the way for abortion bans in 13 states. at least six states have already put them into effect. and there are concerns about what this may mean for court decisions on contraception, and gay rights. justice clarence thomas says those should be up for review as well. we've got a lot to cover tonight, but i want to begin with my friend and colleague, morrow barrick, our nbc news reporter. she's on the ground, at the supreme court, all day long. morrow, you have been among the protesters for hours. what are they telling you? and what's their goal? >> stephanie, for nearly 12 hours, we saw this area ahead of the supreme court, completely filled, the start of the day with a tension between two groups of protesters, representing both sides of the arguments around abortion rights. and then, it grew to fill this entire street that i'm standing in front of, nearly more than 1000 people, i would say, here at one point. you see everyone kind of

closing up shop here for the night. but as for the first couple of hours, we saw that initial protest from those who are opposed to abortion rights, who were elated, and celebrating, and happy. and after a few hours, they left. the streets were filled with hundreds and thousands of people who were the ones that were hoping that maybe we would see a compromise. they were maybe hoping that it away, we're expecting to see this decision come down, it's not what they got today. we saw tears of joy and despair. we had very emotional heavy conversations. and we will hear some of those conversations, stephanie. >> a lot of things have been going through my mind, anger, deep sadness, and a desire to turn this around the. this is going through my mind. >> it's a rollercoaster emotion! it's completely utter joy that roe is overturned.

>> women are going to die between now and when we get legislation passed, which is untenable. >> we heard a lot of concern around that last statement you heard, about the access to a safe abortion, if women will get injured or die in these situations, because that's what they said they were fighting for. the right to a safe abortion. and the other conversation you heard, a 66-year-old woman, the first person you heard from there, she thought for abortion rights when she was in high school back in 1973. and now, she is frustrated that she has to do it again. overall, i spoke with a lot -- there's a lot of young people here, mostly young people, in fact, who were devastated to see their rights stripped away, after thinking it was a given. and i asked them, do you think that something can be done in congress? do you have hope with what we are seeing in congress, given that we saw president biden call for congress to pass this into federal law for states to pass individualistic legislation? and one woman, sky, told me, she is 19 years old, and she said, would have seen in the

political spectrum, and how divisive the country is right now, and reducing congress pass, with how slow they work, she said she doesn't have that hope right now. today, though, as they closed out the protest, just minutes before i came on the air, they said that they want to bring in their anger, frustration, and fury back on the streets tomorrow and to the ballot box in november. steph? >> to the ballot box in november. they want their voices heard. maura, thank you for being there. i know you've been out there for hours an hours. stay safe, and get some rest. with that, let's get smarter with the help of our lead off panel tonight. katie benner, justice department reported for the new york times. professor melissa murray of nyu law school. she was a law clerk for sonia sotomayor on the federal bench before her nomination to the supreme court. and former u.s. attorney joyce vance who spent 25 years as a federal prosecutor. she is also a professor at the university of alabama school of law. ladies, thank you so much for being here tonight. i feel like i need to start this program, sort of with a collective deep breath there. there is so much to get

through. melissa, when i think about the course of u.s. history, it's been a journey to expand rights, give more rights to more people, as the great american experiment has evolved? was today the first time the court took away our right between been given. >> stephanie, first, let me thank you for having us all on, and for using women's voices to surface these questions today. it has not been the case on all platforms. but, yes, this is unprecedented. yeah the court has typically chosen to expand the rights, individuals, that's been the trajectory, certainly since the century. but in this rather unprecedented move, the court has retracted writes the tour extended almost 50 years ago. and again, this is not the end of it. justice thomas's concurrence was not signed by any other

justice, but he has laid out a blueprint for inviting litigation that would challenge other rights, including rights to contraception, same-sex marriage, since executed, it will surely be taking by members of the conservative movement going forward. >> joyce, you joined our show to bring legal expertise. but you are also a dear friend of ours. and you are a woman and a mother. what is this like for you? what is on your mind? >> today has been one of those incredibly emotional days, especially, i think, for the four of us, because we are all women who are used to looking at issues, difficult issues, through the lens of the news and the need to have our communities, and that view and public understand these issues. i think in some cases, were able to coax ourselves and our expertise, and we insulate ourself a little bit from the emotion. today that wasn't possible, because it's a decision that sends this message to women. it tells us we cannot be trusted with making decisions about what to do with our own bodies. and no matter how you address

that up in law and history, that's a relegation of woman to second class citizens. we i think we all have the sense of loss today, the sense of pain. i suspect in the next few days and weeks, that will be replaced with a sense of purpose. but for all of us, it's a sad day, and i think it's appropriate for us to take a moment to acknowledge it, so, thank you, stephanie for giving us that opportunity. >> thank you. when you talk about that sense of loss, is there confusion out there, that the pro-abortion rights means being pro abortion? isn't it really about a woman simply wanting control of her body? joyce? >> this issue has been politicized. the issue has been so politicized that it's become an issue, something that it's really not about. i think you are correct to say that this is about, who makes decisions about women's bodies.

i know because i live in the deep south, where there are many people who are profoundly against abortion, that nonetheless, believed that decision should be preserved for women to make on her own. if anything else really does devalue women, as members of our society. >> katie, mark garland has promised to protect abortion rights. but, can he, given his job, and given the supreme court, what can he really do? >> so you're right. the justice ability to protect abortion is very limited in this case. but it can fight for the states that have decided to preserve the right to choose. suit can help protect the states and the justice department can help protect women who leave their states their states have decided abortions are illegal, to travel across state lines. also, the justice department and its long statement today, merrick garland says that it will also fight for women to have medical abortions to the extent that it can. now, one of the things that can

do is, because the fda has said that certain medical abortion drugs are seeking -- it can fight cloth are promised upon the idea that these drugs are not safe. anything beyond that, you would have to look at the facts, in order to figure out how to move forward, and whether to move forward. please, keep in mind, for merrick garland, if he had his brothers, he will be remembered as the attorney general who fought for civil rights above all else. and when i have spoken with him, including on the record this march, he was clear that he feels that the right to an abortion is central to women's civil right, and he's extremely passionate about that. >> then, help me understand, why wouldn't he have been doing this already? whether we hear from merrick garland or the white house, saying we are here to protect women's rights, this is a shock that this happened today, but it's not a surprise, since we saw that draft last month, melissa. why wouldn't the justice department or the white house be taking action ahead of this day? >> it's only been a month. and it's true that it's a more expeditious action could've

been taken. but i think the white house has taken some steps that they can indeed, roundtable, experts on these issues. i was included in that conversation. i know they've been investigating whether or not the prospect of federal funds could be directed to allow individuals, federal employees, to take paid leave in order to seek reproductive care. so they've been examining a lot of avenues. but frankly, this is an administration that has some really difficult roads ahead. the president could certainly take executive action on this front. we saw president obama do this on the effort to put forward climate change. we also saw how that turned out. there is currently a case pending in the supreme court right now, that has the seeds of the overturning, big parts of the administrative state, really limiting the effort to curb climate change, he cost those affecting, affective actors were viewed as overstepping. so, i think one of the things the administration is trying to weigh here is, if it takes steps under the authority of the executive branch, will that

opened the door for other losses at the supreme court, on other avenues that they're not willing to seed right now? so there's a lot in the ballot, not being apologist here, in the administration anyway, but there's a lot of different things to weigh here. this is a really complicated and nuanced situation, both for abortion rights, but for other rights as well, they're also on the table. >> melissa, correct me if i'm wrong. it sure feels like clarence thomas is running the show here. and the fact that he's now raising things like, banning contraception, or same-sex marriage, are we in real danger of losing some of these other rights? >> well, justice thomas is the longest serving member of the court. and he is really bided his time, and now he is seeing the seats of his conservative project in full power. yesterday was his birthday, and he gave himself the greatest gift of all, which was an opinion, basically, allowing the court to expand the scope of the second amendment, to permit public carrying of firearms. today, he got the opportunity to not only join the majority

in overruling roe versus wade, but also to write separately, to say that in addition to overruling roe, the court should, in the future, reconsider the rights to same-sex marriage and contraception and the like. he is very much, i think, the leader of the conservative wing, along with justice alito. and the real question, i think, is what has happened to chief justice roberts, who did not join in overruling roe, or though he joined the majority opinion to uphold the mississippi law. he is, in many respects, the chief justice in name only at this conservative court. he has lost control of that lock. >> joyce, prosecutors in 29 states have set, they would not prosecute abortion care cases. on one hand, that seems like a big deal, but on the other hand, just because they say that, they don't have the law on their side. can anyone who live in those states trust that? that is just the prosecutor giving their word. >> this is an incredibly complicated issue, staff.

but when it comes down to at bottom is that for state prosecutions, when we're just talking about state law crimes, the states that are now criminalized abortions, those prosecutions largely are vested in the hands of the county district attorney's. and it is a legitimate exercise of prosecutorial discretion, for some of those county da's to say, i have more important -- to prosecute. i have limited resources. i have to set priorities. i am setting my priorities in such a way that i might prosecute a violent crime, or fraud, and i'm not going to prosecute people who perform or receive abortions. and that certainly is legitimate. one of the problems you're talking about here is trust. i think these da's have taken this pledge, i know my attorney in alabama is a signatory to that level. and i believe that he means that. the problem is whether attorneys general in some states have the ability to come in, and oversee that district

attorney's jurisdiction, and whether those attorneys general might not choiose to file cases on their own. >> but, but right there. so, one of that district attorney loses his job, or is hit by a bus tomorrow? if you live in your district, can you really trust with their saying? >> i think the point you make is a good one. for some reason, these district attorneys have chosen to publicly put themselves out there. i might have not been quite so public about my decision, but as you say, they could be voted out of office. so, they could simply wake up one morning, and no longer be the district attorney. and that means anyone who has relied on this position is vulnerable. and we there are statutes of limitations for these crimes, that permit prosecution, particularly in states that have now made abortion tantamount to murder. where those statutes, running

for a very long time, so yes, people proceed at their own risk in relying on these promises that they won't be prosecuted. >> there is an old saying, your word is your bond. does that not apply the supreme court justices? i want to play for you a little bit of what we heard from these conservative justices, who were appointed by former president trump. >> senator, again, i will tell you that roe v. wade, decided in 1973, as the president of the red state supreme court. it has been reaffirmed. so a good judge will consider as president of the united states supreme court. >> senator, i said that it's settled as a precedent of the supreme court. one of the important things to keep in mind about roe v. wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years. >> as richard fallon from harvard said, roe is not a super president because this overruling never ceased, but that doesn't mean that it

should be overruled. it just means that it doesn't fall under the small handful of cases like margaret versus madison, and brown versus the board, but no one questions anymore. >> so, katie, do you, first. melissa, i want you to weigh in. are they just crossing their fingers under the table, are there no repercussions? the reason we have hearings is to ask these specific questions. and clearly, they want telling the truth. or at the very least, weren't being straight. >> so, i think the idea of having hearings in order to really understand what we, you know, people have been considered for the bench truly think. that is an antiquated idea. we see, hearing after hearing, that people ask difficult questions, and they find creative ways to -- you know, to say that they believe largely in the idea of precedent. but if you look at a decision today, i think that all of the justices were decided they needed to overturn roe v. wade weight would, say there are some cases in american history, where the decision was just

wrong. i think a big example is chrissy versus ferguson. it was important not to uphold that decision, in order to go forward and have a more equal country. and i think the idea we see supreme court justices be considered, and they always tell the truth and tackle hard issues head on, is somewhat wrong headed. i think everybody is playing the game of how we get forward. it's a matter of senate matt. it's a matter of not seeing anything that can be fast interpreted in a way that would hinge somebody down. >> say whatever it takes to get across the line, melissa? >> stephanie, if you listen to those responses carefully, they're pretty anodyne responses. roe v. wade is a precedent, which but at no point, did any of them ever say when i get in the black robe, and i'm sitting on that bench, i will uphold roe v. wade. and katie's absolutely right. you can say that because they want to be confirmed. they have to be conservative,

but keep conservative senators on board, without having the liberal senators depart. so they said what they said. it's not exactly a lie. it's obviously not as forthcoming as perhaps, we would like. but it's also not impeachable. these are individuals who are appointed for life. individuals like me testifying against them, and said, that they would be solid votes to over rule roe versus wade. and we hope that some senators were listening. obviously, some senators were not. and here we are. >> they are appointed for life. glenn's thomas celebrating his birthday, overturning roe v. wade. katie benner, melissa murray, joyce vance, it is always a privilege to have you on, but especially tonight. thank you all for bringing your expertise, and more importantly, for being my friends. coming up, today's ruling and the immediate impact for women around the country. one of our next guests will explain why she says there are now two different americas. and later, people already had all opening of the supreme court before today's ruling. where today fits into the

history books? the 11th hour just getting underway on a very important friday night.

this is xfinity rewards. our way of showing our appreciation. with rewards of all shapes and sizes. [ cheers ] are we actually going? yes!! and once in a lifetime moments. two tickets to nascar! yes!

find rewards like these and so many more in the xfinity app. >> today, i had to look people in the eye, and turn them away, when they were thinking abortions. the patients i see who have abortions are all of us. they are your friends, your family, your neighbors. they are members of our

community, of our state. all who deserve access to safe, timely medical care. >> it did not take long for today's decision to create confusion and distress. in the state of texas, the attorney general released an advisory, saying, quote, abortion providers could be criminally liable for providing abortions starting today. with us tonight to discuss, amy hagstrom miller, president and ceo of women's health, the nation's largest independent abortions provider. and marc hearron, senior counsel at the center for reproductive rights. he also served as senator feinstein's lead counsel for judicial nominations. amy, take us through your day. your clinics in texas had to immediately suspend services. what happened the moment this decision was made, because you've got women in many cases, girls, young women, under the age of 18, having the most

stressful day of their life, heading in for an abortion. what happened to them? >> so, today, the advice council, we have to stop seeing abortion patients. as soon as decision came out, in order to protect our staff, in order to protect our patients from a very aggressive administration in the state of texas. we had to tell people that we couldn't care for them. and we are completely committed to caring and completely trained and ready to provide safe abortion care. but for this kind of situation, for this kind of decision that happened today for the supreme court. so, while here in texas, we have to say no. in our states, like minnesota and maryland, and virginia, where we have clinics as well, we are preparing for an influx of people who are being forced to migrate out of the states where abortions have been banned. and travel across the country in order to get sick abortion

care. >> so, what happens to those women today in texas? when you turned them away, what did they tell you? where did they go? >> you know, people don't have anywhere to go. clinics and oklahoma have been shuttered by abortion bans now. clinics in louisiana, the same. clinics in new mexico are really at capacity. so, we have been supporting people through our way finder program, help women find their way to clinics outside of texas. and we have a bunch of patients who just begged us to put them on the waiting list, if somehow we're gonna be able to reopen, and care for them, they are begging, please, come in. and our clinic staff as well, they're so dedicated and so communicate in the state of texas, and all the states where we have clinics. they're just so tuned into what people needs in our communities, and they keep saying to us, we want to see as many patients as we can for as long as we can.

so, so heartbreaking today that we had to stop care, and we will open open all of our clinics, we have to stop providing abortion care, since this came out. and start sending people as far as minnesota, virginia, or maryland, instead. >> mark, i promise, i'm gonna get you in a second. my question, amy, when you turn women away, if they said, all right, i'm gonna get my car, i'm gonna find the nearest clinic, how far are they gonna have to go? how long will the drive be? >> so, stephanie, even before this supreme court ruling today, already, 30% of the people we are seeing in our clinic in minnesota, which is about 21 hours drive from the closest place in texas, we're coming from texas, just because texas 's sb8 abortion ban. and now, we're seeing these abortion bans in multiple

states in the south, in the midwest. so, once a person decides they don't have the ability to can continue their pregnancy, they're going to seek an abortion. and these abortion bans don't prevent unplanned pregnancy. they don't help people plan their families. they simply banned people from care, and force them to migrate. we have seen people traveling all the way from south texas, from our community in mcallen, all the way to alexandria, virginia. that is a three days drive. we had a patient drive with her children. she took her children with her because childcare is very difficult to get for that many days in a row. she had the abortion and got in her car, and drove all the way back to texas in order to make it to work, so that you can keep her job. this is the reality of people that we are serving. people are being forced to travel by car, by bus, people who fly, have never even flown before, they're trying to figure out how to fly, and navigate all these things they haven't done before. they don't know what lift is or uber is, or they might have a

credit card that allows them to check in in a hotel. these people need our advocacy, and they need our support at this time. and it's gonna be this way for sometime into the future that you're gonna need to support people to get safe abortion care, and also, be there in the communities for people who are going to be forced to carry pregnancies against their will. and so, support community networks that can help with maternal mortality and pregnancy outcomes that are gonna impact our community for generations to come. >> mark, it was clear in texas, as amy said, their legal counsel advised them, they couldn't continue abortion services. certainly, they would want to. in other states, how chaotic and confusing is this ruling, just knowing whether or not it's legal in your state? >> well, today's decision, which is absolutely devastating for at least half of the country, abortion is poised to be banned. it is immediately or will be

very soon. texas, for example, there is confusion about whether the parole ban has come back to life, the sort of a zombie band that isn't actually where on the statute, and yet, the attorney general has come out with this extreme position, saying that somehow it bans abortion anyway, and threatening criminal sanctions against providers, like amy, like which i'm very proud to represent. the confusion has been sounded everywhere. and look, if you are in a blue state, and you think, this isn't gonna affect me. this is terrible. i hate this outcome. i hate this decision, but it's actually not gonna affect me. you are wrong. and the reason is, think about -- look at what's happened in texas after texas passed a six -week mandate has been in effect for nine months. as amy was saying, the rush of patients out of texas to oklahoma, to new mexico, to kansas, that is creating backlogs of weeks, weeks in those other states. if you are in a blue state, patience from half of the country are now gonna be coming

to your state, trying to seek abortion care. that remains illegal in your state, but it's gonna be hard to get an appointment there. we also know -- >> we are out of time. i want to -- i want to ask before we go, though. these red states that are making moves to ban abortion, when they banned it, or restrict it, at the same time, are they even going to offer more financial services, more support to these women, because many, many women who seek abortions, part of the reason is, they cannot financially support a pregnancy. prenatal care is hugely expensive. is this gonna turn to any financial support coming from a

state or an obligation or financial obligations from the fathers? >> you know, i wish i could say that it would, but even if these states, we know that the states that are acting to ban abortion are the same states that have rejected expansion of medicaid. it these are the same states that have limited resources available. look, setting that aside, the states, still, should not be able to tell a woman, that from the point of fertilization, from the point of conception, that she can't decide what to do with her own body. i don't care what kind of resources are available to that woman. that is a decision for women to make, with their families, with their loved ones, for themselves. >> i'm not suggesting they are. my question is just, those states that are making the decision that you can't, which i would like to know is, fine, if they can't, then what are you doing to support those women? amy, thank you so much for being here. mark, thank you as well.

you definitely made us smarter. i appreciate your time. >> coming up next, americans views on roe do not line up with what we saw from the supreme court today. democrats want to turn the outrage into votes in november. is it gonna work? when the 11th hour continues.

in the recent nbc news polling, 63% of americans. nearly two thirds of people surveyed said they do not want

roe v. wade overturned. yet republicans they're doubling down. former president mike pence is calling for a nationwide ban as many in parly are celebrating the ruling. i want to bring in jenny, the four more white house director for president obama. and former communications director for jeb bush. and our presidential historian michael. his latest work is presidents of war. jennifer, let's get right to it. we see protests in the streets across the country. will this mobilize democratic voters? young ones especially? >> yeah i think it can. but democratic candidates have to lead the charge. i look to, you can't, expect that it will happen organically. and i would point to whitmer as an example of a candidate who is leading into the abortion vibe. but also concerned about the rollback of rights in general.

she has a zombie law, so in michigan, a law, in michigan there is a law on the books that ban abortion if roe is overturned in the colts right now. she will file a lawsuit against that. earlier this year, she did a lot of press around this issue. she had one of your colleagues fly out from michigan yesterday to be part of a roundtable. listening to pro-choice women, republicans and democrats in the state. she is not shining away from it. she is going right to it. and i think these are consistent existential threats. that right to american women, it is gone. there are other rights that are on the block. and there are, you can't shy way from it. you have to go back to it. >> tim, help us understand how the republican calculates. this is a wildly unpopular decision that they're celebrating as a huge win? >> well, it's been a 50-year fight for republicans. and i think that they are

obviously starting the pro-life movement. >> for some republicans! >> yeah for some. >> you are republican for 20 years right? downstairs in my house, where my mother and my father. lifetime republicans. the three of you? this hasn't been a fight for you. they don't feel good about this. >> right, and that's what i was saying. there are couple parts of the republican party. me, and your parents are not in the republican party anymore. so a lot of this is the old republicans in the suburbs. they've been pushed out of the poverty. and i think that it's important for democrats to talk to them during the midterms. it's got two parts. gonna mobilize the base, but also speak to the kind of romney and biden voters that put biden over the top that they did not get in 2016. so there are two elements to this. the problem for republicans, and the political issue that they are going to face, is that in some of these states, like when you have in texas, these five-week bands, these immediate after fertilization bands. even mainstream republicans do not like that. this is a very small parts of the republican base that is mobilized. in the state of georgia,

wisconsin. both very important swing states. the wisconsin trigger lawsuit has gone into a fact. the georgia trigger law will go into effect. the post important states in november with big cities in milwaukee and evan lantana that have a lot of mixed views on abortion but certainly not a five-week ban. and those are the places that democrats will have to fight aggressively to make republicans pay for these extreme measures being taken. >> michael, you know who doesn't have to fight aggressively or get reelected? supreme court justices. so when we keep hearing about how unpopular this is or how the court is really losing the fate of the american people. do these justices care? they are on the bench for a life. and this is exactly what they wanted. >> that's exactly it, that's

the central question here. look at the tone of the decision today. george washington would have said, if you've got power, like a five-person majority. you always exercise it with restraint. you always try to bind the country together. that seems to be what john roberts was trying to do, which was trying to introduce a change in abortion rights but with this decision, it sounds like just donald trump. it was intended to throw scalding acid into the face of people who feel strongly about abortion rights. it was attended to shock. compare that to, for instance, the decision on brown versus board of education, 1954. saying that you took to bed separate and equally. a separate society. oren said privately as he was talking to justice says, this is going to be a big social change and the government is now saying that there has to be integration. you can't do that with a 5 to 4 majority. you have to do it with language that is generally, introduced with mercy. and as a result, that was an overwhelming majority for brown versus board of education. it helped that social change to be accepted.

but what this was, this morning i think. pushed our beloved breathing country into a civil war. over the issue of abortion. one day after it made another decision on gun safety. this is not a supreme court trying to heal, this is a supreme court of a radical majority. essentially saying, look at how much power we have even though we are about a third of the country in terms of sharing our views. we are going to shove it in your face. >> that might sound like donald trump, but it doesn't sound like donald trump for a life when it comes to abortion. he didn't take such a strong stance until he realized the value of the evangelical vote. >> absolutely! >> all three of our gas are

going to stay with us. so stick around. we're gonna take a quick break. when we come back, public support for a woman's right to choose goes back decades! we're gonna have more on the historical impact of today's decision, and the consequences yet to come! when the 11th hour continues on this very important night! why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. ah. that's better. and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? plus 0% interest for 36 months. ends monday. no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay comfortable and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night.

the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. >> i was in high school in plus, 0% interest for 36 months. ends monday.

1973. and i can say that but the

stories we're out there, what's happened to women if they needed an abortion. to see us going back to knitting needles in the whole thing, i just, i'm stunned. i don't understand. >> two years after roe v. wade was decided, gallup began asking americans, should abortion be legal in all circumstances? legal in some circumstances, or always illegal? and as you can see on your screen right now, a huge majority of americans have always wanted abortion to remain legal. let's discuss. jennifer palmieri, tim miller, michael beschloss, also with us. michael, is there historical precedent for a decision this unpopular? >> sure. but we have to go back to 1857, dred scott decision, that actually did lead to civil war. and by no means suggesting that this decision is the equivalent of dred scott, but sometimes, there is a decision in the supreme court that is so shocking to a majority of

americans that it leads to consequences that we do not want. this was almost naked leak rule, the way that this was done this morning. it's essentially saying just two thirds of the american people, just as we've been saying, my dear friend, stephanie, that even though a vast majority prefers to have abortion rights available much more easily, you know, we are talking on the ballot, on the supreme court, we are now in charge, so we're only having but more couple of years. but at the earliest opportunity, we're gonna do this in the most angry and overwhelming way possible. that's not the way it's been done usually in history. and when it's done this way, just like 1857, it makes americans distrust the supreme court, it sends the prestige way down. >> they don't care about prestige or reputation. they got what they want. >> with clarence thomas, in a side car, babbling about were going after contraceptives and a marriage. that's where we are. >> he doesn't care if protests

are going on. he got his wish. >> the purpose of this is the anger. >> well, it's working. jennifer, why haven't democrats codify raw roe at any point in the last half century? >> so there was an effort, early on in the presidency to do so, to codify roe. and i would say, it didn't happen, it didn't happen under a bomb of, it didn't under under clinton, for two reasons. there was still disagreement within the party, you know, not all of democratic representatives of congress were pro-choice. that mostly changed now. and then, as it went on, i think people just thought it wasn't ever going to happen,

that they did not believe that roe was actually in that kind of jeopardy. they did not imagine a day like today, until it was too late. and with the congress that we have now, you know, only 50 democrats and the senate, that's not gonna happen. >> that actually speaks to how determined antiabortion activists have been over decades, working for this moment. in the last few years, i, mean they were almost laughed at by many others who thought, this is never gonna happen. this is settled law. tim, is there actually anything to learn? for those who support abortion rights, is there anything to learn from the strategy that antiabortion activists have had all these years? because my god, nobody thought they'd win, and they just did! >> absolutely. look at the deal with the devil with donald trump. look at a lot of these folks came around to liking trump. we can do a whole other segment about that, but in 2016, there

were a lot of voters who did not trust trump. but he made a deal based on the supreme court. and he got enough votes to win the majority between electoral college, in large part because the voters who had the, who cared about this issue generally in some cases, have been conditions to care about this issue. this was part of putting on that seam red jersey in other cases. so, i think on the left, you did not see that in 2016. he did not see people saying, we have to go out and vote for hillary, because the supreme court is too important. you know, you saw the opposite. you saw some people from the sanders grab that were refusing to support hillary clinton, and throwing her vote away, and people who didn't turn out for it. i think there's good reason. i understand the frustration on the left for people saying, we voted, we won, and there's still happened. but i think there's a lesson we learned about the persistence, and about, you know, prioritizing what is happening on the court, and sometimes, taking you know, the good instead of the perfect. it's certainly, we wouldn't be in this position, and that

happened in 2016. >> but here's the question, for those voters, does this make donald trump more powerful, and that he fulfilled the deal. he got it done or less valuable that they're done with him, they got their wish, they don't need him anymore? >> i think the very interesting question. i think trump has been slightly weakening over the past few weeks because of the part of the january 6th committee. and you can see that a little bit. some republican full, some focus groups we do at the bulwark. i think that this could be a, you know, a shirt that he waives over his head, that make people feel like, this we elected him because he -- this might turn him from being a loser, which he is, into a winner and some of their minds. we don't know that yet, but i'm a little bit concerned that it strengthens him. obviously, that's not the prime concern for people today. but it's something to monitor. >> we'll see. there's a whole lot of

independence in this country, and they don't think this is a winning day. jennifer palmieri, tim miller, michael beschloss, you made us all smarter tonight. i really appreciate you joining us. >> our special extended coverage of the end of roe continues after the break. we are going on all night. this is something central to a woman's life, her dignity, and it is a decision that she must make for herself. and, one government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult human, responsible for her own choices. for her own choices.

i'm stephanie ruhle, back with you for another hour of our special coverage of the supreme court's decision to overturn roe versus wade. it reverses nearly 50 years of abortion rights in this country. this will likely be a weekend, or possibly longer, of protests in the streets. which we have already seen coast to coast. >> complete and overjoyed that it was finally overturned. >> it feels like a betrayal. it feels like my country doesn't love me and appreciate my body as a woman. i can't even chance because i can't say anything. it just it hurts.

>> i've had people in my family have abortions and they have felt the regret years and years down the line. and they're still dealing with it and facing the trauma today. >> going back to needles and the whole thing, i'm stunned. i don't understand. >> we cannot agonize over it. we have to get organized. and just throw these people out. >> eventually we are going to die. women are going to die between now and when we can get legislation passed. >> this ruling automatically clears the way for abortion bans in 13 states. at least six states have already put them into effect. we have a lot to cover. so let's get smarter, and bring in our lead off panel, dahlia, senior member of slate and nbc analyst, barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney for the eastern district of michigan. she worked at the department of during the biden administration. and a professor with a

university school of law. john, a senior editor for politico. he broke the story last month. this conservative supreme court has been in the making for decades, and while today might be shocking, or jarring. should we be surprised? wasn't this a game plan? >> not only was this the game plan, stephanie. but it has been telegraphed at every term. this was so clearly decades in the making. this was an undertaking that goes back to the sort of revolution that we are going to lose everything else, but if we take the court. we will ultimately win and in a deep deep way. i think when donald trump took office saying, i will do one thing right for all the things i do wrong, and that is transform the courts. i think we should've believed him because this was all happening in plain sight. nobody should be surprised.

>> josh, as i said just a moment ago. you are the reporter who broke the story when there was a draft opinion a month ago. this decision, how close is it to the leaked draft? >> it's almost identical, stephanie. maybe a few small changes here and there. justice alito released almost exactly to the draft that re-recorded about seven weeks or so ago. the only differences are he did add sections to this opinion. rebutting both the liberals as the justice for the liberal dissent. and judge roberts in his own concurrency, as he said, that will of course allow this mississippi law to take effect. but it's still left some form

of federal prosecution guaranteed for abortion to be sorted out. so there were some solid issues. but i think in the lead off, maybe he really resented the fact that it was made public. because it seems like he went out of his way to really not change anything. >> chief justice roberts was incensed, infuriated, when that draft was leaked. when you got it. what has happened with that investigation that he launched? >> i don't know the answer to that stephanie, beyond saying that i know that they have taken steps and there have been things that they have done to advance the investigation. but precisely where it stands right at the moment? i'm not entirely sure. i think it's a tiredly possible that it comes in the last few weeks of the term. or before they go away for the summer. i think it is possible that after doing some initial work, on the investigation. it was sort of effectively set aside. and the question is going to be whether the court decides to pursue it in earnest. whether a significance source

of their staff will be leaving over the staffers. [inaudible] >> and now it's been overturned, so the leak's history. barbara, let's talk about justice thomas. because it's not just overturning roe. he wants to now look at overturning other rulings. ever writes we have been granted. what does that mean essentially? i've mentioned it in the last hour. when you think about america's historical arc, we have been expanding rights to include more people. and now we are starting to take them back. >> you're right about that stephanie. i think one of the things that is so shocking about today's opinion, even though as dahlia said, it has been 50 years in the making. it is the first time that the supreme court has overruled an

opinion that has taken away a rights that has been on the books for 50 years. and clarence thomas's opinion is very disturbing. because he suggests that while we are at it, we ought to take a fresh look at things like the right to contraception, and same sex marriage, and even intimate sexual relations between consenting adults behind closed doors. and the reason is, frankly, he's the only one willing to say it out loud. because if you look at the reasoning of the majority in this case, it is all about this idea that the word abortion does not appear anywhere in the constitution. and the idea of substantive due process, some rights are so basic, that they are protected in the constitution even though they are not particularly spelled out. if we're gonna go down that road, that is the foundation for abortion rights. it is also the foundation for all of those other rights. and so, if that foundation is gone, than the whole house of cards comes down. and so, i think he is really [inaudible] . >> but help me with this rationale, if one could argue

that you have the right to bear arms to protect yourself. why wouldn't you have the right to protect your own body as a woman? >> i think you are reading the document it the way that it is intended to be read stephanie, in its entirety. you can't read one section of it in a vacuum and say that you don't look at the rest of it. that is the way, until originalism came along in the 70s, the justice of the supreme court looked at it. but now they would say, well, we pluck out the second amendment right here. we have the term keep and bear arms. so it's so factual right to bear arms. because the word abortion does not appear in the document, that is not the right, and we are going to pull roe versus wade.

but i think a better way to look at the document is that you have to read the entire document. and when you think about, say the ninth amendment for example, rights that are not enumerated, still exist just because we didn't think to write them down doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. they want to believe it doesn't exist. and because the word abortion doesn't appear there, there is no such right. >> dahlia, we are seeing in some instances a court that is clearly at odds with the majority of americans. especially on issues like guns and abortion. but a moment ago when we were showing a clip of protesters, one woman says that we have to show up and vote them out. you don't vote for a supreme court justice. they are not going anywhere. so when people are protesting him saying they are going to take action. what does that look like? clarence thomas? he's not leaving that bench until he is in a grave. >> right, it is such a complicated question stephanie. because at one level, the impulse is just vote. if all those the people who didn't vote, voted, this could change. i think underlying that, we have to just sit for a minute with the uncomfortable fact that not every vote is equal. and that it is not actually a representative democracy

because it was never meant to be a representative democracy. so you have to strip out the electoral college, the filibuster, you would have to strip outs a massively male portion. where you have a 50/50 senate. where one side represents 41 million more people. all of that stuff, all of that minority, majority rule stuff. that is baked into the way government works, means that just showing up and voting isn't enough. and i think one of the lessons that people need to understand when they think about, you know, 70 80% of americans hate this outcome. 70 to 80% of americans hates the outcome of a gun case yesterday. it is not a 1 to 1 correlation between getting out and voting. this requires massive, massive democracy reform.

and it requires, kind of, staring at a supreme court that, in shelby county, in burnabich, in all the gerrymandering cases, vote suppression cases. and increasingly made it hard for every vote to be equal. so i always say, this is not a guns problem or abortion problem, it is a democracy problem. a structural problem. and i think until we really really start to think about, why is the filibuster getting in the way of voting rights reform? why is it getting in the way of the women's health protection act? because it was meant to. and that is the stuff that we have to think about. >> so how do you fix it? >> well, i mean, none of these things are unfixable right? i think that there is meaningful effort to reform the electoral college. i think there is meaningful

conversation about figuring out why the filibuster has precluded having, reinstating the voting rights act. which was passed by, massive bipartisan agreements. until the court struck it down. i mean, every piece of this can get fixed. but i think in a related way. and i guess this is amalgamous to what they are teaching us. if you live in alcohol marie or texas, you are always harder to get an abortion. it's always hard to get an abortion. but at the same token, there is never really one person one vote of fair democracy. this was never anything like what we think it is. and now is a really good time to reckon with that, and to say, how do we fix gerrymandering? how do we fix vote suppression? we can do this stuff. but it really requires thinking about [inaudible] . >> josh, come september. the pick ketanji brown jackson will join the supreme court, be on the bench. between now and then, are we going to see the conservative justices try to push a lot more

of these types of rulings before she shows up? >> well, i don't think they're gonna have that many more opportunities. but they still have a bunch of cases, seven left to go, that we expect to get next week. including, as julia says, some things that might sound pretty wonky and boring. but a very important involving the powers of regulatory agencies. like the environmental protection agency. the conservative movement has always been a two-pronged movement. one on the social issues, and two, and trying to tear down the federal governments regulatory staying. and that project is still very much alive. and very much in the works. and, may even have more support at the supreme court. then the social conservative agenda. in that case, to be decided

next week. and of course the case on the agenda for the fall, when justice jackson gets there. there are cases involving affirmative action. it might be the next big decision from the court that really grabs major headlines. >> barb, tell us a little bit about a case that is going to go on in your state. we're all watching michigan to see what happens with a lot there that has been on the books since 1931. what can you tell us? and why could it matter to the rest of the country? >> yeah, so in michigan we have one of those laws, sometimes referred to as a zombie law. not the same as a trigger law, which was passed after roe, to come into place if roe is overturned. it was already on the books, as you said in 1931. and it became moot in 1973 when roe was decided. but it was still on the books. and so, if roe is eliminated, it means that that law comes back to life. hence the name zombie. but the law was a subject of a recent lawsuit. planned parenthood, and our

government, have each filed lawsuits challenging that under the michigan constitution. and so far, a judge has entered a preliminary injunction. saying that it appears that they may be likely to succeed on the merits. and holding it in advance until she can decide the case on the merits. and i think the lesson for the rest of the country is, this idea that these maybe need to be fought in the states. per hats there are states constitutional provisions to protect a woman's right to choose. it's not an explicit issue in the constitution but there are provisions, and equal protection clause, and the issue is about bodily autonomy. the same one that was used, by the way, to challenge vaccines, and masking, and shutdown orders, earlier in the pandemic. so there may be a lesson there for other states. >> dahlia, even though before the ruling yesterday, the

supreme court had the lowest approval rating. americans had the least amount of confidence in the court. that we had, since monitoring this, it may be a really negative number, which it is. but at the end of the day, doesn't matter? we don't have confidence in the court, but the ruling still stands and has a lot of power. >> it is a great question, and, you know, it is important to just stipulate from the get-go. we do not want a slate opinion. one of three or four justices of mass protections is because sometimes they have to do some hard things. fundamental rights are fundamental rights, it doesn't matter what the polling numbers show. all that says, i think, yesterday's case and today's abortion case. it is not just that the six justices in this conservative supermajority are speaking for, you know, 17 18% of the

population that want these radical outcomes. but the justices are actually a part of this persistent effort. and they said, to shrink the vote. and the more you grasp vote suppression laws, the more you bless partisan gerrymandering, the more you say this is too hard for us, and therefore, states can continue to constrict the vote. the justices don't just become a sort of, minoritarian check. they can become part of reinforcing, consistency reinforcing minority rule. and i think that's what they're leaning into without entirely reckoning with it. that now we have a courts that is persistently making it harder for majority views and wishes and policies to be

effectuated. that is not necessarily doing something for this constitution. it's raw power. >> judges, they matter. valley a lithwick, barbara mcquade, judge currency. and thank you for joining us tonight. i appreciate it. when we come back, the battle for abortion rights is deeply personal for people across this country. but for congresswoman jackie, it's even more. she's here to reflect on today 's historic supreme court vote, and weigh in what's next for democrats. and later, some states are working to fight back and protect access to abortion if they can. but are they prepared for the increase in the patients? don't go anywhere! >> this has nothing to do with the constitution. this has to do with a cabal of people who think that they can, i'm sorry, --

. who think that they, how do they have the right to tell me or any woman what she can do with her body?

why choose proven quality sleep from the sleep number 360 smart bed? because it can gently raise your partner's head to help relieve snoring. ah. that's better. and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. plus 0% interest for 36 months. ends monday.

when it comes to cybersecurity, the biggest threats don't always strike the biggest targets. so help safeguard your small business with comcast business securityedge™. it's advanced security that continuously scans for threats and helps protect every connected device. on the largest, fastest, reliable network with

speeds up to 10 gigs to the most small businesses. so you can be ready for what's next. get a great offer on internet and security, now with more speed and more bandwidth. plus, find out how to get up to a i had a procedure at 17 weeks, $650 prepaid card with a qualifying bundle. pregnant with a child. i lost the baby. but for you to stand on this floor, and to suggest, as you

have, that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed, or done cavalierly, or done without any thought is preposterous. >> back in 2011, congresswoman jackie was the first woman of congress to share her own abortion story on the house floor. she and her husband wanted to see their pregnancy through, but the fetus was not viable. and the procedure was necessary for her help. since then, she has fought for the rights to end abortion. i want to welcome congresswoman jackie speier. congresswoman, i said it before. thank you for sharing your personal story. it's important, valuable. i know you have been outspoken for the last ten years about your experience. what was your and reaction? what was this like for you

today after the ruling? >> well stephanie, i went over to the supreme court's early. and, the only people that were there where the protesters who were pro birth and not pro-life. and i thought, they had been tipped off. i was disgusted by it. this is the greatest setback for women's rights in the history of this country. it pains me to think that i have had this right, and that my daughter won't have this right. i can't believe that we are at this point. and, your earlier commentator said that they were telegraphing that. will we thought, maybe it was going to be a [inaudible] , maybe it was just the roberts position that was going to happen. but to have a whole lot just

dead is, it is a gut punch. >> can we go back to what you just said a moment ago. did i hear you right? when you went over to the supreme court this morning, you're saying antiabortion activists were the only ones there? you believe they were tipped off by the court? >> i think they were tipped off. because it was quite early. just right after the decision came out. we were going on the floor. i was just gonna run over. i thought, this is odd. there aren't any pro-choice people here yet. and these folks where there. so, i believe they were tipped off. i don't have any evidence of that, but, more importantly, the supreme court now has become a weapon of the far-right. these two decisions, when on guns, and one on choice, it really sets us back in ways that, i don't think that we can totally comprehend. one decision, this basically say that the states can't have this power. about conceal carry. so, everyone has the freedom to carry. on the abortion issue they are

saying, we are going to send it back to the states and force you to carry. it's government mandated pregnancy. think about that. >> so if, what you're saying is, the far-right, or the right controls the supreme court. democrats have the senate, democrats have the white house and congress. what can you do right now to combat what is happening? >> so there is a number of things that we must do. first is to educate women throughout this country that medication, abortion, is fda approved. it is safe and effective. that it is used in 54% of the abortions that take place in this country. we have to get this out to them. it is uphill that you take and it terminates that pregnancy for up to 11 weeks. >> can you get access to that

pill? hold on, can you get access to that pill in states like texas and oklahoma? >> i believe you're gonna be able to access that pill. , now you're gonna have to get into a doctor that is in our state. but they cannot interfere with the interstate commerce and the postal service. i believe. so there are things that we're going to have to do to shore up protection for health care professionals who want to do that. there are some of my friends who are now going to get licensed in texas for the specific purpose of being able to prescribe the drug. we have got to make it as easy on women as possible. reach out to the front francisco airport personnel to create clinics that are typically medical clinics at airports. maybe that's where we can beef up the ability there to provide those services. the other thing that we have to do, is we have to use the

nuclear option on filibuster. and by that i mean, we have to be getting to more u.s. senators who believe as we do that choices important. that gun violence profession is important. get them elected to the u.s. senate. that will take us to 51 members of the senate that can overturn the filibuster. and then we can do things like pass the woman health care protection act. >> so that's something that you would look to do after the midterms. today, do you think you can get joe manchin and kyrsten sinema on board for that after a ruling like this? >> i don't have a lot of confidence in getting them on board, certainly joe manchin came out and said that -- gorsuch and kavanaugh lied to him. these are two supreme court nominees, three actually, that took an oath. swore that they were going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. and they sat down, and said that roe was some law. that it was precedent.

and within two years? they have absolutely turned it on its head. so maybe that is making him think more willingly too maybe narrowly and the filibuster for this issue of women's choice. >> but, they don't face any consequences for being misleading in their confirmation hearings. joe manchin can say, i am mad or disappointed, they lied to me! but he can't do anything about it. is there anything that the president can do today, tomorrow, to protect women in this country? >> i think we have to galvanize support around the country. i recommended to the president, we should have a summit on women's autonomy and right to make these decisions on her own. do it in washington, bring women across this country together to talk about ways that we can guarantee that women have access. do it in washington, bring women across this country together to talk about ways that we can guarantee that women have access. i'm sure the women military

subcommittee, i'm deeply concerned about all the bases that we have in the south. that now is going to require our soldiers and sailors, and airman, to transport themselves thousands of miles away to get abortions. they can't get an abortion now at the military treatment facilities. but they can get it in the communities. now they are going to have to go many states away. it's going to affect readiness in the military as well. >> more talking and listening is very good. but decisive action changes things. the supreme court took decisive action today. and that is impacted women across the country. is there any action that you would like to see the president take immediately? >> while the president has looked at the options and i think he is determined that he does not have the ability, under an executive order, to do more than making sure that the fda has the medication,

abortion, readily available everywhere. i think beyond that, we have to put our heads together and see if there's anything else we can do. and have the women in this country now, half of them are not going to have ready access to abortion services. because of this decision, and the states that have already utilized trigger laws. or will be passing laws that will prohibit access to abortion. so here we have one decision where you have the freedom to carry a concealed weapon, and another decision that is forcing you to carry a fetus to term. >> and what can be done about it? nothing. when the supreme court makes the decision, the decision is set. congresswoman. thank you. >> thank you. >> yes, that is an option. congresswoman jackie speier, thank you for joining us this evening. coming up next!

how some states are working hard to protect abortion rights. we will be speaking to the attorney general of the state of california, about what is next for his fate. after the historic ruling when our special extended edition of the 11th hour continues!

i want to take this moment, and sign legislation to push back against those republican state legislatures and governors that seek to move forward with civil

actions against people that want to travel to the state of california seeking their reproductive rights. and reproductive freedoms. >> that legislation signed today by california's governor protects anyone, anyone seeking abortions in california, from civil actions and other states. gavin newsom also repeated california's commitments to be a a sanctuary for those seeking reproductive care. with us, -- mister attorney general, unlike a lot of other states, you are not surprised. you saw this coming. you have been preparing the state of california. what is next there? >> we have a lot in the works. we have been preparing for months for this moment, of course hoping for the best but preparing for the worst. we had the view with the leaked docs. so we have the legislature, who have been incredible partners. we have 14 bills moving to the

governors desk. most the governor signed today, the bill that prevents any cooperation or assistance from the state of california on civil actions against individuals seeking abortion. or of providers providing abortion. it's a bill that i am supporting, sponsoring. that will also prevent cooperation by law enforcement when it comes to criminal actions being brought against individuals who are seeking reproductive health care and an abortion in california. we have 100 $25 million in a proposed budget that will be expanding access to reproductive health care, expanding access to abortion. supporting women in california and from out of state. we also have another bill that i am supporting that makes it clear that we shall not criminalize pregnancy laws in the state of california. and meanwhile, the legislature and the governor are working on putting on the ballot for the state of california, in november, a constitutional --

right to reproductive health care, reproductive freedom and a right to abortion. >> for you in the governor it was not a question of if, it was a question of when they were going to overturn roe. and you just laid it out, you are well prepared for this. why do you think so many other states aren't? and we're hearing, we need to get ready, do something now. why do you think so many of them are surprised? >> i can't speak for them. this is part of who we are in california. and what makes a special to, which it is in our dna to stand up for our value to fight. and prepare to have care, and compassion for our people. to do everything that we can to have their back. and knowing that a threat was coming that was on the rise, we leapt into action. and we did it, and i'm very glad to say all hands on deck. from our leaders in the

legislature and both houses, our governor, our california department of justice. my team, our california general. our advocates, and activists. in the nonprofit. world all working together. we had a future of abortion council created where we were preparing for this moment, starting months ago. because we saw the tea leaves, we saw what was possible. and of course we were -- >> then are you prepared for this massive influx of patients? of women that you are likely to see over the next few months? two californians want that? >> we are preparing for them. we are -- , when it comes to reproductive health care, a sanctuary. anyone who seeks reproductive health care, and abortion. you can see that in california. we have the right to an abortion's life and well. in california, it is untouched by the decision today. and we are a strong

reproductive freedom state. so there will be many individuals, unfortunately, who are being hurt and harmed by the trigger laws that will ban abortion in the states, we anticipate 26 states will ban abortion and the woman and pregnant persons in the states will need somewhere to go and we invite them to come to california. it will be a huge influx but we are still preparing logistically and financially. we're not lurking alone as a government, we also have philanthropy. and our private sector also in support, of shared values here in california. so we will meet them the moment and rise to the occasion. >> you have your work cut out for you sir. attorney general rob bonta, thank you for joining us this evening. i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> coming up, she warned her fellow graduates, but she was just a high school student. about a war on her body, and a war on her rights! the texas valedictorian who sounded the alarm joins us next on the extended edition of the 11th hour as it continues!

>> unfortunately, people are going to die. women are going to die between now and when we can get legislation passed. which is untenable, and i don't know how we've let it get to this point. it is just very disappointing! what if i sleep hot? ...or cold? no problem. the sleep number 360 smart bed is temperature balancing, so you both stay comfortable and can help you get almost 30 minutes more restful sleep per night. the queen sleep number 360 c2 smart bed is only $899. >> i have dreams and hopes and plus, 0% interest for 36 months. ends monday.

ambitions. every girl graduating today it does.

and we have spent our entire lives working towards our future. and without our input, and without our consent, our control over that future has been stripped away from us. paxton smith gave that speech just over a year ago, back when the most restrictive abortion law in texas essentially banned the procedure around six weeks. now, with the demise of roe roe, texas is one of 13 states ready to take those restrictions even further. trigger laws expected to go into effect within 30 days, banning abortions across the board, even in cases of incest or rape. some clinics in the state worn, abortion services have already ceased altogether. with me now, paxton smith. she's the texas high school valedictorian who swapped her speech to speak out against restrictive abortion laws. paxton, thank you for being here tonight. your speech is more relevant today than ever. what is your reaction to the

loss of roe? >> it's been incredibly disappointing. but i think the feeling that i'm feeling most's fear about what the future brings. as you know, i'm from texas, i still live in texas. and in my home state, they are going to criminalize abortion within the next 30 days, which means that abortion providers could spend up to life in prison now for providing abortion care. >> is that with the majority of texans want? you are a college student at you t. when you walk around campus, is that what your fellow students want? >> it's certainly not with my fellow students want, although granted ut austin is quite a liberal campus, but i would say in general, the majority of americans don't want roe v. wade overturned. the majority of americans want abortion to be safe and legal and accessible. >> the supreme court isn't going to change their mind, at least not today, tomorrow or

the next day. so, do you think young activists -- young voters like yourselves -- in the state of texas are going to take action after this decision was made? and after these more restrictive laws are going to be put in place, very soon, in texas? >> i think so. and i hope so. i know that my generation is definitely going to be taking to the polls and is going to be voting for politicians that favor our human rights and will pass legislation that will value our human rights. when i'm really hoping for, though, is that people of my generation are going to take to the streets and are going to be consistent in their fight in the streets, because part of what we are seeing now is that people are going out and protesting for one or two days and then staying at home and waiting for the next big event. but i think what it's going to take this to get it right back, it's going to take it a lot more consistent and coordinated action from the pro-choice side. >> and what is the goal? protesting in the streets? you are not going to change the mind of the supreme court. so what is your goal? what do you want to happen, practically speaking?

>> i know that we are not going to change peoples minds. we all have our beliefs and we are all set in our beliefs. but what i want to do is -- when i want to show, that people in these positions of power, that we are not going to stand for them taking away our rights. we are not going to stand for that at all. and what i want, when i envision, is people taking to the streets and demonstrating that. >> how about in texas? after you gave that speech, how did your high school take it? how did your town take it? did you get a meeting with governor greg abbott? >> i did not get a meeting with governor greg abbott. by the reaction to my speech was actually overwhelmingly positive. i received hundreds and hundreds of messages of support and of love, and since giving that speech, i received a lot of opportunities to continue my activism at the scale that i do now. and that's something that i do every day. >> you got those messages and

that support from texans or nationally? what i'm trying to get at is, if you are voice, if your perspective is the future of your state, why does your state make the rules and restrictions that they do? and i'm obviously not accusing you of that. i'm trying to get inside the lone star state to understand why it is the way it is. >> right. well, politicians are not necessarily making legislation that reflects the views of the people in the state. that's not something that people of my generation can essay early control, especially since we are now just getting the right to vote. i just voted in my first election last semester, a few months ago. and i think -- rest assured, people are going to be taking to the polls. people are going to be voting these people out of office, the best that they can. but right now, they are not working in favor of their constituents and in favor of their constituents beliefs. >> all, right paxton smith, thank you so much for joining us this evening. i appreciate you.

>> thank you. >> coming up, the complex story of the woman behind this bitter national debate, that began half a century ago, when the extended edition of the 11th hour continues. >> we've organized fighters as well as medical professionals in the state of new york. we are prepared to represent individuals. we are prepared to train legal professionals, as well as medical professionals, in anticipation of individuals who might be prosecuted in their home state. we are looking at extradition, we're looking at subpoenas, we are looking at all of that. we are ready. we will not, again bow down to the radical right. we will stand up and protect the woman's right to choose, protect the 14th amendment. and not allow women to be treated like second class citizens.

once a supreme court decision went through. i was like we are all safe right now. we have control of our own bodies. >> the last thing before we go on this very late night. knowing roe. norma mccorvey, otherwise known as jane roe, is a complicated person in our nation's history. when she was 13 years old she was already married, pregnant, divorce by the time the baby arrived. she gave up custody to her mother. a few years later she was

pregnant again, she gave that child up for adoption. then in 1969, she became pregnant for a third time. norma was dealing with addiction and living in poverty. she wanted an abortion. nbc's ron tells us our story. >> her quest began not as a movement for women's rights, but more simply an unmarried 22-year-old lillington and her pregnancy. it was illegal unless the woman's life was in danger. despite her victory in the case, she had her baby. the legal process pushing well beyond nine months. the landmark moving eventually propelled her out of the shadows of her pseudonym, and to the spotlight of the country 's most divisive issue. at the time, she came the face of pro abortion rights. but later she said she had become a born again christian. and become an antiabortion advocate. appearing in ads. >> i realize that my case in legalizing abortion was the

biggest case of my life. >> it was not until 2017, just before her death when norma mccorvey finally came forward with what she called, a deathbed confession. she said she was never really against abortion, she would just paid to say that she was. a reminder, a stark reminder of the very complex and very personal story of roe. a story that launched the bitter debate, when that tonight is clearly far from over. we needed a deep breath. and on that, very heavy and very serious note, i wish you all a very good night. from all of our colleagues across the networks of nbc news. thanks for staying up late with us. it has been a privilege to be here. b here thanks you all for being with us this hour, it is a big day.

when the supreme court first handed down the decision in roe just shy of a 50 years ago, it's not like it was not controversial when it happened, there were definitely people who are opposed to the decision in 1973. in particular, the catholic church which had always been staunchly anti abortion. but it wasn't as controversial in 1973 as today's politics might make you think. for example, it was not a particularly controversial decision among american evangelicals. the southern baptist convention, america's largest protestant denomination, they adopted pro abortion rights resolutions, regularly, during the 1970s, including after the roe decision in 1973, the southern baptists. when roe was handed down in 73, the former president of the southern baptist convention welcomed it, and explained why. he said, quote, i have always felt that it was only after a child was born, and had a life separate from its mother, that it became an individual person. and it has always, therefore,, seems to me that what is best for the mother and for the

future should be allowed. southern baptist convention. reactions to roe v. wade were also really heterogeneous for a long time between the two political parties. there were plenty of antiabortion democrats, and there were lots of pro-choice republicans. republican governors wrote the forefront of decriminalizing of abortion in the states in the 1960s. including the governor of california, a man named ronald reagan. in 1967, ronald reagan signed into law the most liberal abortion rights bill in the country in california. so, it's not that there was not disagreement over abortion, or that there weren't strong feelings from various quarters about roe v. wade. but it was different. and specifically, it wasn't really a politics issue. it wasn't an issue that swayed election, or that was a key part of the two parties political platforms. contrary to popular belief, roe v. wade in 1973 did not spark some kind of immediate big backlash among conservatives, and evangelicals and republicans. it evolved differently, and