now. we come on this hour with breaking news. hello everyone i'm chris jansing. we have a growing number of questions right now, including what this ruling overturning roe v. wade could mean for rights ranging from privacy to gay marriage. let's start with what we know now. scenes popping up all across the united states like this. these are the live pictures of protests outside the u.s. supreme court. people started gathering immediately once they announced the decision was coming down. crowds now are only growing. already no action required. there are new restrictions on abortions ready to go in 13 different states, the ones highlighted on your screen. they have what are called trigger laws. they are triggered by the fact that the supreme court just overturned roe. one example, idaho's law would make performing an abortion a felony. we're also going to dig into the passage from the decision from

justice clarence thomas where he writes, quote, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this court's substantive due process precedents, including griswold, lawrence, and obergefell. he is talking about reconsidering decisions on gay rights and the right to contraception. joining me now inside the growing protests, nbc's julia ainsley. josh letterman is at the white house where the president just spoke and barbara mcquaid former u.s. attorney and msnbc analyst. julia, i've watched the crowd grow bigger by the minute. what is it like there and what is the mood? what are people telling you? >> reporter: well, here, chris, if you saw that, what we got from the leak just a few weeks ago would take any steam or pressure off this situation when the final decision came you would be wrong. i was there that day. it is even more fraught today. we're seeing a lot of intense emotions. some women are crying.

people who had an abortion and some people who feel directly, personally violated by this decision today. actually the pro life group has by and large left this area. a lot of them were here to celebrate early on. now they have moved off. there is still a large number -- a lot of security. we have barricades all around me here. it has really brought the crowd in to a really dense situation. that is where we are now. i've been speaking to people on both sides of the issue. we've heard from women who say they felt motivated as soon as they saw the news to come here. i spoke to at least one person on the pro life side who said they think this is now a cause for celebration and they hope more states will start to enact laws that would restrict abortions. as you can see this is growing louder, bigger, and more fraught by the moment, chris. >> we'll check in with you. thank you so much. barbara, i know you've had a chance to read through some of

this opinion and we'll talk about the far reaching changes this could bring, the things clarence thomas touched on from same sex marriage to contraception. let me start by asking you about abortion and how this will fundamentally change the landscape. >> for every woman of child bearing age until today, she had a right to an abortion in this country and suddenly that has been yanked away. that means any state that wants to can ban abortion making it a crime for the provider or even the mother. as you highlighted at the top of the hour we have about a dozen states with trigger laws and another dozen or so with zombie laws. for those fortunate enough to live in a state with protections life continues but for others who will have to travel or face other hardships, they may be forced to have births they don't want to give. >> that is a range, right, from state to state to state? as we just said, there are places where a doctor who

performs an abortion now could go to prison, right? >> a doctor could and i think we could even see mothers being subjected to criminal laws. what is tricky about this, is that the laws sometimes make exceptions for the life of the mother or for rape or incestt. how do you prove that? what doctor will take on that risk? it will have a chilling effect i think of shutting down abortion providers in any state. >> josh, we just heard from president biden. it was a forceful criticism. what is next for this white house? one of the things he said that struck me was this is not over. >> that's right, chris. >> the court has done what it has never done before -- expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many americans that already had been recognized. this is a sad day for the country in my view but it doesn't mean the fight's over. we need to restore the protections of roe as law of the land. we need to elect officials who

will do that. this fall roe is on the ballot. >> chris, president biden is making an explicit political argument. we don't often hear him talking that directly about elections and politics particularly from the cross hall of the white house in a presidential address. but the president clearly making the point to people watching him that this is something they have to elect people to restore the constitutional right to abortion that the supreme court has just said does not exist, president biden saying there is no executive order he can sign today or any other day that would restore that right. that is something congress has to do and people have to vote for lawmakers who are going to do that. but there were two other very significant messages from the president today. one was about what his administration specifically will try to do and we know that while the white house has been looking at those options for weeks now, ever since that draft ruling

came out, these options are fairly limited. they are things the white house and the justice department and other agencies can do around the margins to try to enforce other laws that may help facilitate women seeking access to abortion. so the president talked about the justice department, protecting the ability for women to cross state lines to seek abortion and in other places talking about how the justice department will not allow states to essentially throw out the judgment of the fda. that certain abortion medications are legal and safe. and, also, what his administration is going to try to do to make sure people are not physically blocked from accessing abortion sites in places where it remains legal. but then the third pillar of the president's remarks, also so important, had to do with the fear that many officials have right now of the possibility of unrest and even violence in the wake of this decision. president biden saying, peaceful, peaceful, peaceful, encouraging people to use their first amendment rights to

express their dismay with this opinion but not to take it into a violent direction. that is something the white house is going to be watching very closely as the world and country react to this supreme court decision. >> to his second point, barbara, for folks who look at the supreme court and think it often settles a thorny question, the range of lawsuits that can come out of this abortion ruling is extraordinary, right? >> it is. this is unlikely to be the last word ever on abortion rights in america. it certainly is a seismic shift from the right that had been protected for the past 50 years. there are other challenges that could come along. one that comes to mind is a religious challenge. the free exercise of religion. this law in these states are based on the idea life begins at conception. for others life begins at birth for those who are not part of religious faith. we could see those challenges and they might actually have

some merit with this court. >> let's talk very briefly if we can about the other rights justice clarence thomas talked about that he thinks need to be reassessed in terms of things like gay marriage, things like contraception, could we very quickly be seeing some action on those fronts? >> we would need states to actually pass laws that ban those things. i don't know. i don't know that there is the popular desire to do that. gay rights strike me as the one that might be the most in danger, gay marriage. we could see a law enacted in some court and it could come before the court and based on this idea there is no substantive due process right to privacy that could put the reasoning of the oberefeld decision in some jeopardy. >> thank you so much. appreciate that. joining me now new york's attorney general letitia james. thank you so much for being with us. obviously we knew this was coming because of the draft that was leaked.

but what does overturning roe, first let me ask you, mean for you as a woman and as a woman of color? women of color as we know disproportionately affected by these kinds of rulings. >> this is a dangerous decision. it will upend the lives of individuals seeking safe abortions. it will harm individuals seeking safe abortions. and the reality is that there is no law. at the time of fertilization the rights of women will not be respected and no government is bound to respect the rights of women at the point of fertilization. it is a travesty, but new york i want individuals to know that new york is a state that will still allow safe abortions so i urge everyone to contact our office and also to contact planned parenthood. we will continue to provide safe abortions. we have established a fund in new york to pay for individuals traveling to new york to seek abortions for lodging, for

daycare. this is a state that respects the right of women to choose, that respects the autonomy of individuals over their own bodies. this is a political decision and lies at the feet of a republican congress and the only response to this is a political response and that is why i urge everyone to vote their conscience and to vote for the fact that this united states supreme court, radical united states supreme court has overturned 50 years of precedent that individuals seeking abortions have relied upon. it is unconscionable. all we can do is stand up, fight back by using the power of our vote. >> i know this is something new york state has been looking at the whole idea of it being a place as it has in the past for reproductive rights refugees for lack of better term. what plans have you put in place? do you believe you are ready to

help women who may need your help from other states where already as of now their right to abortion has gone away? >> we anticipated this decision. the decision from the right wing radical united states supreme court and so we've been organizing advocates, organizing medical professionals. we've been organizing the 20 largest law firms not only in new york state but across this nation to respond to this decision. we are ready. we want everyone to know that here in the state of new york, we respect the women's right to choose. we respect the 14th amendment which will apply not only to women but also to the right to marry, the right to interracial couples to marry, the right to contraception, the right to privacy. it is important that individuals understand this will upend and dramatically transform the lives of americans and women in this country. here in the state of new york we

respect the right to choose and a woman's autonomy over her own body. >> i know there have been -- there has been talk of an amendment to enshrine the right to abortion in your state's constitution. where does that stand right now? have you been having conversations with attorneys general from other states? >> yes. just yesterday we had a meeting with the vice president of these united states kamala harris. she met with some attorneys general in this nation to discuss efforts to address this decision in anticipation of this decision. in addition to that, we've been organizing with other, with attorneys general all across this state and all across this nation to address this issue and to respond. it is really critically important that we be prepared and because democratic attorneys general represent the majority of attorneys general in this nation we are prepared to respond and make sure that the woman's right to choose is respected in various states across this nation, in democratic states across this

nation. >> if i'm right i think the proposal from state senator kruger is an amendment that seeks to provide comprehension, given the way that justice thomas wrote about griswold and lawrence and oberefel has it changed any way you would view an amendment like that or the need for it? >> i know the governor of the state of new york has called a special session. i know the senator has introduced legislation which calls for a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right to have abortion. at this point the legislative session is in discussions as we speak and new york must pass the equality amendment in the state of new york and i fully support it and efforts by the state legislature to do so as soon as possible. it is my understanding the special session will be called next thursday. >> new york attorney general letitia james, thank you so

much. appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. joining us the director of the public policy program at hunter college, also nbc news political analyst and republican strategist, good to see both of you. we've seen pictures of people protesting, protests in other places around the country. how can becomes harness this outrage? clearly, it is there. >> it certainly is. certainly letitia james and governor hochul of new york, my friends who do extraordinary work and that is the crux of this. elections matter. we used to use that line and it was viewed as somewhat trite, voting for the lesser of two evils. we sort of dismissed the importance of what we do. but the truth is, there is no better example of why voting matters than what we are experiencing right now. >> how do you get that message out and use it to animate people? >> one thing we have to do is focus on state elections. everybody is talking about the u.s. senate. that is important.

democrats lost over 1,000 legislative seats across the country. the republicans flipped legislatures. we have to go to ground and focus on every election, contest every seat. everything is being pushed to the states whether abortion today, gun laws, voting rights. if we do not focus on state elections and flipping governorships, we won't make a dent. >> who do you mean by we? i ask this question because i covered a lot of that on the ground. i've covered state legislative races for msnbc and what i almost heard from democrats was we do not get the support from our national party and our state party that we see our republican opponents getting. >> that hasn't changed. the fact this is being pushed to the states now is not an accident. this is decades in the making. flipping the judgeships under trump, the fact that he got all of those supreme court justices.

this is not accidental. we cannot be a party that has a strategy from one year to another. we have to have a multi year, decades long strategy. if not now, then when? >> susan, republicans on the other side of this issue are as passionate as democrats seem to be but i guess the question is did this happen because we have been more consistently passionate and that is how this conservative supreme court decision came to be? >> pretty much, chris. it is basically something that has been taking 50 years in the making. i think he is absolutely right. you have to focus on the states. but i will also add we also have seen so little governance out of washington, d.c., i don't care if it was a republican administration, democrat administration, house, senate flipping, they are not getting the job done. it should not be left to nine people on the supreme court every single time.

we are the united states of america. half of us now do not have control or our government says we do not have control over our bodies. we need to, yes, i agree, at the state level i've been saying that for a very long time, but, damn. we have to get governance back in washington because otherwise who are we? we should not have individual rights in individual states. we need to come together and right now my biggest fear is not only will we not come together but we're going to see political violence we haven't seen in over a hundred years. >> well, that is a conversation we should. but i do want to, to your point, about who would go along with this, there is an nbc poll conducted just early last month, susan.

63% of americans did not believe roe v. wade should be returned so that is republicans. that is men. some of those people obviously are republicans. will the gop take an overall hit here? >> i think they will. we talked about the republicans getting to this point in the judiciary as a long term effort. they wanted to fight to overturn roe. now it is up to the democrats to mobilize to fight to get rid of those legislators who support banning abortion and even in the case of rape and incest. it should happen at the state, city, and national level for sure. i think independent women are now back up for grabs. >> i want to take a look at the ages of the conservatives, all of whom voted to overturn roe on

the supreme court. some of whom may indeed serve for another what, 30 years? with so many as you point out, so many decisions going on in the supreme court is realistically really governorships and state legislatures, at least the only thing in the near term people outraged by this can change. >> we can affect these decisions for a generation to come because of the ages of the justices. what happens at the state level really does matter. this issue of states' rights and local control has been around for 100 plus years. when there were folk that were concerned about women having rights, people of color having rights. they always try to create this local control as this issue and nationalize it. that is all we're seeing right now. yes, what you do in the states really does matter if we're going to be focused on this era of local control. i would also say this. that, and susan is absolutely

right in bringing this to the forefront. fact of the matter is there were a lot of people that voted for donald trump because they were saying, we'll -- it may not be as big a deal as we think it will if the judgeships flip, if he gets a couple supreme court justices. right now we can't focus on racializing and urbanizing or getting them to do that. cannot have these issues racialized and urbanized. this particular issue affects a lot of suburban white women. you talk about republican women as well. what are they going to do right now? that is a concern for democrats as well. we need to reach out to those women as well. if we are going to turn the tide and flip this narrative we can't allow republicans to racialize and urbanize these issues and suburban white women quite frankly, a lot of them have supported trump. where are they right now? >> history will tell us, susan. you know this better than i do.

if people are happy with their lives, their economic situation, then that helps the party in power, right? the economic situation was largely considered to be the issue that was going to impact the november elections, midterm elections. often when something like this happens there is this outcry but we have short term memories. months from now do you believe that this will still bring people to the ballot box? >> i do think it will be a motivating issue, chris. i also think that during the primaries that we've seen the question of republicans going so extreme on abortion rights meaning eliminating it in the case of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, has put them into a really narrow box that is worth fighting. women do see that and men do see that as something worth the

fight. and you also have gun violence, another issue combined with roe that can really motivate the voters. suburban white voters. there is something more and we can be going down a really bad road and need moral authority here. always good to have you both on the program. joining us now the vice president of communications for the susan b. anthony pro life america group. their mission has been for decades to end abortion. you and i spoke the day of the draft of the opinion was leaked. you didn't want to assume anything you told me at the time but now it is here. what has this done to activate your base and what is the reaction you are hearing over these past few hours? >> this is an historic moment for the pro life movement. we worked so hard for 50 years engaging in the political process peacefully to change who

represents us, to change the law, to challenge this unjust supreme court case. and now we have this finally, the court has taken its thumb off the scale and is going to allow the american people to decide through their elected representatives where they have consensus. where we'll protect unborn children. this is our opportunity to modernize our law. the united states is one of seven countries, and have been up to this point because of roe vs. wade that allows abortion on demand up to the moment of birth alongside china and north korea. that is the democratic party position and is not consensus. now we'll be able to debate and find consensus at the state level and here in washington as well we're very excited and have been talking to women in the suburbs as you know, talking to voters long ahead of this day in key battleground states across the nation and we know that our message of consensus, protecting women coming alongside them,

protecting their babies from the horror of abortion, that is a winning message compared to the democratic pro abortion alternative. >> aim sure you just saw this poll. the majority of americans, 63%, did not believe that roe "v" wade should be upheld. only 30% wanted to see it overturned. do you think that do you believe the majority of americans believe as you do? >> i do believe that, yes. there is polling all the time but it is not an accurate picture of where americans would draw the line and support unborn children. people don't realize because of these cases that our judicial jurisprudence up until now has

been to create a situation like we have that is abortion on demand up until the moment of birth. we saw it just yesterday. doing abortions at 28 weeks and beyond, well past the point of viability. that is the status quo in america, has been up until today. so when you ask americans where they would draw a line we find most americans support restrictions on abortion that roe does not allow. i just dismissed that poll out of hand. i think it is more, far more accurate to engage with people and ask them where it is that they would protect an unborn child growing in the womb and also who they believe should be making those decisions. a majority say the elected officials who are responsible to the people who elected them. if they over step they can be quickly unelected and there can be consensus, correction. not unelected judges.

today we have five justices saying, five and a half saying that the american people can decide and that this can be, we can use the tools of democracy to allow this to play out. consensus is going to look different. but we've got state laws going into effect today all across the nation. >> let me interrupt you for a second. i'm wondering what you've been doing since the draft ruling came out in terms of your outreach to states and what your plan is moving forward state by state by state. i know i've talked to some of the legislative people who work on your side and they've talked about the fact that there really are, they feel like 30 states in play. >> we've started this long before the draft. in fact, more than a year ago when we knew that the court was

going to hear oral arguments in the states and make a decision. my boss, we've been talking to governors across the country, seeing them as the real consensus builders, having to lead the conversation in a lot of these states. that's where the first action is likely going to be. and we are expanding our team to replicate the success that we've had at the federal level to leverage politics and policy. to stand up with people who say they're pro life and want to protect unborn children and women and pass consensus legislation at the state level, defend them politically, work with them once elected, and hold them accountable for the promises we've made. that is what we did at the federal level and we'll continue and that is how we got into this position where we have spent the last ten years working to elect a pro life senate and president that would give us a supreme court with justices such as the ones signed on to the draft and now to the final decision. >> thank you so much. i appreciate you taking the time

to talk to us. joining me now the former chief spokesperson to vice president kamala harris who we are expecting to hear from a little later in this hour. i think mallory lays out very clearly strategically what they have done and what they plan to do. what should be the message for people who want the right to choose, what should they take away? >> first of all, congratulations. this is the first time i've been with you since you are hosting a new spot. very excited for you and i tune in daily. >> thank you. >> i think for democrats or even people who support a woman being able to make the decisions about her own body, that is in fact what we're talking about. i think when they hear the guest you just had on they should hear that extremism, you know, in a

number of states, almost half the states in america have trigger laws on the books where aboring is poised to become illegal in half the states in our country. that means women can be jailed, fined, doctors can be jailed or fined for assisting with or giving an abortion. other people can call on their neighbors and say i think they are doing something nefarious. i think they're thinking about getting an abortion. this is the extremism and i think that is a place when you cited the nbc polling and there is a pew research poll, every single polling entity has polling that supports, that the majority of americans do believe roe was settled precedent and should have remained in place. the majority of americans, even people who do not themselves believe personally in getting an abortion i do not think women should be thrown in jail for attempting to seek the health care they need. that is what i would suggest folks across the country who are proponents of a woman, women

being able to make decisions of their own bodies that is how they should be talking about it. >> i was just having this conversation and republicans again have made this an issue people vote on for years. how do democrats do that by november, in their state legislatures, these races for governor where a lot of this is going to shift at least in the near term? >> chris, the republican party apparatus in this country has for decades longer than i have been alive organized around the issue of ending abortion. not, again, jailing women or jailing doctors or fining people but that is in fact what their organizing has and will lead to. so i think for democrats and folks who are proponents, again, for a woman to make decisions of her own body you can't out organize 30 years of work overnight and democrats have to make real investments at the

state legislative level. when i interviewed the first lady on my show, first lady dr. jill biden, she was my first guest and she said people are going to have to pay attention to the state legislatures. people have to elect people at the local level. i've never in all of my years of politics heard national democratic leaders make such a forceful case from the highest levels, the white house, about state legislatures. there is an entity for that, the democratic national committee, not necessarily getting an influx of attention but that is what it is going to take to compete with what the republican party apparatus put in place so many years. >> one of the things we talk about a lot is that every four years when there is a presidential campaign we say this is going to be the year that so many young people are going to come out and it has very rarely happened, right? and certainly not in any consistent way.

but this is something that uniquely, directly impacts young people and i wonder if this might be an animating issue that has, in a way that we -- the democratic party, we have not seen it work in the past. >> it could be, chris. it absolutely could be. i think an animating issue for young people but animating issue for women. abortion is not being outlawed for democratic women or women that voted for joe biden only. it is women, period. if you are a woman in this country and health care that you need is in fact an abortion in many places in our great country you will not be able to get the health care that you need. that is i think how democrats frankly should be talking about this issue if they are to animate voters. i have been saying for the last couple weeks, chris, that, you know, democrats used to say, you know, the first lady michelle

obama gave democrats a battle cry. she said when they go high we go low. i would like to offer up a new slogan, when they go low it might be time to go toe to toe and in so many places across this country the rights of women, the rights of young people, the rights of black people, the rights of the lgbtq plus community are under attack. we saw the supreme court yesterday snatch rights away from women in this country and codify rights yesterday for gun owners. democrats should be out in full force talking about how there is one party in the country that going to defend democracy and your civil rights and that party is the democratic party. then talk about how they are going to do that. i thought it was great speaker pelosi came out so forcefully and early this morning. i thought the president's remarks were very good. i am elated to hear from my other former boss the vice president because she has been consistent and clear on this issue but it is going to take more than that. governor whitmer in michigan has made this a central issue of her

campaign talking about the roads and abortion. other governors across the country, candidates that would look to glean support from a wide array of people might need to take notice and be willing to be clear and speak true. we are talking about jailing women, jailing doctors, we're talking about fining people thousands of dollars for seeking the health care they need. that is not an america i would like to live in. >> can you stand by? i want your reaction to something else that is happening right now on capitol hill. you mentioned nancy pelosi. i understand the house just made a critical vote. what can you tell us? >> reporter: chris, with 14 republicans joining democrats, the house just passed the bipartisan gun reform bill. of course, that cleared the senate last night. that was the biggest hurdle, finding something that democrats could all get on board for in majority fashion. they were able to do that. 15 republicans crossing party lines to vote for that bill last night. then of course the house just clearing it now.

that means the next place it goes is to president biden's desk. again, this is something that negotiators who were a key part of this legislation have said repeatedly but we should point out here it is the most significant gun legislation this body has done in several decades. it includes things like republicans priorities, bolstering mental health, as well as school safety but also democratic priorities making sure the background check system is bolstered, people 18 to 21 as well as getting rid of the boyfriend loophole which stops people with domestic violence charges from being able to have a gun. that is something we've seen in the data that shows intimate partners are often the people victims of that kind of violence. a big day in this body as they are in the way that speaker pelosi did earlier with us talking about what's happening at the supreme court but also trying to have this win on gun violence prevention they have been working toward for weeks.

>> thank you for that. i want to go to you and first ask you about the fact they were able to get 14 votes. not a huge number given the number of republicans in the house. but it is bipartisan on both sides both in the house and senate. your reaction in general? >> while this is a dark day when it comes to women's rights in america this is a good day for congress and people should celebrate this legislation. let's be very clear. this is not a bold piece of legislation. there is much more that can and should be done. this piece of legislation is a start. i think people at home should remember that before there was the civil rights act of 1964, then the voting acts right of 1965 there were a number of smaller civil rights act bills passed in the years before. you have to take a first step before we get to big, bold legislation. the fact the u.s. congress has

not taken action even after sandy hook, americans have stood up and said we need to hear from congress and act for our children, our families, for uvalde, for sacramento, for racine, for buffalo. and for pittsburgh. that is what we have seen here from congress. so first step, much more to go. today folks should be proud. >> in keeping with the theme of what we saw today, right, almost simultaneously there was a supreme court ruling in new york. i'm just going to read from it, chief justice john roberts, justices alito, coney barret, gorsuch, kavanaugh holding the 17th and 14th amendment protect the individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. the mayor of new york said now it is going to be the wild west. i don't know if for folks who want more gun safety legislation that is one step forward two steps back or how they might quantify it. but just the idea even as congress is moving forward for

more gun restrictions the opposite direction is being held for the supreme court. >> this is not something i ever thought i'd say but i do think it is time to take a real, hard look at the structure and the makeup of the supreme court. we have a supreme court that is currently rolling back rights for key portions of the population and then implementing a very dangerous and extreme, i'll use the term, agenda. it is insane to believe that people should be able to conceal carry into skrees, into nurseries, into places of worship, into grocery stores. taking away the ability of mayors and governors to make a decision, okay, given from, based on representing their constituents i think is what has happened here. and how, again, we have rights for, it is the right to privacy and right to carry a gun but not a right to make a decision about your own body. make it make sense, chris.

it doesn't make sense. i do think people who have long since talked about reform of the supreme court, brian fallon a good friend of mine is one of those who started we demand justice. i do think that while this is a proposal that the white house has roundly rejected, i know i was there. okay. this is a president who is not for expansion of the court. it might be again talking about going toe to toe, you cannot, are we really talking about that we are going to allow ourselves to live in a country with the supreme court that is poised to not only roll back women's rights and expand gun rights in america but roll back privacy rights, roll back the right to marry who you'd like to marry, same sex marriage? those are things if people read the concurring opinions from the decision today, they're all now on the table. people should be concerned. >> there will be no shortage of topics to discuss at 4:00 on weekends here on msnbc. it is so great of you to come on the program. thank you. i look forward to seeing what

you have to say tomorrow. appreciate it. >> thank you. now back to the far reaching impact of the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. we have a team of correspondents across the country gathering reaction. nbc's cal perry joins us from st. louis, missouri outside a planned parenthood office. what are you hearing? i do see the protesters there. >> reporter: protesters have started to arrive. this is going to become a focal point, a place where protesters are going to gather here in missouri for the simple reason that this planned parenthood i am out in front of is the only location in the state of missouri where women were able to come to receive an abortion. i am told by planned parenthood this morning they officially notified the state health department here in missouri that they are ceasing operations at least are no longer going to provide that service to women in the state. it was the attorney general here in the state of missouri who basically codified the supreme court decision by making a proclamation about ten minutes after the supreme court decision came down. missouri of course has what is called a trigger law. that is in 2019 the state

legislature passed a law that said, once roe v. wade is overturned, if it is, that abortion would become illegal in this state. it has become illegal. we should remind our viewers now in the state of missouri, it is a class b felony, that is five to 10 years if someone is found guilty of assisting or providing an abortion to a woman in this state. we spoke to representative cory bush earlier today who wanted to send a message to women in this state that they can go to illinois. this weekend there were people who had procedures scheduled. they are mow canceled and they can go to illinois. it shows you where we are politically when you have a governor in illinois making a big deal about abortions continuing to be legal in that state but here in missouri a place where planned parenthood will tell you it was hard enough to begin with for women to find reproductive care before this ruling. now there is a concern that there could be a chilling effect beyond this decision that other freedoms as planned parenthood is saying could become at risk. >> thank you for that. i want to bring in the legal

director of the human rights campaign and i'm sure you've had a chance to look at the ruling but i want to read from justice thomas's concurrence which says overruling roe isn't enough. for that reason in future cases we should reconsider all of this court's substantive, due process precedents including griswold, lawrence, and obergefell. that is the right to privacy, contraception, and marriage equality. your reaction? >> you know, i do want to note that the majority opinion goes to great pains to say that that is not their viewpoint. but justice thomas's concurrence really is a call to extreme folks within the united states to try to chip away at lgbtq folks' rights, whether that is legislators who are pandering to a far right base, or individuals who think that they should be able to assert their personal view points over what is needed

for the lgbtq q community. it is deeply concerning. the tone and message that concurrence set. >> yeah, one of the other things it said is we have a duty to correct the error established in those precedents. when you hear the right to marry being compared to an error what goes through your mind? >> it is really outrageous to suggest that what is supported by a vast majority of the american people, the right of folks to marry whom they love, should be placed at risk simply because one justice would have voted the other way or did when he had the opportunity to roll back precedent to restrict rights which is what they did by eliminating roe in other contexts as well. >> what does the human rights campaign do as an organization? there is a lot of nervousness when you start talking about established precedents not being precedence at all.

particularly, obviously as it comes to gay marriage. >> we're going to continue to fight back in state legislatures. we've had an overwhelming number of negative bills introduced in the past several year. this year capping our previous historic high. nearly 350 pieces of legislation designed to harm the lgbtq community. we're no strangers to fighting and will continue to do that and use all the tools in our tool kit to protect lgbtq folks but we need people to join us, to stand up, to march. to make clear to the general public that we are proud to be lgbtq people and we're not going away. >> today's decision of course started from that case in mississippi that was a crafted challenge, really, to roe. are there cases, specific cases in state legislatures you are keeping an eye on in terms of gay marriage? >> right after the obergefell

decision there were legislatures trying to pass legislation that would reaffirm their constitutional bans so we'll keep a really close eye on those efforts that may be renewed, fighting back against. and certainly of course we know there are individuals who don't want to perform their jobs. even though their job is to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. now, the court has already said that folks have to do their jobs but we know there will be pushback. >> thank you so much from the human rights campaign. we appreciate you taking the time to talk to us. for more on this i am joined by associate editor from "the washington post" and pulitzer prize winning journalist jonathan capehart. he is also the anchor of the sunday show with jonathan capehart. right here on msnbc. i also see eugene daniels is there. joining us as well. i'm not sure if he is all hooked up and can hear us yet. let me start with you if i can, jonathan. we're just two days away.

from the 7th anniversary of the supreme court decision affirming the constitutional right of same sex couples to marry. i know you remember it well. you were in d.c. i was covering the white house. you subsequently married your husband nick. i wondered what you thought when you saw what justice thomas wrote? >> i saw it coming. when the draft opinion, alito's draft opinion leaked a couple months ago and i read it, you could not read his opinion about why a woman does not have a constitutional right to choose an abortion without thinking about all of the other rights that depend on the right to privacy that was guaranteed by roe v. wade. so i wrote a column with this lead. it wasn't -- i did not know how much my same sex marriage depended on a woman's right to choose an abortion. and in reading, and i'm still reading the final opinion, but the language is -- the final

opinion is written by the same justice, justice alito. a lot of the language is still there. and the alarm i had reading the draft is the alarm i have reading the final. and to know that justice thomas, the most senior person on the bench put in plain writing what anyone reading the final opinion would infer but putting in plain writing that griswold, lawrence, and obergefell also should be reconsidered is to make it plain that the rights of lgbtq people, the rights of married couples to get contraception, the right of same sex adults being able to engage without the fear of criminal penalty, in intimate contact, all of those things are now, i'm not going to say up for grabs, but if cases that question the constitutionality

of griswold, of lawrence, of obergefell come to the court that 6-3 conservative majority could stand poised to overturn those rights. and as you pointed out, my husband and i, nick, have been married for five years now. we were here in washington on june 26th, 2015. i remember that day precisely, because that day, chris, you and i have talked about this, was the day when the united states, when america was at the high point of our ideals. think about it. that morning the supreme court ruled that same sex couples had the constitutional right to marry. the president then, president obama, then went to charleston and gave one of the most unbelievably powerful eulogies but also political speeches a president has ever made about who we are as a country and the

role of race in our formation and what bedevils us now and he came home, came back to washington, and as the sun went down on the nation's capital on a day when an historic supreme court ruling was handed down, affirming same sex couples' rights, constitutional right to marry, what did we see on the white house? the white house was glowing in rainbow colors. think about what message that sent to the american people from the president of the united states. the message that sent to the world about who we are as a country, what we believe in, and here we are two days shy of the 7th anniversary of that. and now we're looking at women, many women who were alive pre-roe and have lived with 50 years of roe v. wade looking at their daughters and nieces and grand daughters and young women

they love and care about. now having less rights than they did when they were their age. think about that. >> i also want to bring in eugene daniels white house correspondent and playbook coauthor at politico now with us from outside the supreme court. we were talking just a few to s human rights campaign about what was written by clarence thomas and the idea that he believes that there is an error in the constitutional right for gays to marry. you and i spoke just a couple of weeks ago there in d.c. about plans for your wedding. what's going through your mind right now, eugene? >> we are -- i mean, both as a reporter who is covering this momentous occasion and someone who had to cancel a meeting with their wedding planner because of the new today to come out here and do my job, it's a shaky day, a weird day.

when you talk to folks, the concern they've always had since politico reported on that leaked draft and that leaked opinion was that this was going to be the next step. president biden talked with that today, vice president harris has talked about that over and over that this wasn't just about abortion. at times they were talking about it in making people who aren't somewhat -- isn't someone who is going to get an abortion to care about this issue, that their privacy rights could be on the line as well. so today i was at home when it came down, me and my future husband were -- had to cry a little bit thinking about that moment while i'm working, while he and the rest of the country are ingesting all of this information because it is something that a lot of folks were not expecting. actually came here in an uber to the supreme court and my driver started talking and she was a woman who was pro-life and she talked about how for years she was ready for this moment, didn't expect it to happen so soon and in this moment though

she was a little happy, she wanted exception to abortions, she wanted in instances of incest and rape for there to be exception. that is not what happened today and she was surprised about that. that is what you hear even from some republicans that they worried that the court may have overreached and the political blowback may be something they have to deal with not just in november but in 2024 and beyond. as my friend and colleague jonathan capehart lined out, it's not just about folks who can become pregnant but also about the other rights to privacy. i will say in that piece, in that concurrent opinion that thomas laid out, he did not put in there loving v. virginia, which is the case that gave interracial couples the ability to marry. he in an interracial marriage,

myself in an interracial relationship, that is another one that could be on the docket when we're talking about the right to privacy in this country. >> i want you to put your white house at on. we should remind folks that when gay marriage became law of the land, he said this is not over. do you sense the import? i mean, we did have that leaked decision. do you think that there is both the will and more importantly maybe the strategy in this white house, which has had a lot going on to take on these issues like abortion, like gay marriage? >>. >> it's something they are desperate to do. they know realistically there's not much they can do with the congress that they have. they've known that for a long time but vice president harris has been talking to different groups to say what is it that

folks are expecting from the white house? what are the different things they should be focusing on. i talked to a woman in a meeting with the vice president just last week and she said the vice president continues to think about and talk about apps that women use to track their periods and how that can be used to track women who want to have abortions and what can the administration do to make sure that's not an issue. and so they have the wherewithal i think in the administration to do so but they're also very cognizant that there's not an executive order that president biden could sign that would give this right back to the american people. there's not an executive order that the president could sign that could enshrine gay marriage into law. that is not something they can do. so what we're going to continue to hear from the white house as we get closer and closer to november is that it is up to these folks behind me to do something about this, to go and elect more people to congress who are going to work on this issue, elect more pro abortion

members of congress, elect people who believe in same-sex marriage so this can enshrine that into the law of the land. and that is going to be something that they also know is going to come up in front of possibly this exact same court once again. so a white house besieged with all types of different crises continuing, i see people wp masks out here still in the middle of a pandemic, dealing with all of the international issues they're dealing with. it's another place they feel that their hands or tied but they're going to fight and look for ways for the president and vice president to nibble along the edges to strive to protecting folks, leaning on the agencies to do some of that work. >> eugene daniels, jonathan capehart, thanks to both of you, good friends of mine. i appreciate you talking to us on this day. that's going to do it for me this hours. make sure you join us here every

day at 1:00. keep it right here on a very consequence day. our coverage with katy tur continues next. e day. our coverage with katy tur continues next and in it. mostly. here to meet those high standards is the walgreens health and wellness brand. over 2000 high quality products. rigorously tested by us. real world tested by you. and delivered to your door in as little as one hour.

i i i i

at xfinity, we're constantly innovating. and we're working 24/7 to connect you to more of what you love. we're bringing you the nation's largest gig speed network. available to more homes than anyone else. and with xfi complete, get 10x faster upload speeds. tech upgrades for your changing wifi needs. and advanced security at home and on the go to block millions of threats.

only from us... xfinity. it's good to be with you. i'm katy tur. the supreme court overturned abortion and there's reason to

think it may not stop there. justice thomas wrote the purportth right to abortion is not a form of liberty protected by the due process clause. he goes on to say we should go on to reconsider all of the court's decisions. the right to have control over when and if you get pregnant to start with, the right to be with the person you love, regardless of their sex, the right to marry whom ever you want. this ruling on abortion makes it clear none of that is safe, at least not for the long-term future as it stands. following the court's decision on roe, trigger laws have already gone into effect. if you live in louisiana, you cannot terminate your pregnancy as of right now. all three abortion clinics there have shut down. drug induced abortions, which now account for about half of all abortions are now illegal.

if you are a