cases, she was pregnant with twins, she needed the abortion of one to protect the life of the other. i think there is a stigma about what someone who needs and seeks an abortion looks like. i want people to understand, it's simply a standard medical procedure, and oftentimes, it's needed to save lives. >> amanda, thank you for joining us tonight. molly dwayne, really appreciate it. >> thank you, chris. that is all in on this tuesday night, alex wagner tonight starts right now. >> these women are so unbelievably brave. to be going through this, to >> that is all in on this tuesday night. alex wagner toni good evening, alex. >> these women are so unbelievably brave.ly to be going through this, be public with it, defending a

lawsuit in what is arguably the most painful chapter in their lives, hats off. thanks, chris. and thanks to you at home for joining us this hour. one of the most watched cable news programs in all of the united states is rewriting the history of january 6th, defending the violent mob that attacked the capitol, and they're doing it with c the explicit aid and support of the highest ranked elected republican in the country. last night fox news host tucker carlson aired his first news report, footage carlson was given access to by speaker of the house kevin mccarthy. we're not going to show you all of tucker carlson's defense for january 6th rioters here, but this is a sample of what the fox newsat audience heard last nigh. >> very little of january 6th was organized or violent. >> it was neither an insurrection or deadly. >> they were peaceful or meek.

these were not insurrectionists, they were sight seers. they're not destroying the capitol. they're there because they believe thel. election was stol from them. >> the toprotesters are angry. they believe the election they had just voted in had been unfairly conducted. and they were right the 2020 election was a grave betrayal of american democracy. >> the insurrection wasn't deadly, the rioters were peaceful, and oh, by the way let me take this opportunity to spread more news about the 2020 election my news organization is promoting. that is what fox news broadcast last night.as that is what the speaker of the house made possible last night, and the suraid is ongoing. this was from tucker carlson's second broadcast on the same subject earlier tonight. >> we haven't answered every question about what actually happened on january 6th. far from it. there's so many mysteries from that day, but one thing we know for certain is that the story they toldn you about it, a tal

about good, versus evil, an insurrection with no guns that took place at the u.s. capitol, those were lies and were lies told for a very specific purpose. of course the people in power wanted more power and they got it from the basis of those lies. >> essentially this is how tucker carlsonhi is attempting whitewash the crimes there were committed on januarycr 6th. play footage of rioters trespassing on capitol grounds but not engaging in any violence, play footage of police officers shepherding the rioter around and assert because police weren'tss arresting the riotersn the spot, that the claims of an insurrection are all hoax. except despite what whatever footage a w fox news host has cobbled together to make his point, theos american justice system has been very clear what happened on january 6th. it was a crime scene. people who participated in the storming of the capitol, broke the law. and many of them are now in jail.

the just department has arrested more than 1,000 of the rioters since january 6th and charged over 300 of them with assaulting, resisting or impeding officers or employee. over 500 of those employees have already pleaded guilty to the crimes they were charged with including buy the so-called qanon shaman despite the fact the qanon shaman has pleaded guilty and sentenced to 41 months in prison. those charges and convictions are not a confection of the fake news media, not an invention of the democratic political machine. that is the american justice system at work, something republicans in congress appeared to have forgotten. congressman mike collins tweeted in response to the fox news special i've seen enough. congresswoman marjorie taylor greene tweetedma saying the qan shaman deserves a retrial.

senators mike brown and josh hawley praised tucker carlson to getting the release out. >> just your reaction to the video on fox news do you think tucker carlson handled it appropriately? >> i think he i did. i actually watched half of that and i think whenever you're pushing transparency that isen hard argument to be against. >> i think it's great what he's doing. i think the january 6th committee has deliberately tried to create the impression that most folks who came here were terrorists and that's just wrong. i think a lot of the footage disproves that. >> speaker kevin mccarthy, a man who was fearful for his own life on january 6th, is the reason turker carlson has been given license to try to convince the public that january 6th was a chaotic sightseeing explosion. presumably he remembers it

wasn't just a bunch of tourists in strange hats. this is what he had to say this evening. >> do you regret giving him the tapes so he could whitewash. >> no. >> he said it was misleading and that it was offensive, the capitol policee, chief. dopi you have any concerns abou anything that aired? >> i didn't see what was aired tonight and he wanted to give exactly transparency to everybody. >> it is maybe shocking to see one ofis america's two major parties working hand in glove with onert of america's largest media organizations to mount a defense of the people who attacked our very seat of government, but that is where we are. joining us now is ben smith and former missouri democratic senator claire mccaskill. it's a treat to have you guys on set for this insane moment in american politics. senator, let me start with you. it is predictable in some ways

that once kevin mccarthy decided to give this footage to tucker carlson, he would spend his time runing itrl through the fox new propaganda machine and create what is his version of an alternate realityof am. ial wonder if even still any of this surprises you. >> well, it gives me a headache. it's so hard for me to get my arms around the notion that tucker carlson is actually trying to tell america that they didn't see what they saw. i mean, this is not like this is something that happened somewhere far away and we didn't watch it live. >> right. >> most americans remember that day. most americans were dplued to e the television set including tuckervi carlson and all the otr cable hosts at fox, and they were sixings and saying get th to do something, this is terrible for his legacy, for our country. so in f the moment we all felt ,

and to this day most americans stills do. and the a fact he thinks he cano this just showed how calcified that bubble has become around 3 million viewers they count on getting the otherer night. >> it's a test as much as anything of carlson's narrative power, isn't a it? that he's trying to effectively as senator mccaskill points out re-create the events in peoples minds. can that be done? we done fox is an important cog in the conservative media machine, but can they successfully convince their viewers and the american public more broadly that what we thought happened on january 6th didn't actually happen? >> i don't think so. it's the sort of who are you going to believe and there might be people funny hats taking pictures what be saw people breaking down doors.

i think part of it is telling fox's audience what they want to hear. they put out something they know is false, i think some of the audience knows their false and thinks it's funny they're doing that and forcing everyone to react to them. i think that's always been part of tucker. >> yes, owning the libs is paramount to owning the mission, but it does have a effect. and i guess the question is also what does the republican party do, right? >> i will say republican tom tillis of south carolina thought it was b.s. >> he actually said the words. >> yes, he did. >> he did exactly like attorney general barr did. they both called it the same thing. >> yes, and senator lindsey graham of carolina, we don't want to whitewash january 6th, and then there's mitch mcconnell. let's hear what the senate minority leader had to say.

>> my concern is how it was depicted. the chief of the capitol police, in my view, correctly describes what most of us witness first-hand onwi january 6th. so that's my reaction to it. it was a mistake, in my view, for fox news to depict this in a way that's completely at variance with what our chief law enforcement official here at the capital thinks. >> did that surprise you? >> no. in fact, i am not surprised at them normal republicans in the senate. first of all, remember, alex, they lived this. and what i really wanted in that senate when the reporter was talking to josh, well, why were you running so fast, what were you running from, the tourists that wereom taking pictures? >> exactly, "a" does not lead to

"b."to >> they don't mesh. and i think because members felt so emotional that day and they remember the fear, they remember the uncertainty about their safety, they remember how scared they were, and the idea that tucker carlson would rewrite this and make it like just another daye at the office i think was offensive to those who still have a conscience. >> i think there's also the question of the very basic political question of do they want to be in the business of relitigating january 6th? 6 it wasn't a good day for republicans on whole. and thus far it's been almost a third rail. they've not talked about and now they're forced to because one od their own tucker carlson. >> don't you think they're trying to distract from the lawsuit stuff a little bit? don't you think the timing of this is rupert murdoch is saying this isn't great but on the other hand it's better than everybody focused on all the documents today. >> i went right back to the

lawsuit because the lawsuit is all about, you know, re-creating what happened in theno 2020 election and promoting the big lie, and here we're doing all over again. >>al specifically what tucker i navigating tonight dominion has been releasing the most embarrassing sets of quotes from tucker carlson on how much he hates trump among other things, and that's real potential for him for his audience, so i think he's bending over backwards to show those people he's with him. whatever you read about how much he r hates trump. >> interesting, you think they're related, you think the many of the revelations -- and we're going to talk about them in the next block hopefully with you -- is related to the narrative. >> my internal e-mails, your internal e-mails were being splashed all over the place you'd be pretty focused on that, so i think you should totally interpret everything. >> i mean my internal e-mails is

nothing like -- which just to be clear. >> they wouldn't be that bad, but it's still like certainly what they're focused on. >> that's always in front of mind. do you think -- what happens from a media perspective here, then? because fox has these things. other media organizations has also requested them. what is the future of this 40,000 hours of capitol footage? is news max going to have their version of january 6th? >> these are fundamentally public documents, and obviously tucker d and mccarthy are talki about transparency and at that point no argument newt to give them to everybody who asks for them. >> we're going to table that for one moment, and i have to point out, senator, the moment we now find ourselves in with the republican party working hand in glove to relitigate january 6th they also finde themselves at odds with law enforcement. the statements coming out from the capitol police -- and last night an opinion program that would be tucker carlson aired

commentary that was filled with offensive and misleading conclusions about the january 6th attack, once false allegation that our officers helped the rioters and acted as tour a guides. this isur oult rajs and false. the program conveniently cherry picked from our 41,000 hours of video. the commentary fails to provide context about the chaosai and violence that happened before the violence. the sicknick family called it unscrupulous and outright sleazy. i'm going to repeat and often the republican party proposes itself to be the party of backing the blue, of law enforcement.bl and they are now diametrically opposed to the wishes, beliefs, and versions of reality that are being espoused by law enforcement. >> and every law enforcement officer in the country watched those officers be run over and attacked. they all put themselves in that place. and now what they're hearing is

this party that supposedly has their back is t willing to run right over them. and i think that may have more lasting damage than tucker carlsonma realizes. >> yeah, i guess i wonder do you think there'll be lasting -- there's always something outrageous fox news is pushing, but thiss feels like something else, trying to relitigate january 6th against the wishes of slain police officers, against the facts the american public has seen for now years? i mean, does it actually have an effect on republicans who stand by what tucker carlson said. >> maybe not to the 2 or 3 million that watch his program, but remember there's almost 160 million americans who voted, and a whole lot of police officers watched what those police officers went through, little police officers, smallce communities, large departments they all saw what those police officers wept through and how they werethpo assaulted. and believethy they take it personal. >> ben, what is the long game in

tucker carlson in all this? you think it's related to the lawsuit, but you think he's relitigating this after he's exhausted histe review of the 41,000 hours of footage? >> yeah. fox and also republicans who thr senator is trying to keep the faith of thisee narrow, intense base who sometimes has theories of what happened on january 6th that are totally nuts. and clearly tucker's choosing the strategy of just, like, who cares what happens to the republican party, h we're just going to try to please this hard core and super serve them. i think that's a huge threat to the rest of the party. >> it's the h first time you're seeing real tension y between t long-term governing agenda of the republican party and the survival of what calls itself a news network in the face of trying times we'll say. claire mccaskill, i'm sorry we have to be talking about these

things but it's delightinal if to see you. ben smith, please stay with me. we have so much news to get to this evening like part two of my trip to florida to see the impact of governor ron desantis' presidential ambitions weaponized against students and faculty. before we get to that stunning revelations over its news of the big coverage of the big lie over what is arguably the most incredible e-mails ever written. that is next. r written. that is next

on january 20th, the owner of the media empire that runs fox news sat through a deposition in a defamation case against fox brought by the dominion voting machine. one of the things they asked him about was this e-mail he sent to fox news ceo suzan scott on november 16, 2020, two weeks after the election. this is the owner of fox news rupert murdoch, quote, we should concentrate on georgia helping anyway we can. we don't want to antagonize trump further. in his deposition dominion's lawyers got murdoch to break that e-mail down. question, sir, how did you intend to help in any way you can? murdoch, i just give exposure to the republican candidate. stick a pin in that red hot partisan admission from the owner of fox news. we'll get back to that.

but the deposition continued. question, why did fox news not want to antagonize trump further on november 16th, 2020, sir? murdoch, he had a very large following and they were probably mostly viewers of fox, so it would have been stupid. for weeks we've gotten drips and drabs of internal fox news communications as they've been quoted in legal filings in the defamation lawsuit between the dominion voting corporation and fox news. tonight the actual raw evidence, the e-mails, the texts, the deposition transcripts, all of that was released. it is a mountain of material. this is only some of it, and we are still making our way through it. but already there are some broad strokes that are unsettling. the big one is just how far fox news and its owner, rupert murdoch, seemed to be willing to go to appease president trump and his followers, how thar faild go not to antagonize them. in another e-mail murdoch is

pretty explicit about how fox news held off on calling the 2020 election to avoid angering trump. quote, we should and could have gone first, but at least being second saves us a trump explosion. and this behavior predated the election. on september 25th mr. murdoch sent trump senior advisor jared kushner an e-mail that seemed to say murdoch was sending kushner ads that the biden campaign had placed on fox, and he was sending them to kushner before they aired so that kushner could craft trump's ad strategy accordingly. in his deposition mr. murdoch was asked to clarify. question, do you think it's appropriate for someone in your position to give a heads up to the opposing campaign about what the ad of the opposing cam pape will show before it's public? murdoch, i was trying to help mr. kushner. he's a friend of mine. question, you were trying to help the trump campaign by giving a preview of the biden campaign's ads before it was public? murdoch, i guess so.

this desire not to antagonize trump also seemed to play a role in just how far fox news was willing to stretch its journalistic efforts to keep promoting the big lie the 2020 election was stolen from trump or keep promoting it on their air. as an example, on november 8, 2020, maria fox lawyer sydney bartromo had powell on-air. as it turns out powell the night before forwarded an e-mail from her source from the person she was basing part of this gigantic claim on. sydney powell's source claims she got her information while, quote, time traveling in a semiconscious state, and that she communicated with the wind. the source believes that she was internally decapitated in the car accident in 1992, that she died, felt her soul leave her body, but somehow continues to walk the earth. that person was fox's source for claims that a presidential

election was stolen, and fox news let sydney powell use their airtime to push it. again, we have barely made a dent reading through all of this, but already there's a whole lot to discuss. joining me now is ben smith again. thank you both for helping me get through some of this mountain of pretty damning evidence. i guess, first to you, tolly, the people being quoted in this are not random minions at fox news. we're talking about rupert murdoch, loughlin murdoch who i believe is a chair of fox news, the president of fox news, the fox senior vp, the senior executive vp of corporate communications, and all of the top fox prime time talent. i mean how meaningful is that in the context of a defamation lawsuit? >> well, it's incredibly

meaningful, alex, in particular in the context of this defamation lawsuit because given the crush of evidence here i think we have to ask what are they going to actually argue about in front of a jury, if it makes its way to a jury, which it seems it's headed to do. and i think this is going to be one of the real issues. if pressed or backed into a corner i think what may they might say is, okay, our guests lied on-air and maybe some of our hosts ilied on-air, but that doesn't mean the entire organization is responsible, and this is really great evidence to say, everybody knew on the way up the chain they were knowingly making false statements in their broadcast had the opportunities to stop in one of the interesting depositions in there was -- she knew the deputy of fox. doesn't everybody in the chain

of command have the responsibility to correct falsehoods and stop them? and, yeah. >> they admit it in the deposition, and you mentioned this before we got to this segment, but that's the stuff we know. there are whole sebzs of this that are redacted in their entirety, and one wonders what's in that stuff. >> exactly, because that's been redacted by fox, right? >> yes. this is the stuff they allowed us to see. >> this was less bad for them. it's kind of amazing this stack because donald trump has lawyers all around the country pulling their hair out because he never writes anything down. >> yes. >> here every thought is written down and what you think really matters in a defamation lawsuit because what dominman has to prove is that they acted with actual malice, that they knew what they were doing was false or they had reckless disregard for the truth. and this is just over and over again saying exactly what dominion needs them to be saying

in order to prevail in this lawsuit. >> it's a lot of correspondence then, and purely from a media standpoint the sources for their big fraud lies is -- i mean you can't even say it's paper thin. it's completely fabricated. we talk about they have an out of body experience, talks about being intshly decapitated. by the way i don't know what an internal decapitation is. those are their sources. >> i mean, it's exactly what -- if you just watched fox and fox business during that period this is basically exact lewhat you would expect but like 20% dumber basically, which is not that unusual in the world when there's some brilliant conspiracy. i think it's worth saying this

is dominion's very, very aggressively argued motion, and it's very early they're putting all this stuff out and doing in the most embarrassing possible way without context to make fox look as bad as possible. not that hard to do that, but i do think that's important and that's obviously because they're trying to either give the jury the impression that, you know, to sort of set the case in public or to show fox how much worse this can get so they will settle. there's a level of legal gamemanship happening here. i think you'll see fox argue maybe some of our people are total lunatics who believe this, in which case it's not not malicious, they're just crazy, and the rest of us are running around trying to clean it up. >> do you think in terms of the legal strategy where does fox go? like, where do they go from here? >> they don't have great options, but i think the first thing they might do is say some

of the stuff on tv that was said was true. i think that is the first sense. i think what they might try to do is get as many legal issues as they can in front of the jury. they might try to get the jury excited about the first amendment and what this might mean if they are held liable. i think dominion's excellent legal team is going to try not to let those issues get in front of the jury, but that's one of them. another legal issue they might try to bring up is to say we just created a public square. we have to let everybody air out their views. >> including people who get their information from ghosts who are internally decapitated. >> and thask that's not the law. publishers can be libel if they knowingly broadcast things. fay might say $1.6 billion is a

stunt, you can't possibly have been damaged to that extent, but i wouldn't want to be on their legal team right now. none of these are really excellent strategies. >> i mean, yeah, it's $1.6 billion, am i right, everyone? that's a lot of money. do you think negotiating over settlements could be part of this in the end? >> to settle for them, for fox would mean to admit that they knowingly lied on-air over and over and over again, which is not a great, you know, business decision for them to make. so i don't quite see it going that way. i think they're going to do their best on the legal motions and in front of the jury. >> does that matter to the fox news audience? they're not covering this on fox. >> you see in how they talk, they have to show respect to their audience and the way you respect your audience is you

tell them whatever they want to hear true or false. you get pressure you always feel in media i think good journalists resist and i think they're totally committed to that, and they exist in this closed loop with some of their audience who actually think what "the new york times" reported that fox said, you know, in a black letter legal brief, that'll never make it to their audience. >> well, we are going to talk about it because there's more to come. >> we switched from tucker on this show. >> great to see you both. thank you for helping me uncover the truth behind ghost sources. appreciate it. still more to come tonight as we head down to florida for more of my trip to an embattled florida college where teachers are finding out what life under governor ron desantis is really like. then -- that as today desantis and his republican controlled legislature got to work advancing even more of his

agenda. we'll have all of that coming up for you next. agenda we'll have all of that coming up for you next ♪♪ ♪♪

get $1500 purchase allowance on a 2023 cadillac xt5 and xt6. ♪♪ visit your local cadillac dealer today. ♪ ...i'm over 45. ♪ ♪ i realize i'm no spring chicken. ♪ ♪ i know what's right for me. ♪ ♪ i've got a plan to which i'm sticking. ♪ ♪ my doc wrote me the script. ♪ ♪ box came by mail. ♪ ♪ showed up on friday. ♪ ♪ i screened with cologuard and did it my way! ♪ cologuard is a one-of-a kind way to screen for colon cancer that's effective and non-invasive. it's for people 45 plus at average risk, not high risk. false positive and negative results may occur. ask your provider for cologuard. ♪ (group) i did it my way! ♪

(male announcer) important information for viewers age 50 to 85. have you thought about getting life insurance to help your family with funeral expenses, but worried it would cost too much or that you wouldn't qualify? at colonial penn, we talk to men and women like you every day. and today i'd like to share three questions they often ask about our guaranteed whole life insurance. can i get this coverage on a fixed income? (jonathan) can you get this coverage on a fixed income? yes, you can. options start at $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. and the good news is they won't ever increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. i'm not in perfect health. can i get this coverage? (jonathan) can you get this coverage if you're not in perfect health? yes, you can. the truth is, you cannot be turned down for any reason. your acceptance is 100% guaranteed. we don't require a medical exam or ask a single health question. what if my health changes?

can i keep this coverage? (jonathan) can you keep this coverage if your health changes? yes, you can. the peace of mind this insurance provides can be yours for life. just pay your premiums and the policy cannot be cancelled for any reason. now, there's one question i'd like to ask you. are you ready to take the next step and help protect those you love? call the number on your screen to learn more.

we will stand strong, we will hold the line, we won't back down, and i can promise you this, you ain't seen nothing yet. thank you all. god bless you. >> this morning the florida

legislature launched its 2023 session with governor ron desantis' state of the state address. the governor rattled off his legislative accomplishments in the past year, preventing lifesaving vaccine mandates, shipping unknowing asylum seekers across the country, and giving parents the right to restrict teaching on race, sexual orientation, and history. a highlight reel, if you will. and the governor ended with the promise of war. today the statehouse and senate each with republican super majorities promptly got to work on the governor's new legislative agenda like a six-week abortion ban that was introduced this morning. it would ban the procedure before many people even know they're pregnant. it's far from the only item on this session's republican legislative agenda. there is a gun bill that would allow most floridians to carry a concealed firearm, a bill that would allow a judge to hand down a death sentence without a unanimous jury and a bill that would lower the bar to sue media

organizations for defamation. we're not sure of everything the legislature is working on, it's undeniable that the war on woke really is just getting started. the house today put forward a bill that would block the removal of confederate monuments. the governor signs that one, it will take effect in july. the legislature is also taking up a bevy of education bills including an expansion of the so-called don't say gay law, it would prohibit the zgs of sexual orientation through eight grade and a bill that prohibits college spending on diversity, equity, programs and eliminates majors and minors in subjects that are considered too woke. that last bill is one of the many desantis initiated changes that's made professors at new college in sarasota, extremely worried. last week i visited the public liberal arts school again in sarasota to speak to faculty about the way governor desantis

has been targeting their workplace using new college as a sort of trial run in his efforts to overhaul american education. what's the climate among the faculty? are you guys worried for your jobs? >> the faculty are trying to do what we can to navigate this, right? so we have some protections, and thankfully we have a faculty union, we have a collective bargaining agreement. not all faculty membervise the same amount of protections. >> right. >> but we are true to being professionals and trying to navigate the change in the best way that we can navigate the change. >> well orb it's certainly been, you know, stressful. it was i think a surprise at least to me, and just the speed with which everything has proceeded over the last month and a half has been a little bit shocking, and we're just in a moment of a lot of uncertainty. i think there's a really wide range of possible outcomes for the college in the next couple

of years, and it's just really not clear which outcome we're going to end up at. i'm optimistic that this could be a place that deserves the essence of what i love of what i love about the college. and in that case i want to stay here and be here for my students. >> the truth of the matter is it might not be up to me whether i stay or not. so what i'm doing is continuing to teach, be mindful of the law, of course, right? >> to have a teacher of a college say when i'm teaching i'm mindful of the law. i'm not saying teachers are above the law, but i think the idea there's a concern now in classrooms that you have to worry about the law and that what you saw may be, you know, used against you or the students or in some way the college -- >> that's very real. >> -- feels like a very new america. >> that is very real because we have different bills that have been passed in the state of florida. but absolutely, right, there's a

way in which there's an intrusion into the classroom in a way that we haven't seen before. >> people are taking books off their syllabus. >> people are taking books off their syllabi. people are shutting down program. people are not teaching certain classes. >> do you think you'll be able to teach in the way you have been? >> time tells, right? time will tell. >> the florida legislature officially introduced a bill that would end degrees in gender studies in the state of florida, it would dictate course curricula, take the hiring of faculty out of faculty hands and give governing boards the power to review the tenure status of college faculty at any moment in which they please. what are the implications of that legislation passing? >> when you put the curriculum in the hands of politicians and political appointees i think you're in trouble, and i think you weaken a system and again it's in the marketplace of other systems and so faculty will go

elsewhere. that's what it portends for the state system and i'm worried for the state system. >> it'll starve the state from teaching talent. >> i'm worried about the brain drain in florida. >> we'll have more on my trip to new college in the coming days. up next five women in texas decided to fight back today against laws that put their health and lives at risk. the details when we come back. k the details when we come back. the virus that causes shingles is sleeping... in 99% of people over 50. and it could strike at any time. think you're not at risk? wake up. because shingles could wake up in you. if you're over 50, talk to your doctor or pharmacist about shingles prevention.

if you have diabetes, then getting on the dexcom g6 if you're over 50, talk to your doctor is the single most important thing you can do.

it eliminates painful fingersticks, helps lower a1c, and it's covered by medicare. before dexcom g6, i was frustrated. all of that finger-pricking and all of that pain, my a1c was still stuck. my diabetes was out of control. i was tired. (female announcer) dexcom g6 sends your glucose numbers to your phone or receiver without painful fingersticks. the arrow shows the direction your glucose is heading: up, down, or steady, so you can make better decisions about food and activity in the moment. after using dexcom g6, my a1c has never been lower. i lead line dancing three times a week, i exercise, and i'm just living a great life now. it's so easy to use. dexcom g6 has given me confidence and control that everything i need is right there on my phone. (female announcer) dexcom g6 is the #1 recommended cgm system by doctors and patients. call now to get started. (bright music)

i cannot adequately put into words the trauma and despair that comes with waiting to either lose your own life, your child's life, or both. for days i was locked in this bizarre and avoidable hell. would willow's heart stop or would i deteriorate to the precinct of death? the answer arrived three very long days later. in a matter of minutes i went from being physically healthy to developing sepsis, a condition in which bacteria in the blood develops into an infection with the ability to kill in under an hour. i spent the next three days in the intensive care unit surrounded by my family who booked last minute flights because they feared for my life. i spent another three day in a less critical unit of the hospital all because i was

denied access to reasonable health care due to texas' new abortion bans. what i needed was an abortion, a standard medical procedure. >> that was the lead plaintiff who along with four other women has just filed a new lawsuit challenging texas' extreme abortion bans. the five women have one thing in common. they all sought out abortions in the state of texas because their pregnancies posed life threatening risk to either their own lives or that of their fetuses, and they were all denied that critical health care. and now this coalition of women is suing the state of texas in the first lawsuit of its kind since roe v. wade was overturned where pregnant people themselves are challenging the state's abortion ban. joining us now is the president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights, the organization that helped bring this lawsuit. nancy, thanks for being here tonight. i know you've had a very busy day. i'd love to just get to the sort of substance of this lawsuit

because you all -- the plaintiffs are not seeking to overturn texas' very extreme ban but instead looking to clarify that physicians can offer and leave or make exceptions in life threatening cases. can you talk to me a little bit about why you decided to pursue that route? >> yes, but before we talk about the law if i could just essay something about the four women who were there today, the five that have filed this lawsuit. you know, they never wanted to be in front of those mikes in front of the texas state capitol, but texas has caused this harm to them. they wanted to have healthy pregnancies. they didn't, and when their pregnancies had severe complicated, they were forced to undergo threats to their life and health. four of them had to leave the state of texas. amanda as you just heard went into sepsis because they would not give her care and that is because of the abortion ban in

the state of texas. so, yes, i will talk about the legal theory, but it was such an honor to be there with these brave women today as they stood up to a state that has, you know, imposed a 99-year prison sentence in the case of abortion. so what we are challenging here is that fact that you should be able to get medical care in the doctor's judgment when it is needed because you have a threat to your health or your life including a threat to your future fertility. you know, this is what these women had at risk as well, their health, their life, and their future fertility. and we're saying the emergency exception totally unclear right now in the state of texas has to be clear it is the doctor in consultation with a patient who is making that judgment. >> i absolutely want to focus on the stories of the women here who absolutely seem they would have standing given the harm

that was inflicted as you say not just on them, the unborn, but also their future selves, right, their ability to have children down the line if they choose to do that. can you talk a little bit about the genesis of this lawsuit? i mean i can imagine coming forward to have to share this story with anybody, but to have to be a lead plaintiff or any kind of plaintiff in such a nationally discussed lawsuit has got to be intimidating at best. how did these women come together to file this lawsuit? >> well, of course it's a hard decision to make and was considered for months. they've just been through pregnancy crises. they were mourning from those experiences and recovering, and it's not easy to take on the state of texas, but they decided to do so, and also in our complaint, which is, you know, 91 pages long, we also put in there the stories beyond the

five plaintiffs in this case. we put in the stories of other women in the state of texas who have gone into medical complications and been denied abortion care, in other states across the country, ohio, alabama, louisiana, and more. this isn't something that's just happening to these five women or just happening in the state of texas. it's happening across the country. because when states ban abortion care, they make every pregnancy a dangerous situation. >> it's so true. i think that politicians in the state of texas really miscalculated what was going to happen especially on public opinion once women started coming forward with their stories. do you think that this could actually sway some texas lawmakers into understanding how draconian this law is? >> you know, unfortunately they've not been listening. to date they could have fixed this, they could have clarified this. it's now march.

roe was reversed back in june. but it should. it should shock the conscience of every single one of those lawmakers in the state of texas who have enacted these blanket bans on abortion. i'll just say these women stories, this case is dealing with these particular stories of pregnancy complications, but really every person who's denied the right to an abortion in texas should have that right. >> it is a national problem even if we are focused on this specific group of women. president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights, thank you for your time tonight. thanks, nancy. >> thank you, alex. >> we'll be right back. , alex >> we'll be right back

(male announcer) important information for viewers age 50 to 85. have you thought about getting life insurance to help your family with funeral expenses, but worried it would cost too much or that you wouldn't qualify? at colonial penn, we talk to men and women like you every day. and today i'd like to share three questions they often ask about our guaranteed whole life insurance. can i get this coverage on a fixed income? (jonathan) can you get this coverage on a fixed income? yes, you can. options start at $9.95 a month. that's less than 35 cents a day. and the good news is they won't ever increase. a lifetime rate lock guarantees it. i'm not in perfect health.

can i get this coverage? (jonathan) can you get this coverage if you're not in perfect health? yes, you can. the truth is, you cannot be turned down for any reason. your acceptance is 100% guaranteed. we don't require a medical exam or ask a single health question. what if my health changes? can i keep this coverage? (jonathan) can you keep this coverage if your health changes? yes, you can. the peace of mind this insurance provides can be yours for life. just pay your premiums and the policy cannot be cancelled for any reason. now, there's one question i'd like to ask you. are you ready to take the next step and help protect those you love? call the number on your screen to learn more. (tony hawk) skating for over 45 years has taken a toll on my body. i take qunol turmeric because it helps with healthy joints and inflammation support. why qunol? it has superior absorption compared to regular turmeric.

qunol. the brand i trust.

that is the show for tonight. we'll see you again tomorrow. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. republican senators take a stand against sanitized coverage of january 6