and tiktok at katie phang show. velshi with maria teresa kumar starts right now. >> good morning. sunday, june 26th. i am maria teresa kumar in four ali velshi. a promising, he will be back next weekend! i have been following your tweets! we begin this morning with chaos and consequences. the explosive impact of the trump stacked supreme court decision to overturn roe versus wade's reverberating throughout the country. abortion bans have already taken effect in at least nine states and providers across the country are canceling appointments, leaving patients stunned and scrambling for the care that they need. in texas, for example, the washington post recorded it national scenes at one houston clinic as workers informed people seeking abortions that they would have to leave, that they could not receive the care. one quote reads, victoria, who

spoke to the washington post on the condition that only her first name the used to protect her privacy, was 30 minutes away from the clinic when she got the call, stopped at a red light, as soon as she heard the news, she said, she broke down crying, trying to figure out what she would do now. texas is just one of 26 states that are certain or likely to ban abortion care in the coming days and months, according to the -- institute, the research and policy organization that advocates for reproductive health and rights. half of those states have also had trigger laws which take effect automatically now that roe v. wade has been overturned. and, in nine of those dates, the bands have already gone into effect. and there's enormous erosion of civil rights, ushered in by a disconnected conservative majority supreme court, will only be the beginning. as protests across the country look to the streets yesterday, many voiced their worries about what other rights might be taken away. take a listen. >> my whole life, i have always

taken this as a basic human right. to have it snatched away so quickly by some people that i did not elect, that scares me. and i am not just scared of the domino effect, what is next. are you guys going to come for me? for my gay, trans and lesbian colleagues? friends? it is frightening. >> and those concerns are warranted. justice clarence thomas already signaled his interest in potentially overturning the legal precedents that protects marriage equality and access to contraceptives. joining me now is -- a senior correspondent for new york magazine and coauthor of the new york times bestselling, notorious rbg. the life and times of ruth bader ginsburg. irene, thank you so much for joining me today. i have to say, one of the things that i, you know, that i found so striking about clarence thomas and what he is forecasting down the line, is the fact that basically, he was saying that his colleagues of

the four, including ruth gaiters bins -- ruth later ginsburg was an error, a lot of the rulings they had before them were wrong, and now he basically wants to arrogantly undermine that. what was your take on that? >> well, i think her colleagues were trying to channel their inner, to join descent of the appointees. i will say this but clarence thomas, at least he is honest. the majority of the senate leaders claim that abortions could be cordoned off small other kinds of due process, these rights have been found in part under the 14th amendment. that is a dishonest aim, and both the dissenters and clarence thomas agree. you know, i think it is including in the separate opinion by kavanaugh and roberts, there's a lot of dishonesty here, completely because they say it.

just abortion is not just abortion. [inaudible] that reporter stuff that i'll read live, most the fact that her life will be changed forever, because of some political, ideological posturing. so i do want to stop and say that these are peoples lives which are at stake here, which will be changed, irrevocably, no matter where they decide. so i think that there is something clarifying about the honesty of clarence thomas. although in his confirmation hearing, he said he did not read roe v. wade, did not discuss roe v. wade, did not have an opinion. he went around to find another case to say that roe v. wade should be overturned. the majority in the dobbs opinion claimed that it will stop here. i think clarence thomas, the dissenters are correct to say that it will not stop here. >> so irin, i share your

sentiment. i think after hearing this dissent, as a woman, i heard that first and it was painful. i was walking down the street, ran into a neighbor i don't know so well, i locked eyes with her and said, how are you? and she had tears in her eyes. so i hear your emotion, because we all know what it means for not just us but for our children. i think one of the things that was so compelling is, when you wrote what the supreme court's dissent was trying to do was be blunt, righteously angry. they wanted to ring the alarm. can you speak more to that? ey>> sure. the insult to injury of this opinion is having been told, that it was not such a big deal, that somehow it was just only going to be red states, individuals in red states having their rights trampled on, that they could always leave, that this will stop at the borders. not only will the decision not extend to other states that

have been recognized by the constitution, but you know, this will just allow the people to vote on what should happen to a person's uterus. this is what we were told. and i think one of the consequences of this opinion leaking in early may, is the dissent was able to directly engage some of these arguments down to, don't worry your pretty little head. so for example, they were talking about how states will chase people down, use electronic surveillance, will use law enforcement tactics in order to find out what happens to pregnant people who do not give birth in their state. we already have states, blue states, starting to pass laws to protect from subpoenas, extraditions, but there is not settled law around this. the dissenters point out they should be worried about this. they say, we should be worried

about birth control, being re-classified. falsely, without evidence, totally made up of science. but certain forms of birth control, which happen to be the most effective, such as an iud, being re-classified as abortions. the dissenters say you are right to worry about birth control. you are right to worry about precedents, that make this accessible. i think that is just a couple of ways in which they say that you are not being hysterical. this is a deeply radical decision. and they come out and they say that now, women have fewer rights than a fertilized egg, from the fertilization. so to see it there in black and white, there are still elements that say, you are exaggerating, it is not such a big deal. elements of the justices of the supreme court, i think it is important to link that, because they know it was not -- >> so, irin, you talked a lot

about what is at stake for women's rights. and now, one of the reasons that oftentimes is part of the controversy, is why is the supreme court meddling in our business? going into something that is a medical procedure? take a listen to a rally last night with congresswoman mary miller. what you said, the quiet part out loud. i want to stress to the audience, she did take back those remarks. but take a listen, i want you to hear what she said, and the crowd's response to what she said. >> trump, on behalf of all of the patriots in america, i want to thank you for the historic victory for white life in the supreme court yesterday. [applause] [noise] >> now, irin, i want to clarify, miller's campaign has said she misread her prepared remarks, and meant to say right to life, not white

life. your thoughts? >> you know, i had not heard that yesterday, it's hard not to be completely, not just surprised, because i think white supremacy undercurrents a lot of these policies. but i will just say this, the decision, whether to become pregnant, stay pregnant, to parent, it is all about control and who makes that decision, and who is controlling it. you ask, why does the supreme court metal? to the extent that has gotten involved early on is to say that, if you put this to a vote, minorities might be disadvantaged. he put it to a vote, the most powerful people might get to decide. so, sometimes there is a reason for the supreme court to protect people. but what the supreme court did this week, and i think what is underscored by that clip is, take that decision, take it

away from the individual, give it to the state. and in the interest of the state, they have historically served white supremacy. i do not know what her intent was, but we know there's a long history of control, which has sought to disproportion people of color. we know the government disproportionately advances white people. regardless of what she meant to say, there is a real history here of white lives being prioritized, and being hand in hand with a patriarchal control that says, we will decide whether you reproduce, whether it is forceful sterilization, criminalizing pregnant people who use drugs, or restricting somebody from accessing an abortion, criminalizing anybody who helps them. it is not just a decision about whether or not to end your pregnancy, but a decision about who is going to make that call.

who has the power to change peoples lives in this dramatic way, ... >> when i found most striking was that people clap to those remarks, it speaks so much to what you are saying, the undercurrent of, how they are trying to force women to have pregnancies and sadly, relegated poor women to making choices where they don't have a ton of ownership of their bodies. thank you for joining me this morning. now joining, is democratic representative barbara lee of california. she is co-chair of the congressional pro-choice caucus, congresswoman lee, before we start, i would like to play how you shared your own personal story about abortion. let's take a listen. >> so, i got pregnant as a teenager. i had just turned 16. >> now, i think --

i think we are having some audio problems, we will just jump right into the interview. congresswoman, i have known you for a very long time. i think that disclosing such an intimate decision is one that was welcomed by a variety of women, and men who know women, or who have participated in having to make those decisions. can you talk about this, now that roe v. wade has been overturned? >> first of all, we know this was coming. this was one of the reasons i decided to talk about my own, personal decision, many years ago when i was a teenager, to have an abortion. i never talked about it before, because it is just that, a personal, private decision one makes over bodily autonomy. this decision, let me tell you, it is gut wrenching. i am heartbroken, angry, sad.

and for the first time, our constitutional rights, our right to control our own bodies are being made by the state. and this is definitely an effort to erode our democracy. i say this in a broader context. on confirmation day, who are they coming for tomorrow? are they going to repeal same sex marriage? are they going to repeal voting rights, to repeal our civil rights? are they going to ban interracial marriages? so it is a horrible, horrible moment for us. you know what? thinking back to what happened with myself, my own decision, i am more determined, more committed. and i will fight back like you have never known. i see so many people around the country, who never knew a world

without roe, fighting back, galvanizing, saying we will never tolerate this at all. >> senator elizabeth warren and tina smith penned an op-ed in the new york times, to declare biden a public health emergency that will protect abortion access to all americans. and critical resources, need to be unlocked to make sure people have the ability to protect their reproductive rights. what do you say about? this is this likely? >> well, i will make sure we have this, it is a public health emergency. we have to see this again in the context of what will happen to people who reside, who decide to exercise their reproductive freedom and have an abortion. we have to see this as an emergency. we have to see it within this context, but now, the criminalization of women is going to be a standard type of

criminal justice initiative and move. so for me, when i was young and had my abortion, i was terrified. a new abortions were illegal in california, texas, and i was afraid of being stopped, put in jail. and that will happen again. so yes, it is a public health emergency but also, it is an emergency of justice, an emergency of what could happen to so many people who quote, are violating an unjust law. >> so what is the likelihood that some of this stuff could be passed, especially when we see states like texas say, not only can you not get abortion care, but you cannot take the abortion pill, possibly. they will try to intervene in that. what can people do? what can congress do? because i think this is such a challenge when it comes to the

limitations of our government, unless we codify roe v. wade. >> in the short term, i am raising money to help people travel, so people who make the decision to have an abortion have the means to do this. because it is definitely, disproportionately impacting black and brown people. people who need funds for childcare, people who are low wage workers, who need the money to travel. so short term, we all have to do this. do this each and every day, raising money. we make sure people have the chance to go to safe havens like california, for the abortions. remember, we have a pro-choice house of representatives right now. we need to make sure we maintain the pro-choice majority in the house, expand that majority and make sure, we elect senators who will help us with the health and wellness protection act, introduced by congresswoman judy to. a congresswoman will sign this,

make it into law, the right to have access to abortion care. this is political, we need to register people to vote, galvanize, organize and go to the polls in november, and defeat those who don't trust women, elect those who do trust us. and we have to do this not only at the federal level about the state and local level. but in the larger context, it is about the erosion of our democracy, white supremacy, and now we have to see this unfortunately as a generational struggle that we need to fight, continue to fight and be vigilant, and beat back these draconian measures to take away our fundamental rights. >> democratic congresswoman barbara lee of california. thank you so much, you are reminding everybody that our democracy is a dynamic democracy. it is not stagnant. this means we have to fight every single day for our rights, so we can finally fulfill that future. thank you so much. >> thank you.

>> coming up, we will continue the conversation about women's rights, including a breakdown of the fight that has yet to come. plus, we will break down what is ahead in the january six committee investigations, as the committee has just received new, additional evidence. and president joe biden's abroad for the g7 with russia's war in ukraine being the central focus of the summit. it comes as new reports indicate that the u.s. may be giving ukraine more support than was publicly known. that is right, that is up next on velshi. that is right, that is up next on velshi.

>> happening now. president joe biden is overseas in germany meeting the world leaders at the g7 summit. russia's war in ukraine is one of the major topics of discussion on their agenda. as various nations rise sanctions in russia, a source familiar with the matter confirms that biden and other

leaders have agreed to an import ban on russian gold, in hopes of undercutting a key source of revenue for that country. meanwhile, after fierce battles in eastern ukraine, russia appears to be turning its attention back to the country's capital, kyiv. dozens of people had been rescued from the rubble, including a seven-year-old girl, after a rocket destroyed residential building there. the mayor of kyiv says several explosions took place there overnight. now joining me, is elaine cooper, a pulitzer prize-winning pentagon correspondent for the new york times, an msnbc political analyst. ellen, i first wanted to start with the g7 summit. i think it's one of the places that is absolutely on the radar, which is the reaction to the continued constraints on russia, what it means geopolitically for the involvement of g7. >> hello, thank you for having me. this is a big g7 economically, because one of the things that is on the table is how to

further constrain russia. russia has done a pretty good job up until this point of managing to shield itself somewhat from all of the sanctions, russian oil and gas, they've managed to benefit because with fuel prices so high, again in part because of the ukraine war, then oil exporting fuel revenue, even though the experts have gone down, the revenue has gone up. that conversation is because of the high fuel prices we are all feeling. that will be one of the things on the table for the g7, that president biden it will be discussing with them, how to coordinate better to make sure that these sanctions are hitting russia where it feels it most. what we can do, this is a

global issue on key prices. then, we will try to shore up the collective will of his european allies and partners, trying to tell them we are in this war in ukraine, this is something which, we are sort of in it for the long haul. and europe, feeling, we talk about our gas prices in the u.s., $5, $6 a gallon, in europe is nine or $10 a gallon, that's something that is being felt very much across the continent. so he is very much looking to try to shore up this collective, european will. you will see that play out again at the nato summit after this g7 summit later this week. >> helene, you are absolutely right. i was in london, and the cost of margarine increased 40% in the last six months. if you are looking at inflation here, it is a bigger problem in

europe. i want to also talk about how you personally have a report with the new york times that says, quote, stealthy networks of commandoes and spies rushed to provide weapons, intelligence and training to ukraine resistance. can you tell us more? you are saying it is the united states and other allies? >> yes. well, shortly after russia invaded ukraine in february, the army special forces groups, which had been training with ukrainian commandoes inside ukraine moved to germany where they established a special cell. cia, since then, they have been training ukrainian commanders, they have been joined by 20 other countries, most of them in nato allies who have also been joining in to train these ukrainian commandoes who then go back to ukraine. they also have to learn, there are commandoes from several countries who are operating inside ukraine.

these countries include britain, france, and germany. they are all operating inside ukraine as well. and a lot of what they are doing is coordinating these weapons deliveries, where you see a constant flow of weapons into ukraine. see i am, american cia operatives are also inside ukraine, according to our sources. and the fact that we have learned that and this is all very secret, president biden has maintained throughout this war that he will not send american troops on the ground in ukraine. for the most part, he has stuck to that. r we don't know if american troops, but we do know of american cia agents, they are no confirmation of american troops there but the cia is definitely there, and troops from other countries are there. they are all focused on these weapons, getting these weapons

to the eastern front of the country and avoiding, trying to keep these weapon deliveries out of russian targeted range, hits. i visited one of the faces movie border of ukraine, one month ago. a lot of these weapons coordination, weapons transfers they call them, material transfers are happening. i spoke with some of the ukrainian commanders on the ground, and having seen, that it is a really sophisticated operation. >> helene cooper, thank you so much for your reporting. >> thank you. >> the historic january 6th public hearings are pausing for a couple of weeks from by the special committee looked at some new evidence it just received. what does this new evidence mean for the investigation and the future of democratic america? a system of lies on rules, institution and trust in those

institutions. next on though she. institutions institutions next o timber... fortunately, they were covered by progressive, so it was a happy ending... for almost everyone. >> tech: need to get your windshield fixed? so it was a happy ending... safelite makes it easy. and we'll come to you with a replacement you can trust. >> man: looks great. >> tech: that's service on your time. schedule now. >> the house select committee >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪

investigating the january 6th is extending its timetable for public hearings into july, due to an influx of new evidence. can the chairman bennie thompson says the new evidence includes hours of video footage handed over by a british documentarian, who followed and interviewed twice impeached donald trump, his family and aides for weeks before and after the 2020 election. the hearings are set to pick up the week of july 11th. the last, hearing pullback the current -- curtain on how donald trump attempted to strong-arm the justice department into spreading his big lie about the 2020 election, so he could overturn the results. the committee had originally had more than two hearings on the docket, but given the new discoveries, there could be even more added to the schedule. now joining me is jackie ali, a congressional investigative reporter for the washington post. also, she's an msnbc contributor. so jacqui, thank you for

joining me this morning. could you tell me what we can expect from these hearings moving forward? jacqui, we are having a hard time with your audio. are you perhaps on mute? >> sorry about, that now can you hear me? >> it is only been two years, but i do this all the time. go ahead! >> you know, we know through the hearings, they will definitely be on the 187th minute of silence, what lawmakers like, and what they call a dereliction of duty. now you know why why my computer is on silent. another one of those hearings will be focused on extremism, and political violence of the right and the way that americans become radicalized in our society, so as to be driven to actually in attempt and insurrection, and in a way it is still ongoing. it's possible that he will have additional hearings now that

they have obtained a handful of new evidence, including the british documentarian's footage, which is dozens of hours of footage of trump's family, where he's already privy to what some of that footage details with an interview with my colleague, working when they refused to accept any responsibility and our january six, and called the insurrectionist smart, saw stop has been pointed out already lay ivanka trunks public testimony, and what they told alex holder behind the scenes. also, new emails that the federal judge david carter ordered the turnover, 440 new emails detailing his involvement with the effort to overturn the election. also, a new bunch of archives coming from the national archives, twice as many as the committee previously made.

that will be turned over as well. >> so, one of the questions i think that so many people at home are trying to figure out is, in this last week, we have heard of six members of congress, that sought pardons. i think the congressman leading that conversation basically said, you do not seek a pardon unless you may feel that you are doing something against the law. what is going to happen to them? >> yes. that is a really good question. and you know, obviously, i am not a lawyer. but the fact that these members of congress were preemptively asking for blanket pardons raises a lot of questions about the way that they viewed their actions, and it suggests some degree of potential guilt. of course, this is not positive by a means, but it does raise questions about the nature of their activities, the extent of their activities and again, why

they thought that they might need some protection from the former president to absolve them, it clear them of their involvement to overturn the results of the election. you know, moe brooks nina afterwards and said he had to spin the email p molly michael, a senior aide at trump's white house saying to say he was writing it in advance of the potential prosecution, but in his actual letter, he used the words prosecution, and is a very clear difference there. >> so, jacqueline, thank you so much for joining me. i always enjoy your piece with, us whoever your sources are, you are so accurate and detailed. and i think it is important to create more transparency and what we are witnessing live unfold, when it comes -- to thank you for joining, us great live reporting. going we now is nbc news presidential historian ben bloch, also the host of five side history.

and author of, the presidents of war. among many other things. michael, i have to say, one of the things that really caught my attention was this tweet that you did about who is in trump's ear. and i will read, important, this is your tweet from earlier today, sorry, earlier this week. you tweeted, important for house january six committee to find out exactly who quietly advised trump third his presidency, and beyond, on where the exact witnesses were in a political system, and how to explore those weaknesses to grab more power and threaten american democracy. the reason that common attention is that i have worked on capitol hill many eons ago. and many of the things that you were saying where -- >> it was not that long ago, by the way. >> you are being generous, michael. one of the things that caught my attention is that, as things were unfolding, oftentimes one of the things people say is

that one of the reasons why is speaker so effective is that she is an institution, she understands what leverage he needs to pull, when it came to when jockeying donald trump's agenda. equally, though, it seems that there is someone in his hear ear who has such great knowledge of not only our institutions, but also where those institutions might be weekend. can you talk a bit about that, what compelled you to write that? because many of us, in the house of commons, feel similar, but have not been able to put our finger on it. >> i am with you. i can see you. especially this weekend. whether my saying. here is a case, where let's look at the january six committee. that was formed basically to investigate what many americans, i didn't think this, but many americans thought was sort of a spontaneous attack on the capitol, but people who are angry about trump losing the election. or thinking that he actually won, falsely. and in fact, what we are seeing

now is that this was an orchestrated effort to bring down our democracy, to stop the peaceful transfer of power. so that donald trump could serve another term. and that was done, we are increasingly finding, extremely carefully. they were people being installed after the 2020 election, key positions in the justice department. in the defense department in the white house. and elsewhere. and if you look at donald trump's four years in office, it almost looks as if it was done by a brilliant political scientist, who recognize the weaknesses in our democratic political system. small the. i would argue that don't trump is not a brilliant political scientist, nor has he read the work of any great political scientist and i know of. so, as the january six committee looks at all of this, and the antecedents in four years of the trump presidency, who funded january six? there was money there. where they come from?

shadowy figures. who was on the telephone calls? were he and his people in touch with foreign governments, who would like to see the american democracy brought down? we don't know that yet. how about domestic terrorists? people like the proud boys and the oath keepers, did they just happen to show up on the 6th of january? or was this an orchestrated effort? and if it was, then i would say we have to look at the january 6th the same way that we looked at pearl harbor, or the john kennedy assassination, or 9/11 as something that was nor'easters effort against the american political system. we have to ask who was behind us, who advised the trump circle. and identify those people, bring them to justice, if necessary. and most of all, make sure this never ever happens again. >> i completely agree with you. and i wish we had more time. but i do think that one of the things that you are asking is

for the committee to file the paperwork and follow the money. because i do agree with you that there seems to be too coincidental that all these forces came together on the capitol by chance. so, michael beschloss, thank you so much for your knowledge in asking the tough questions. >> my pleasure as always, thank you. >> always a pleasure. thank you. >> my country is litigating already firmly establish rights from over 50 years ago. about who has access to the ballot box, and whether a woman has agency over her own body. before roe v. wade, before the constitutional rights to an abortion, and next we will look back on the fight for women's liberation, and the new fight ahead. we will be right back. we will be right back. (coughing) ♪ breeze driftin' on by ♪ ♪ you know how i feel ♪ copd may have gotten you here, but you decide what's next.

start a new day with trelegy. ♪ ...feelin' good ♪ no once-daily copd medicine has the power to treat copd in as many ways as trelegy. with three medicines in one inhaler, trelegy helps people breathe easier and improves lung function. it also helps prevent future flare-ups. trelegy won't replace a rescue inhaler for sudden breathing problems. tell your doctor if you have a heart condition or high blood pressure before taking it. do not take trelegy more than prescribed. trelegy may increase your risk of thrush, pneumonia, and osteoporosis. call your doctor if worsened breathing, chest pain, mouth or tongue swelling, problems urinating, vision changes, or eye pain occur. take a stand and start a new day with trelegy. ask your doctor about once-daily trelegy. and save at trelegy.com. it is hard for many people born

after 1973 to even imagine a time before roe v. wade.

when abortions were illegal in most states. when it was taboo to talk about sex and contraception. but when we were dying from an unsafe secret abortion. when the supreme court was deciding roe v. wade, most of the country was aware of the case, familiar with the facts, and what it meant. but at the time, jane roe was just a name. a pseudonym. jane roe was anonymous, without a face to put to the. name jane rose store it was difficult to keep -- the woman's liberation movement needed a hero, somebody to rally around. a woman named surely wheeler became an unlikely, yet incredibly effective inspiration, for a budding movement. surely has an illegal portion of florida in 1970. before roe, illegal portions could be dangerous and traumatizing. here is a one couple described their experience in 1965. this clip was on earth on the season's slow burn podcast, which traces the story around roe. take a listen. >> that operation was performed

in the kitchen of the motel he turned to my husband and, said, how can you expect me to take agents like, this myself, for such a -- thing? >> it was clear he would not go ahead and finish the operation if i didn't acquire the money. but i didn't at that time want to argue or even, of course, delay the procedure. >> hospitals in states where abortion was outlawed would not perform the procedure, but they would help women who had complications from it. for shirley wheeler, her visit to the hospital after her illegal abortion would just be the start of a problem. a few days after her hospital visit, police showed up to her door and arrested her. by some accounts, an off-duty officer overheard the hospital staff talking about shirley's abortion began to investigate. she was -- with manslaughter. for women across the nation,

shirley's was a nightmare scenario, -- that sought to control their bodies. the story resonated with people, because so many americans did not want to live in a country where a woman could be put in jail for getting an abortion. and here we are. 50 years later. 50 steps backwards. performing abortions will again be a felony in some states. any pregnancy that does not result in a live birth could be considered suspect, in these states. we cannot quite a turn back into square one, but many already feel like that we have. drawing for a new fight for abortion rights, a fight where much of the country will trust ourselves back in time, to a reality completely unfamiliar to anyone under the age of 50. so it feels like a good time to revisit 50 years ago. when we come back, i'm joined by susan matthews, the host of this season slow burn podcast. who is been tracing the fight for abortion rights in the ryan up to roe.

and -- who lieutenant activists in the 1970s alongside gloria stein, -- don't go anywhere, we will be right back. e will b right back and must be taken within 5 days from when symptoms first appear. if you have symptoms of covid-19, even if they're mild don't wait, get tested quickly. if you test positive and are at high risk for severe disease, act fast ask if an oral treatment is right for you. covid-19 moves fast and now you can too.

wow! it's been 38 years since we were here. back then we could barely afford a hostel. i'm glad we invested for the long term with vanguard. and now, we're back here again... no jobs, no kids, just us. and our advisor is preparing us for what lies ahead. only at vanguard, you're more than just an investor you're an owner. giving you confidence throughout today's longer retirement. that's the value of ownership. >> in the summer of 1970, three

years before roe v. wade established a constitutional right to an abortion, momentum for abortion rights were already swelling. thanks in part to the growing number of leans groups and people like shirley wheeler, the first woman in the u.s. to be convicted of an abortion. take a listen. >> today, in various numbers, in various places, women were not demonstrating for full equality, and some of them were demanding free abortions and 24 hour a day childcare service. >> sisters, we must unite to fight for the pill. our restrictive abortion law, i have been labeled a criminal by this society. the state of florida is the criminal, not me.

[applause] i am killing my conviction, because i would hate to see another one of my sisters go through the living hall that i have. >> but the women chanting shirley's name in 1971 did not think that she had anything to be ashamed of. they believed every woman deserves the right to control her own body. and they knew that there were shirley wheeler's, everywhere. >> protect shirley wheeler, protect shirley wheeler! protect shirley wheeler! >> what do you hope people who are hearing about shirley's for the first time, what do you hope they take away from it? >> that it could happen today. that it is happening today! >> that was more from episode

one of slow burn: roe v. wade, the podcast. dreamy how is the producer of slow burn, and director at slate, and the cofounder of aclu women's rights project, cofounder of the women's political caucus and author of, not one of the boys: living life as a feminist. thank you for joining, ladies. susan, i want to talk to you at the first season of slow burn. it focuses specifically on the years leading up to roe v. wade. what do you see between that preflight of roe, and what we are seeing now? >> the thing people talk about, is the main difference between what we are dealing with now and dealing with then. it is just the fact that abortion is really change the game in a lot of ways. that will be one of the main differences. but also, i want to talk with the similarities, that when abortion is illegal, it does not stop women from seeking abortions, it just means what they have to go through to get them is a lot harder, requires

a lot more inside knowledge, trusting people who might be willing to break the law to do this. i think that those similarities are some of the things that we will see, large echoes of the early 1970s. >> so, brenda, you are somewhat of a feminist activist legend. you have closely work with glorious time in, and ruth bader ginsburg. you are on the front lines of the fight for the abortions in the 1970s. what do you see right now, as a calling card for young women to get into the fight? >> first of all, i want everybody to know that pregnancy, and making a person, ability to get pregnant is harmful, and armed to people's health. with make sure that is absolutely -- it is cruel, it does not make, sense and women can't do it physically. i also want to remind people in the 17th and 18th centuries, they were harking back to their decision. basically, women had zero

rights at all, and blackstone, in the 17th or 18th century said, a husband and wife, when they get married, are one, and the one is the husband. women cannot vote. we had no rights. when this thing was drafted, there was no single final input on any level, whatsoever. that is really important. i want to say, the one reason why we are starting the project, but only are we concerned about abortion, but we, a young, poor black women came into our office, with some -- she did not understand. he had been forcibly sterilized against her will. gloria's time and went down to the south, we found a lot of other women who had this happen. and our position, and the aclu was reproductive freedom. and that meant abortions. that meant no sterilization. that meant women can't be forced to carry a baby, they can't be forced not to carry a baby. that is where they were trying to do two women, and i really

think that things, as of two days ago, have gone way back on the issues of women controlling our own bodies. way back. >> yes? -- so, so susan, i wanted to underscore a couple of things brenda just said. i think that is where we are living. yes, we have seen medical advances now where women can order medication, abortion medication in the privacy of their own home. in some cases, it might still need many -- medical treatment, because as brenda said, not all women are built for childbirth, not all women, and i think this is something which is highly contested, but all women want to be mothers. they want to be able to make that decision. where do you see this going in the sense of women actually galvanizing allies, men, in this conversation, because as part of your podcast, it also talks about the couple who is making these decisions for

themselves? >> yes. i mean, one thing about one of the women that i interviewed says pregnancy does not start alone. that is the important thing to note. i think in general, what i learned, what i really wanted to do working on this show is i wanted to talk to the women who were involved in this fight in the early 1970s, so, women will be coming lawyers, doctors, journalists. all of that happening together was really bubbling up, people talking about it at the same time. now it is the moment where we expect all those things, like this is happening. and when i would say is the main thing i learned is talking to these -- the fight was all consuming. and i think that they have talked about the fact that, they see people going to protests now, but not going back, look at tuesday night, an

organizing event to talk about what will happen next. one woman i spoke to said, my calendar from the year 1971 was just totally full of all of these things that have to happen. so i hope that all of the people we see protesting outside of the supreme court this weekend are figuring out their next steps as well, they are not just public protests, but organizing around what they have to do. you are right, this is not a woman's issue, it is an issue of justice. this is an issue that men need to be involved in as well. >> susan -- i am so sorry, go ahead? jump in. >> i want to jump in, there this is relevant. i have been saying for a long time, this is not my fight anymore. i've been doing it, i've been at every protest, t-shirts, sweatshirts upstairs of every protest that we were successful at. right, now i think young women are finally getting, it a huge contract was given with thousands of people, all basically saying, in english, polite english, they don't

trust this court anymore. they hate the court. it is not there for them. that is something we will happen, i don't know how we resurrect this, but i think sonia saw the mayor is on our side on this, but i am disgusted that justice roberts to get more people on his position which is basically, we don't have to stick to 24 weeks, 16 weeks. we will not go any further than that. just like the other five have gone nuts. and it is a christian, catholic called that is now governing our court. it is not there for anybody else, it just is not. i have advised people in my book i have been saying this before my book, women should not be taking cases to the court. i say that to my friends at the aclu, we don't belong, there they will not help, they will make it worse. if we get a bad decision and the circuit court, we leave it there. i don't believe in appealing a bad decision anymore, this will be more. i mean, i am just beside myself. >> so, brenda, as an attorney, would you advise president biden right now to expand the

court, is that what you are saying? >> that would be great, i do want to be clear, people are talking about in coding roe, that is a good idea in concept. but there is a whole thing, that justice ginsburg laid out that made it very clear, that we should not then, and not now be focusing on equal protection, it's not due process. what we say in a federal law is that abortion is allowed, up to 24 weeks. and the reason for that is equal protection. that if men can control their bodily functions, what goes on in their bodies, so should women be with strict, equal protection. i don't want to get into challenging the brains of these people on these courts, to understand where the word privacy means, or the words liberty. they don't seem to get it, they don't think that they exist. well, okay. wait until we come after loving. loving will come after, and then mr. and mrs. thomas might have the problem in their

relationship. and i don't have a lot of respect for mrs. thomas, at all. i am just saying, you don't come after same sex marriage and contraception, of all crazy things, and same sex sex and say those are bad, those are bad because, we just think they are. and then, you have kavanaugh going into breakouts about why it is okay to have, cases which have already been determined, thrown out, just throwing them out because this is an egregious harm. literally, this is an egregious harm, and they are negative, real world controversies that have sprung up. there are. what he says is, it doesn't cause negative, real world consequences to have an abortion. ron, we have real world controversy. i don't know what these guys are doing, he should never have been confirmed, or collins. thomas, we can't even talk about, but his wife is committing crimes, and he is >>

crazy otherwise you as, far as i'm concerned. >> brendan finances matthews, thank you. i absolutely agree with you there is an arrogance to justice thomas, who believes that the people before you stood on that bench were somehow wrong. be sure to check out the slow burn podcast. another our velshi starts right after this break. we will be right back. ak we will be right back. we will be right back. are now made with no artificial flavors or preservatives. knorr. taste for good. you know liberty mutual customizes ou only pwhat you need? like how i customized this scarf? check out this backpack i made for marco. only pay for what you need. ♪liberty. liberty. liberty. liberty.♪

so this is the meta portal plus. a smart video calling device that makes working from home, work. it syncs with your favorite vc apps so you'll never miss a meeting. and neither will she. meta portal, make working from home work for you. good morning, it is sunday,

june 25th. i am or citrus or come, are in for ali velshi. do not worry, he'll be back next weekend. but i do appreciate you all hanging around with me this weekend. we begin this hour with chaos and consequences unleashed by the supreme court decision to overturn roe v. wade. the right to abortion is being revoked across the country, as this was so-called trigger laws activate their own bans on the