than 8500. fair to say, pam bozanich is not one of them. >> life in prison for those two is just fine. i hope they live a long, long life. this sunday, the fate of roe v. wade. >> life is so precious, and these babies have a chance now. >> the supreme court signals it's ready to allow an abortion ban at 15 weeks. is it going to weaken or overturn roe v. wade? >> is it really an issue about choice? why is 15 weeks not enough time? >> lawyers defending roe argue that fetal viability should remain the standard. >> mississippi's ban on abortion two months before viability is flatly unconstitutional under decades of precedent. >> and liberal justices warn of damage to the court's

reputation. my guests this morning, democratic senator amy klobuchar and republican senator mike braun. plus omicron. >> we're going to fight this variant with science and speed, not chaos and confusion. >> new travel restrictions amid concerns about transmissibility and how effective vaccines will be. >> because of the number of mutations that are seen, the concern is vaccines won't work as well. >> i'll talk to the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. also, the parents of the boy accused of killing four high school classmates in michigan are themselves charged with involuntarily manslaughter. >> there was absolute reason to believe this individual was dangerous and disturbed. >> they are now in jail for hiding from authorities after failing to appear in court. the entire family behind bars. joining me for insight and analysis are "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley parker, playbook co-author

eugene daniels, errin haynes, editor-at-large of the 19th and stephen hayes, founder of the dispatch. welcome to sunday, it's "meet the press." oomz welcome >> announcer: from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. a good sunday morning. we're going to take a look at the supreme court abortion case from two perspectives today, the practical and the political. what was clear from the arguments this past week is a six-vote majority is ready to uphold mississippi's abortion ban at 15 weeks before viability, but what's still at issue is will the court just weaken or fully overturn roe v. wade. more than half the states will make abortion illegal if it's a full overturn, unraveling 50 years of protection of abortion rights in the country. and abortion rights activists will see that the right to win back those votes can be counted in decades, not years.

at the same time there are political consequences as well. the case could actually brighten what is a grim outlook right now for democrats in 2022. the court has long been an energizing issue for republican voters. could the neutering of roe now anger energizing democrats and women in general as we head toward the midterm elections? the abortion debate is perhaps the longest running example over an increasingly divided america. none of those divisive issues have the emotional power and relevance of abortion and none so rested on one election. all elections have consequences, but three of the justices ready to undo roe were appointed to the court by president trump, reminding us that the 2016 election will continue to have consequences in american law for decades to come. [ chanting-roe v. wade has got to go ]

>> activists are bracing for a new battle over one of the nation's starkest political divides. >> this case is about whether the supreme court is going to adhere to an almost 50-year precedent of respecting the individual liberty to make decisions about pregnancy. >> unborn babies are human beings, and they should be protected as any human being would. >> in arguments on wednesday, chief justice john roberts signaled he might uphold the mississippi law without explicitly overturning roe. >> if it is an issue about choice, why is 15 weeks not enough time. >> he appeared to be alone as other members of the court's conservative majority went much further. republican senator susan collins has defended her vote for justice brett kavanaugh. >> he noted repeatedly that roe had been upheld by planned parenthood versus casey describing it as precedent on precedent. >> i said that it's settled as a precedent of the supreme court,

entitled respect under principles of stare decisis. >> but then -- >> if we think the prior precedents are seriously wrong, if that, why then doesn't the history of this court's practice with respect to those cases tell us that the right answer is actually a return to the position of neutrality? >> on wednesday the democratic appointees on the court tried to appeal to their colleagues' concerns about the court's political standing. >> if people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? how will the courts survive? >> a majority of americans believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. just 32% favor overturning roe. 58% oppose. if roe is overturned, 12 states have explicit trigger laws which would immediately ban abortion. experts say some two dozen states are either certain or very likely to make the

procedure illegal, and more could do so. >> what would happen if the supreme court overturned roe for you? >> for us, that would mean that we would be closing within the next 30 days. >> with the future of roe in doubt, the consequences of the 2016 election loom even larger. >> we're going to appoint judges who will support, defend, and uphold the constitution. >> do we want him appointing our judges? >> donald trump cemented his legacy with three new supreme court justices. now the court's decision will come just months before the midterm elections and could reshape a political environment which now favors republicans. >> the reaction to the overturn will be thermonuclear. it is the foreseeable event that has the greatest chance of changing the trajectory of the midterms. >> if you want to see a revolution, go ahead, outlaw roe v. wade. >> joining me now is democratic senator of minnesota, amy klobuchar.

you've been on the front lines of the judiciary committee of all the actors inside the supreme court. i want to start with -- i think from your perspective, two potential bad outcomes that may come out of this. i guess the question is which of the bad outcomes in your view would you prefer? a total overturn of roe or what chief justice roberts seems to be hinting at, something that keeps roe in name only or keeps some provision but still allows the 15-week ban. >> okay. first of all, i don't think that's going to happen. it appeared to me listening to that argument that the conservative justices were in a different place than justice roberts, that they clearly are headed toward overturning roe. in either case, even if you go with -- it's a mess. you literally are going to go back to a time if we don't do anything -- we'll get to that in a minute -- you're going to go back to a time of back alley abortions. people are going to be busing from one state to another. 75% of americans believe this decision should be made between

a woman and her doctor, 75% of americans. this wasn't a case where the court was going with the changing morays of society. no, they are on their own there. raw political power pushed those new justices onto the court, and this is going to be the outcome. i would agree with your run-up to this. this is going to be about americans standing up to assert their rights. >> you don't believe if they keep -- if they allow the mississippi law to stand within the framework of roe, do you believe that means roe is still relevant case law at that point? >> technically, yes. but in reality what we've seen with these states -- in texas they've literally enacted a law that says neighbors can spy on neighbors and be bounty hunters, going after women for exercising their right for health care. that's not the america that 80% of americans want to see. >> what do you make of justice kavanaugh's argument that the court should be neutral on

abortion and essentially saying it should be up to the politicians? i want to point something out. there's really only three countries in the world that have abortion rights that were given to them by the courts. it's us, canada, and mexico. >> pretty significant countries. >> no doubt. most other countries have done it either via their legislatures or via referendum. should this be done that way? does leaving it to the courts put us in a more vulnerable position on this? >> i would turn it the other way. 50 years of precedent, as elena kagan pointed out, 50 years of decisions and court decisions, part of the very fabric of women's existence in this country. this is how our country protected rights. now they're willing to flip it on its head. and so what is the answer? the answer may well be doing it through the political process now. i don't think that's the right thing to do, but it may be the way to do it, and i think the best way to do it is not a patchwork of state laws but to put it -- codify roe v. wade, put it into law, and we even

have pro-choice republicans who have signaled interest in doing that. >> i want to put up the minnesota law. i'm curious if you think this is a way to start as a baseline. the restrictions that are most notable in minnesota, which has, i think, the state constitution guarantees a right to abortion in minnesota. state-directed counseling, followed by a 24-hour waiting period, parental notification for minors, and i believe, if i get it right, 24 weeks that you're allowed to have an abortion. is that what you think the federal baseline should be essentially? >> actually i think the federal baseline is the bill we put together, the women's health protection act, which would put roe v. wade into law. minnesota, i'm glad that is in our law. i think we have long believed that people have the choice. we have one of the highest rates of international adoption. that's one choice. another choice is being a mom. an another choice is actually making a decision with your doctor that you're going to terminate a pregnancy. those are choices in our state.

but i don't think that having state by state by state, and literally you know very well, chuck, by what we've seen out of texas and alabama, that a huge swath of the country, women are going to be denied that right to make their own choice, and i don't think that's the answer. i think the answer is putting it into federal law. of course, the ultimate answer would be uphold 50g years of precedent and the court doing the right thing. >> all right. this bill needs 60 votes in the senate. is there a way besides getting rid of the filibuster to lower the threshold? could you find a way with medicaid or medicare funding, different ways to make it a 50-vote threshold. >> as you know, we're looking at the rules of the senate right now. in the context of the freedom to vote ability, the bill i lead that has every democrat in the senate supporting it. one of the things we've realized is that -- i would abolish the filibuster. but even if you keep the filibuster in place, over time

there have been 160-some carveouts to the filibuster. even robert byrd himself said -- >> how would you change the rule for codifying roe? >> this would be some change to the senate rules and most likely not this particular issue. right now we're really focused on voting rights. it would be a way to put this out there for the american public so that people would be required to be in the chamber and actually debate things and come up with an outcome at some point. because right now, if the republicans want to go into this election, which i think does look at where we're heading, the america people are going to decide do, they want to go with a political party that has gotten them through this pandemic, that has gotten the vaccines out, that believes in science over misinformation on facebook, or are they going to go with a political party that's

trampling on the freedom of women's rights, trampling on the freedom to vote, will not reduce to reduce prescription drug costs, will not be there for your child care? there are going to be -- all of this is going to be on the ballot in this election. >> let me ask you about the political ramifications. this is something you said in your campaign about pro-life democrats. take a listen. >> i believe we're a big tent party, and there are pro-life democrats and they are part of our party, and i think we need to build a big tent. i think we need to bring people in instead of shutting them out. >> i think one of the reasons why we had stability on this issue is that in the '70s and '80s, a third of democrats were pro-life, a third of republicans were pro-choice. there was this sort of freeze, if you will. now there's a pretty stark partisan divide. does that make it harder to have pro-life democrats in the party? >> i don't think so. we still have people that come up to me all the time in my state saying i don't agree with you on that issue, but i agree with you on this issue. i still think there's clearly room in our party for pro-life democrats. you also have many people where

that is their personal view, but they don't believe they should impose it on other people, that people should make their own choices. my view hasn't changed. what you see changed is the supreme court in a dramatic fashion. when raw politics got these justices on and you see the raw political outcome. >> i've always been open to looking at the numbers of justices on the court, but i think the most sane route would be to bring this up before the u.s. senate to codify roe v. wade into law. >> is that something you think is a debate that will happen sooner rather than later or wait until june? >> let's see what the court does first. >> senator amy klobuchar. democrat from minnesota. >> it was great to be on, chuck. thank you. >> thanks very much. joining me from the other side of the aisle is senator mike braun of indiana. welcome back to "meet the press," sir. >> my pleasure, chuck. >> let me start -- i'm going to start with the abortion laws in your home state. some of the most -- some would

argue some are somewhat restrict irv from the perspective of someone seeking an abortion. in indiana there's state-directed in-person counseling, no tell medicine, a one-hour waiting period, physical exam, and ultrasound, parental consent for minors, the ban begins at 22 weeks, two weeks shorter than many other states that are at 4. you said you're 100% pro-life. is the law in indiana in your view strong enough to support your pro-life position? >> chuck, i think it begs the question in general whether our state is where it needs to be, whether mississippi, new york, illinois. you hit it on the head earlier, political or practical. when it comes to issues like this that divide our country in a way to where we're never going to get the 60 votes on any of this stuff, i think the practical solution is, when it's not enumerated, return it to the states. the beauty of our system is that it's federal.

it's got all these different ideas. when you try to nationalize, federalize the way the other side of the aisle is doing on more than just this, i think you're constantly in that area of contention, and when i got here three years ago, of course, we've gone through two impeachments, through the biggest health care crisis. a lot of these issues don't even get discussed like the high cost of health care, maybe climate, maybe budgeting, how do we pay for all this? when it comes to things like abortion, i think it's clear it's time to turn it back to the states, let the diversity of this country show forth. it eliminates a lot of the contention to where we become the hatfields and mccoys on many of these issues. >> when do you believe abortion should be available? you're going to have to vote on these issues. every elected official in this country is going to have to state very specifically -- a lot of times elected officials have

been able to hind behind row, either you're for it or against it. so in your view, when should abortion be legal or be available? >> in my case when you believe in the sanctity of life, you want abortions to be eliminated from the landscape if you can. you're also in the context of reasonability. the fact is, regardless of any one individual, maybe in the point of view of mine or amy's, you're not going to settle it in a homogenized way. that needs to reflect itself throughout the states -- what everyone's opinion is, whatever you're trying to do politically, why try to do it at the national level? we generally don't do things well here anyway. on something as contentious as this, it seems like it would make common sense, it would be practical, not political, to send it back to the states and let every state do what they want to do and live with it, and if you don't like it, then go to work within those legislatures.

it was never enumerated in the constitution that this would be something that would be done at the federal level. and it takes the decibel level, the caustic nature of politics as we see it here in d.c., takes it to another place. >> i understand. you don't believe, though, this should be a baseline protection of a woman being able to have access to abortion. you don't believe there should be any baseline protection for that. >> i think it's a difference, again, without the specificity of this issue, is when you come down to things like this, why you want to nationalize that in, say, your bill of rights, so to speak. it was never intended. when you have a judicial ruling like occurred back in '73 and '92, that was a judicial ruling. now it's being said to be constitutional. and that's where you get into the contention, into the highly

vitriolic nature of politics, and i think that ought to be the domain of the states. that's the way the constitution intended it to be. >> so you want to see a ban on abortion. how would you enforce a ban on abortion? >> you're going to leave that up to the individual states. you might find that right mix. i'm not saying we got it right in indiana. i'm saying it's not right in new york. maybe you find that happy medium, that place -- >> what's your idea? >> -- where more people will say -- >> what's your idea? >> my idea is with what's happened with technology, when you look at all the things we know now about the unborn, it needs to be different, different from where it is. i don't have the silver bullet. i don't intend to put it out there. i just think you've got a better idea of getting where you need to be, not trying to homogenize it at the national level.

>> it sounds like you're uncomfortable figuring out how to enforce the ban. i think that's the question, would you criminalize abortion? >> i'm perfectly comfortable with doing it, just not at the level where everybody has got to live with the same thing. when you talk about criminalizing it, then all you're doing is taking this to a logical extreme that you'll never get to anyway. we just need to take it off of where it is, send it back to the states. let's find that right way to address it. this applies to many other issues as well. >> well, i want to ask -- one of the issues -- look, i originally invited you on to talk about the vaccine mandate. you're a vigorous opponent of the federal government's private sector vaccine mandate. you're worried about the liberty of the unvaccinated. what about the liberty of a woman who doesn't want to carry a pregnancy to term? why should the government force that? you don't want the government to force people to get a vaccine. you're essentially advocating for the government to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to

term that she may not want to do. >> you might try to create that as an issue of equivalency. i don't. in this case of a vaccine mandate -- i think clearly the turf i chose to pursue would be doing it through the congressional review act. that was set up for the intended purpose of an executive branch that got into overdrive. and i chose to go that route and got all of the republican senators on board quickly. now it's bipartisan. joe manchin decided to come on and not do it tacitly to where he's going to be outspoken about it. to me that's different. if you try to make those equivalent, i think you're going to get into that current paradigm we're in to whether you're arguing about things that just divide us. in this case it does go to -- and when you couch it -- just a moment. >> go ahead. >> when you couch it as getting the vaccine or lose your job --

we talked about it the other day -- you've got the ability to be tested weekly, in certain parts of the country, those are one in the same along with the ultimatum that goes along with how this was done with osha. and what other issue does this draw us into down the road unrelated where you have the heavyhanded government. here i'm saying on the abortion issue, take it back to the states where i think the constitution intended it to be. >> finally, though, on the vaccine mandate front, you are worried about forcing the unvaccinated in that situation. what about protecting the vaccinated? what about the freedom of the vaccinated to get through this pandemic? the only way we're going to get through it is if we get more people vaccinated, and the mandates have worked. i know you don't like them, but they've worked. >> well, the mandates that work -- in my case, when i look at how this all started back in

march of 2020, and we had that heavy hand, even at many local levels of you're an essential business, you're not, i was clear up front, lucky we've got a vaccination. of course, there were arguments about who was going to orchestrate it. we got it out quickly. and transmission itself. everything we've learned about covid, it is a formidable foe. businesses took it seriously from the get-go, small, medium, and large. they wanted to protect their customers, keep their employees safe. again, it comes back to you want things orchestrated at the federal level where you don't create results that are sustainable, or do you want to bring it back to a lower level of authority? that has nothing to do with how you feel about the vaccine, the disease and how you fight it. >> senator braun, there's still a basic divide in this country, more government, less government. appreciate you coming on and sharing your perspective. >> i agree with that. thank you, chuck.

zwroo when we come back, i'm going to talk to dr. francis collins, the head of the nih about the new variant. how soon before we know how dangerous the omicron variant really is. omicron variant really is.

instantly clear everyday congestion with vicks sinex saline. for fast drug free relief

vicks sinex. instantly clear everyday congestion. and try vicks sinex children's saline. safe and gentle relief for children's noses.

. welcome back the omicron variant has been identified in 16 states across the country as scientists try to welcome back the omicron variant has been identified in 16 states across the country as scientists try to find out how dangerous it is. a new study says omicron may have picked up genetic material from the virus that creates the common cold. that could create greater transmissibility, but perhaps making it less likely to cause severe symptoms. that's one question. a surge in demands for vaccines including a six-month high on thursday. joining me is the director of the national institutes of health, dr. francis collins. dr. collins, good to see you, sir. >> nice to be with you, chuck. >> let me start with what researchers are learning every day. it seems like we learn something new about omicron. so this development, this idea

that is fused with the common cold, it -- i can't believe i'm saying this. could this be good news? weirdly enough? >> well, it's a bit of a stretch. >> yeah. >> okay, i'll take good news right now. i'm not sure i can claim that this is going to be reliable. it is a bit of a stretch. the genome of this omicron variant and try to predict how it's going to behave when it affects people around the globe. but it is interesting. it looks like this is a recombinant that has part of the sars-cov-2 that's undergone a lot of mutations and, also, it's possibly crossed over and picked up more of another virus. it's an interesting observation. much more important is to find out what's really happening. in the real world, does this, in fact, turn out to be less

dangerous and how good are our vaccines and boosters in providing protection? we think they'll be useful, but how useful? that's an answer everybody wants. the scientists are all over this. we were kind of expecting this would come along at some point. people are hard at work 24 hours to get the answers. >> it seems as if a lot of scientists seem to be surprised at how fast this virus has mutated. i guess, where is your sense of where we're headed? look, i know we need to be vaccinated more around the world, but realistically, should we expect essentially a new dominant variant every six months? i mean, we got dell tachlt before that -- are we in that kind of pattern here? >> it's certainly possible that this is not the last emerging variant that will attract a lot of attention and a lot of concern. this one does have the largest number of mutations that we've seen so far. omicron, with about 50 mutations compared to the original wuhan virus.

it looks as if they probably arose in an immunocompromised individual -- this is a hypothesis, but it seems plausible -- who wasn't able to completely fight off the virus, so it remained in the system maybe for months until they finally got over it. that's a perfect situation for a virus to pick up additional mutations along the way. to the extent that's going to keep happening if we don't have adequate immune protection across the globe, yeah, we're probably going to see something -- we'll have to use some of the other letters in the greek alphabet. >> we are approaching obviously an extraordinarily busy travel season. given the variant and given the fact that we have a delta surge in the north -- i should show the headlines here to our viewers. i know you're fully aware of it -- this week alone on the delta surge, michigan hit a new record

for hospitalizations. they ran out of beds at a hospital in boston. our third federal team to assist minnesota hospitals with covid-19. clearly we've got a delta issue. is there anything about our travel over the next four weeks that has you concerned, and would you advise folks to maybe rethink their travel plans? >> well, i think people need to pay close attention to all those recommendations that maybe we've gotten a little sloppy about. in terms of domestic air travel, i think with masks required on all travel conveyances, whether it's air or whether it's taxis or trains, that's going to be a very important thing to stick to, but i think it's more where you're going to be when you travel and what kind of gatherings are going to happen, and here's where the cdc's recommendations, which are still in place for 80% plus of counties, if you're indoors, you should be wearing a mask with other people who may or may not be vaccinated.

that's the best way to protect yourself. we had a little holiday party on my cul-de-sac last night. the people who organized it said you're not coming to our house until you prove you're vaccinated and you got a test that day. so, yes, here's my test. i'm glad to say i was negative. that's maybe the kind of thing for holiday gatherings we should be doing more of as well. >> let me ask you about testing. i've put together a mash of all the promises we've been made about rapid fast testing that was going to be available. let me play a little bit for you. >> the fda approved the first at-home covid-19 test kit. >> we continue to approve new tests including an at-home test. >> i'll use the defense production act to increase production of rapid-fire tests, including those that you can use at home. >> this winter we're going to make free at-home tests more available to americans than ever before. >> look, testing has been -- i feel like it's, you know, the anchor that we've been dragging from the very beginning here, but what has made it so difficult to fulfill that promise?

>> well, we have come a long way, let's be fair, chuck. nih has been in this in a big way. there are eight home tests out there approved by fda. go to your pharmacy. you'll see them on your shelves. 15 minutes, and you'll get an answer. they are pretty pricey. 15 minutes and you get an answer. they are pricey, and that's one of the things the president is trying to do about this now, announcing this week that if you get one of these home tests, you can file with your insurance company and get reimbursed with it. if you don't have that kind of coverage, some 50 million tests being distributed out in places like food banks and community health centers to make it possible for people to have access to them for free. we at nih were running pilot tests in seven states to see what happens if you just make it possible for people to order these for free from amazon. we'll see how that plays out. i get it. we ought to have testing as easily accessible as possible and as cheap as possible. it is a good way to protect yourself. >> i want to ask you about the

issue of international travel versus domestic travel. if someone flies to washington, d.c., over the holidays -- it's a popular tourist destination, from singapore, that person has to show proof of vaccination and a negative test, but someone flying from d.c. to idaho where less than half the population is vaccinated doesn't have to do either. how is that at all logical about protecting our community? >> well, you know, i think, chuck, we're trying to be practical here. if you tried to impose those restrictions on domestic air travel, that would be extremely onerous for people trying to get around the country for things like holidays, and i don't know how much we'd gain by it. if we're worried about whether you're trying to protect some community from delta, delta is all over the place right now. there's not some chance you're going to see it spread by air travel that's not happening already in communities. so i think we've got it about right. i do think we have an investment in making sure people aren't

bringing new cases, especially when we have things like omicron to worry about, hence, the importance of requiring international travelers to be vaccinated and to show they've had a negative test. i think that's the right balance. >> dr. francis collins, i really appreciate your coming on and sharing your expertise with us, sir. >> glad to be with you. thanks for getting the word out there. everybody out there, get vaccinated. if you're already vaccinated, get boosted. it's time. >> listen to him. he's a doctor. thank you, dr. collins. when we come back, could overturning roe overturn our assumptions about the midterm elections? the panel is next.

frequent heartburn? not anymore. the prilosec otc two-week challenge is helping people love what they love again. just one pill a day. 24 hours. zero heartburn. because life starts when heartburn stops. take the challenge at prilosecotc dot com.

welcome back. the panel is here. "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley welcome back. the panel is here. "washington post" white house bureau chief ashley parker, playbook co-author eugene daniels, founder of the dispatch stephen hayes, and errin haines, editor of the 19th. welcome to all of you. i want to start with the senator braun interview. steve, i'm going to start on the

right side of the aisle on this. what i sensed from senator braun was a discomfort on the issue. he's 100% pro-life. he campaigned on it as a senator. but he did seem uncomfortable being defin active. what does that tell us about the concern on the right about the politics of this? >> i agree with you he did seem uncomfortable talking about it. i don't know that that necessarily represents a broader lack of willingness or eager innocence among conservatives to talk about it. when you look at the polling on the issue, look at gallup polling from may, 48% of the country described itself as pro-life. 49% as pro-choice. you've got republicans and conservatives who have been making the case for this moment, for the challenging of roe v. wade because they believe roe v. wade is bad law, that these are made-up rights, and are

perfectly willing to have that argument. i think when you get into the details of the questioning and what comes next in a post-roe world is where republican policymakers are less comfortable talking about it. >> errin, i got the sense, you're describing -- what he's hoping for, you're describing what roe allowed for, this uneasy piece that we have on this issue. >> the thing is, watching that interview, yes, knowing where the rest of the country is on this issue, you have that polling showing the majority of americans feel like the there should be -- abortion should be add loud with some exceptions. it should not be illegal or with few exceptions, that its should not be illegal or legal with a few exceptions. most people are not in favor of that. when you have that, i think that's perhaps on what his hesitancy is about being more vocal about it. it's not so much what republicans are saying, it's what they're doing. this is what conservatives have been pushing for. this was the long game on abortion, absolutely what their

voters use their voice at the ballot box to push for, what the former president pushed for, and what we're seeing now is the fruition of that. >> the braun interview is fascinating, but in some ways a more interesting case study is someone like senator susan collins, right, who voted to approve justice kavanaugh, who said she believed his promises -- promises, of course, when he was trying to earn a supreme court seat and will say what the senators wants to hear, that roe was settled law. when she was asked about the oral arguments of the court, she said she didn't see them, which is like i didn't see the tweet, the supreme court version of that.

she's come out and said she believes in roe, believes it should be codified. she doesn't sign on to support a democratic bill that would do just that because it goes too far. she'll introduce her own legislation. the way congress is divided right now, that legislation, bipartisan or her own, doesn't have the votes to pass. >> i'm guessing she's glad she's up in '20 and not in '22. >> absolutely. >> when she was up, what does she do? she votes against amy coney barrett, which was absolutely an issue in her senate race. >> eugene, the thing that interests me in a post-war world, how many officials got to duck their position on abortion on their lifetime. now you've got to find out -- it's when you start to get to -- i didn't get to the morning after pill. i didn't have time to get to that in the interview, but you start to go into the specifics of the reproductive rights law, that's when you open the pandora's box. >> the place he was most uncomfortable is what happens next. that's exactly what people have been talking about who are abortion advocates. okay, so you don't like roe v. wade. what happens after that and what does that country look like? it looks bifurcated. you look in one state where you can get an abortion and in another where a woman can be

arrested for getting an abortion. there's also a question that's more complicated than it was in the '90s when roe seemed like it was on the chopping block, the abortion pill. if a woman gets an abortion pill in a state that doesn't allow abortion, who is going to look in the mail and say this is a problem. for folks that are conservatives who have talked about not having a police state, i've talked to some abortion advocates who say isn't that what they say they're against, a police state where people are checking the mail for abortion pills. >> i don't think the politics of this are that clear. look what happened in virginia. look at the gubernatorial election there. you had terry mcauliffe run a ton of ads, expensive ads making abortion a big issue. he said it was going to be one of the number one issues. i would argue that he mischaracterized glenn youngkin's position quite a bit. he makes this argument, the exit poll suggests only 8% of

virginia voters thought it was the most important issue when they cast their ballots. 59% of those voted for glenn youngkin. this was in the context of a big discussion of the texas abortion ruling. this was in the context of what we knew was going to be this case coming up. i'm not sure it's as cut and dry or pro-democrat -- >> what this brings up, errin, what we've seen is the right is motivated. the left hasn't been. >> absolutely. >> what's it going to take to motivate the left, the overturn itself? >> that's a really good question, chuck. to your point, i think democrats were lulled into this kind of false sense of security because you didn't have a conservative court for so long, they thought this was settled law. >> you had people like kennedy uphold it. looked like it was bipartisan. by the way, that was in the era of a third of democrats were pro-life in the elected congress, and a third of republicans were pro-choice in the elected congress. >> i think republicans certainly understand that. democrats are beginning to

understand what that means, especially around the supreme court whether you're talking about abortion, talking about issues like voting rights, talking about gun rights. democrats are starting to see when you have a court that's more conservative, that is absolutely going to challenge some of the things they thought were kind of settled law. >> look, i'm a little long, so i'm not going to play the bite, but justice kagan's argument was saying there has to be a groundswell, and that's missing here, and she's worried about politicizing of the court. at the same time the left has now panicked that justice breyer is going to not retire. that conversation doesn't help the politicizing issue, does it? >> it sure doesn't. the court has been politicized from former president trump, talking about my justices, very clearly making the argument that he wanted the 2020 election to get kicked to the supreme court because his justices would hand it to him. >> his justices. >> his justices would hand it to them. so whether or not the court is politicized -- you saw the

justices in oral arguments raise that concern. you saw polling showing the public believes it at a point when the court perception is reality. >> the minute you allow a president to appoint supreme kourts justices, you've politicized the court. when we come back, why do more than half of younger americans think our democracy has failed or is in trouble? stay with us.

new vicks vapostick. strong soothing vapors... help comfort your loved ones. for chest, neck, and back. it goes on clear. no mess just soothing comfort. try new vicks vapostick.

welcome back. "data download" time. a look at our country's future as seen by the folks that will

shape it, younger americans. harvard kennedy's school released a poll of 18- to 29-year-olds this week. let's just say there was not a lot of youthful optimism to be found. is democracy working well? 24% believe that's true. 64% disagree with that statement. as for u.s. democracy in particular, is it healthy and functioning? just 34% of voters under 30 think that. has it failed or in trouble? a majority think that's the case of the u.s. democracy. i'm guessing a lot of you may agree with them. as for president biden's approval rating, this is where we can show you, even with voters under 30, there's an educational divide. if you have a college degree or in college, you have a net positive rating. this 54 isn't a great number, but a net positive among voters with a college disagree. if you have no college degree,

you disapprove of this president, 57% to older parts of the electorate. a mild branding problem for the republican party. when you look at this group of voters, more are comfortable identifying as conservative than republican. an eight-point difference. president trump not popular in this age group. if you here, 39% identified as liberal, a little more cohesion there. there is one issue that cuts across ideological lines. it appears to be the issue of climate change and is it going to impact some of the decisions you make in your life. among all 18- to 29-year-olds, 79% of college degrees, 5% in college and majority of folks who don't have a college degree say climate change will impact some of the decisions they make. so there a bit of unanimity. when we come back, a mass shooting at a high school. the parents of the alleged shooter charged with involuntary manslaughter.

we'll discuss this sad case and a rare prosecution next. stay with us. and it works fast. in as little as 7 days try fast acting biotic gummies from align. the #1 doctor recommended probiotic brand.

so, i started listening to audible about two years ago.

a friend of mine recommended a book to me, and i got hooked really fast. and then it kind of just became a lifestyle after that. i've found new authors. i've found new interests. i've found all of these wonderful things. audible has all the entertainment you love. text listen4 to 500500 to get thirty days free. i like thrillers, true crime podcasts, news podcasts... science fiction, space dramas... a lot of classics. i listen almost exclusively to the audible originals. i also think it's pretty special that they get audiobooks that aren't released anywhere else. my friends listen to audible as well. i'll recommend a lot of things to them, especially the new sandman series. you can find things that will take you to new worlds. audible is a great escape. go anywhere you want. endless entertainment and education and content. for the best audio entertainmet and storytelling, text listen4 to 500500 to get thirty days free.

while the shooter was the one who entered the high school and pulled while the shooter was the one who entered the high school and pulled the trigger, there were other individuals who contributed to the events on november 30th. it's my intention to hold them accountable. >> that was karen mcdonald, the oakland county prosecutor who charged the parents of the boy accused of shooting and killing four students with involuntary manslaughter. it's interesting with this school shooting, there's always talk of should parents be held accountable when kids get ahold of guns. this prosecutor felt she had enough evidence to do it. we've not seen something like this. this feels like we're entering new territory. >> that's right. it's incredibly rare. the important point is she didn't charge them simply because they were parents of the shooter but because there was a whole litany of reasons from buying him the gun for christmas, taking him to the

shooting range, and he got caught looking at ammo in school. the mother texting, lol, i'm not mad at you, just don't get caught next time. the overall point remains, this will be incredibly closely followed. regardless, even if this is such a rare instance, it will send such a message either way. it depends on what the final outcome is. >> school shootings gets a lot of attention, eugene. gets at least some new rhetoric on the hill to do something. i'm going to guess the safe gun protection law might be about the one place you could get somewhere, right? >> absolutely. you talked about responsible gun owners, right? that is a place in which republicans and democrats can find some common ground. it's still hard to see how you have a conversation about gun control or gun safety with this current congress and to go anywhere, especially in the senate, but the lack of federal gun legislation has forced prosecutors in this case and others, try to figure out ways to make people be more responsible, figure out ways to have some type of run-around.

>> in michigan there is no safe-keeping law. i want to put up what governor thomas massie put up yesterday. it's gotten a lot of social attention. thomas massie and his family all holding their gun of choice there and saying ask santa to bring more ammo. is gun culture -- are we at a bad place -- are we too celebratory of gun ownership? >> i don't think that represents gun culture. thomas massie gave an interview a couple years ago is his' lurks and the rise of rand paul and ron paul signaled the rise of this libertarian style and the republican party. he later said the craziest person is going to win. i think that's what you're seeing here. he's playing to the crazy people. >> he's not serous about this. >> it's a troll. he's trying to get attention. most responsible gun owners wouldn't want this gun fetish

display, just as most would condemn the way that the parents handled the use of gun and the lack of safe-keeping. it sort of violates everything that gun owners believe. >> i think hearing responsible gun owners pushing back and rejecting things like the tweet that thomas massie posted, which, by the way, is 60,000 likes and counting on twitter. yes, i know twitter is not america, we do know that. but, no, there is an audience for this, and it just needs to be kind of underscores that for gun owners and folks in gun culture who is like, this is not who we are, hearing some of those voices in this conversation, i think, is going to be important too. >> there's another part of this, ashley, what the school did and did not do.

i have family that works in school systems. the pressure school administrators are feeling from parents. this set of parents said don't take my kid out of school. administrators are afraid -- parents are angry. they're in a tough place too. >> they absolutely are. they've already ordered up an investigation of what's happened. my understanding, as rare as it is to charge parents, it's incredibly rare for a school to actually be held accountable. that doesn't mean there won't be lawsuits -- >> maybe individuals get held accountable. >> yes, and other stuff against them. it is an incredibly tricky position. you also find that schools, that parents, all these things in the margins are coming under question because the big issue, which is should kids who are mentally troubled have access to guns, congress simply can't address that. >> teachers are also in a tricky position in this too. what about the teacher that said, oh, ethan crumbley is monitoring ammo on his phone. she tried to raise the alarm. that didn't go anywhere. we had a lot of light subjects for you today, abortion, guns, and covid. thank you for being here.

thank you for watching. we'll be back next week because if it's sunday, it's "meet the press." what do you hope your legacy will be? >> it's not the titles you had or the fact that you ran for this or ran for that. it's the little things in life, not just politics. how you treat people, how you want people to treat you. >> war hero, powerful senator, and the last surviving presidential candidate of the greatest generation passed away. the question is, how is bob dole being remembered? plus, more americans are having to waiting for for covid vaccines as demands for boosters grows. the question is will concern over the latest variant motivate the unvaccinated to get