in this country. the specifics of the former

president have not broken through the crammed schedule that we're dealing with today. >> i found the same at the white house, garrett. i think they're trying to figure out their responses. staying on top of them for that. i want to turn to you, let's play an exchange with savanna guthrie. take a listen to what he told her about when he tested positive. >> i don't know, i don't even remember. i can tell you this. after the debate, i guess a day or so, i think thursday evening, maybe late thursday evening, i tested positive. that's when i first found out. . >> that doesn't square with what mark meadows is reportedly saying in his book. obviously he is trying to promote his book with this

revelation, but he is saying he probably ran all of this by the former president. they're holding a ceremony in the packed rose garden that turned into a super spreader service. what are you hearing? what has the reaction been? >> i think number one this shows again the cavalier attitude that he addressed covid. particularly with regard to the people around him and nar matter his policy plans, he did not take it seriously. he did not want to take it seriously when he first got that positive test, and they were not transparent about the fact that he had tested positive in that test. i think it is interesting the president is calling it fake news. it is interesting that you say he would have run that by the president. either way it is a good

illustration, again, of the former president dismissing things that he doesn't like, but in general it is representative of how his administration says he was delling with covid whether or not he was just set the table. let's switch gears now about what you were talking about. everything that is happening on capitol hill, the fact that the democrats are trying to fund the government, increase the debt limit, and get "build back better" passed, where do those different pieces of moving parts stand at this hour given that there are a lot of roadblocks early on? >> yeah. it's a traffic jam. and that traffic jam has given leverage to some more conservative republicans who may use the first deadline of those you just mentioned, funding the government, which the money is supposed to run out at the end of day friday, to try to gum up the works here on one of their policy priorities. we are hearing rumblings there are a group of senate and certainly house republicans in

the freedom caucus who want to use this government funding deadline to try to defund president biden's vaccine mandate system that has been -- the administration's been struggling to put in place around the country. they only have leverage to do that because we are up so tight against the deadline. and it's not clear when even the house would start their process of voting on funding the government. it could come today. it could come tomorrow. but obviously the closer we get to the deadline, the more leverage any individual senator has to slow up the process. on the debt limit, the leaders in the senate have been sounding a little bit more optimistic than they were several months ago when we last found ourselves confronted with a possible default issue. leader schumer and mcconnell say they are talking about a way out of this. we don't know what that is yet, but they're at least discussing it. on bbb, we're in the manchin zone. a lot of work to be done to get his approval before anything can come to the floor in the senate. >> all eyes on joe manchin. brendan, let me bring you into

the conversation. do you think it's smart policy for that group of republicans that garrett was mentioning to try to gum the works over vaccine funding? do you think it will work? >> i don't think it's going to work, and i don't think democrats are counting on the freedom caucus to help keep the government open. they don't need their votes. senators can require them to run out the clock and use every procedural step. we are so close to the deadline that we could trip into a government shutdown. i don't think that is going to be a prolonged thing and hope it wouldn't be. that is terrible politics. government shutdowns are never a good idea. particularly a government shutdown for the cause of being against vaccines. most americans are vaccinated. most support vaccines. the republican party wants to win back majorities in congress, i would urge them not to take the side of anti-vaxxers which what this will ultimately look like. they will say it's against mandates, but most people are happy to get vaccinated. so they need to be careful that

they don't align themselves too closely with what is seen as the fringe movement. >> and katie, let me get your perspective on all of this from the president's standpoint. he wants to get this government funding debt ceiling raised so that he can focus on "build back better" and getting that bigger piece of legislation through. how big of a threat is this to his agenda? >> what we're seeing now is that as has been mentioned there are several roadblocks in place, republicans have made it clear one democrat can tank the entire bill. when we look at manchin and look at what this means for vaccine mandates and proposing what issues could be faced by the americans when talking about "build back better," there are so many issues that the president is up against. really right now what we are seeing from democrats is an attempt to really make clear what this new social safety net program is going to be, talking about the specifics, making sure to make their rounds across america, to make sure that people know what the benefits

are going to be coming to them if this bill does pass. when it does eventually, if it does eventually. those are the issues that they're up against right now. and right now, the gop messaging is that this is a socialist experiencing spree, and they -- spending spree, and they are hammering that to voters. if democrats can't deliver their 2020 campaign promises with this bill, that's what they're going to be holding up against if they're really aiming to contain their -- maintain their majorities in the house and the senate in 2022. >> all right. well, great conversation about a lot of moving parts on capitol hill. garrett, kadie, brendan, and jeff, thank you so much for joining us this afternoon. really appreciate it. meanwhile, as the supreme court considers overturning roe v. wade, abortion access in texas and several other states hangs in the balance. texas is just one of the states with so-called trigger laws which could automatically ban abortion if roe is partially or fully overturned. joining me is democratic congresswoman sheila jackson lee

from texas who was protesting outside the supreme court today. congresswoman, thank you so much for being here. i wonder if you can start by just giving us your takeaways. we've been discussing this throughout the hour. one of the key takeaways seems to be that the conservative justices seem to be interested in finding some type of common ground. did you hear the arguments that way? >> thank you so very much for having me and allow me, first of all, to as a parent offer my deepest sympathy to the families in michigan for the loss of those precious children. we want to do something that equals justice in the united states supreme court for the american people. the premise of that is that we trust women. interestingly enough, i think what has been emphasized in the arguments is that if there is not a catastrophic reason, if

there is no necessity for undermining precedent and stated law, why are you doing it. and i believe the conservatives who are supposed to be conservatives as relates to adhering to stated law, then why would they turn upside down a precedent and law and constitutional law, the right to privacy under the ninth amendment, and of course roe v. wade and a number of other cases, why would they do that now? what is the catastrophic reason? what is the reason to undermine over 51% of women in the united states even though i know that there are those who are pro-life, but the rights of women to choose? pro-life women have a right to choose. that is they make a determination about their own body. that is the same thing that should happen to a woman who has been raped, who is a victim of incest, who has an unwanted pregnancy because she has not as a poor woman, has not had access

to good health care. why is there a reason to turn upside down stated law? so i think my answer to you or my answer to you is as a member of the judiciary committee who's dealt with this now for more than two decades, it is no credible reason to overturn roe v. wade. there's no catastrophic -- there is no need for the goodwill of the people to overturn roe versus wade. >> congresswoman, let's talk about texas specifically. since september 1st women have been unable to obtain abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. and of course that's before many women know that they are pregnant. it also allows private citizens to enforce the ban through lawsuits. so talk about what's happening in texas right now and the potential implications of the mississippi case for texas. >> it's a health crisis that's going on in texas. it's a travesty.

it is a state full of sadness, and it has women fleeing. the mississippi law is 15 weeks. roe v. wade is 24 weeks or at viability. and we know that that is an honest and effective definition, but also it is an effective line to draw. and you're right, six weeks -- no one is able to discern whether they're pregnant or not. and that means the victim of incest, a 13-year-old girl, or the victim of rape -- what's happening now is those who have means, who are able economically can flee. mostly to oklahoma. can you believe it? that is not a liberal state. they're fleeing to oklahoma. but the actual crisis takes me back to the bountyhunters of slaves who were attempting to free themselves out of the bondage of slavery. we have now put 21st century women, texas women, college students, poor women, rape

victims, incest victims, and we have made them the victims of bounty hunters. senator klobuchar and i have introduced the anti-vigilante bill that we want to push through right now. we want the supreme court to throw both bills -- excuse me, both laws out, but our vigilante bill makes those bounty hunters that would get $10,000 in texas criminals subject to fines and incarceration. what is happening is that we're literally living in the 1800s, and women, 21st century women, are the victims of bounty hunters as well as the providers who they are going after. it's a place of intimidation and fear. >> congresswoman sheila jackson lee, i know you were outside the high court today. thank you for taking time to talk to us on this historic day. we really appreciate your perspective. >> we want the court to do the right thing. >> thank you for joining us. that is it for this edition of "andrea mitchell reports."

chuck todd starts right now. welcome to "meet the press," i'm chuck todd. we've got a packed hour ahead. obviously the big news, a lot to unpack from the big supreme court hearing on abortion which we're going to get to in a moment. also this hour the president's chief medical adviser, dr. anthony fauci, will be briefing reporters and answering questions at a white house press briefing with the latest on the omicron variant. we'll bring you that live. and we're standing by for remarks from the president on the economy and the supply chain that are run being a half hour late. when they come, we will bring those to you. we're going to begin with the latest from the supreme court as it takes up mississippi's ban on virtually all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. as part of the case it heard this morning, the court is being asked to effectively overturn roe v. wade which established a right to an abortion and -- it was