court gave control of the embryos to bill but added to another couple over the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bilbao but good good ones of peel are argues these the embryos are human lives and lives. are we going to. be going to. let life old the side of dennis that's the real is this you really should. it is clear that it is clear that embryos are not treated as a not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative role as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy. we discuss this sensitive story with it's and the rights of privacy. we discussed this sensitive story with a former judge just of sack and also with women rights advocate reese everson a former judge just of sack and also with women rights advocate reese everson. i think they did it the right way in that is that if you let it think and say did it the once right way because when this thing gets inserted i mean this when this family or when these this couple went to the c

court can call for the embryos to be donated to another couple however the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bill barrow although goodwin's appeal argues the embryo have control of the embryos to build although goodwin's appeal argues the embryos are human lives. are we going to err on the seams our human lives. are we going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue here side of life all the side of death that's the real issue here it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal posen precisely for those concerns it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal posen precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy booms over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy when we discuss this sensitive story with a former judge joe sissoko and also with the women's rights but we discuss this sensitive story with a former judge joe sissoko and also with the women's rights advocate resurface i think they did it the right way because in this part

court gave control of the embryo be donated to another couple however the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bilbao but goodwin's appeal argues the embryos are human lives to bilbao but goodwin's appeal argues the embryos are human lives. are we going to err on the side of life all the side of death. are we going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue here it is clear that embryos are not yes that's the real issue here it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for pretreated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy. or earlier my colleague neal creative rights and the rights of privacy or earlier my colleague neil harvey discussed the story with former judge joseph's a koehler and women's rights act of act harvey discussed the story with former judge joseph's a koehler and women's rights act of act advocate reese everson. i think they did it the right way because in that ad

court gave control of the embryos to bilbao the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bilbao but goodwin's appeal argues the embryos are human lives but goodwin's appeal argues the embryos are human lives. and we're going to on the side of life all the side of death that's are we going to on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a lead the real issue. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights school person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy or we discuss this sensitive story with a former judge and the rights of privacy. well we discussed this sensitive story with a former judge josephs acoa and d'orsay with the women's rights advocate receptus josephs acoa and d'orsay with the women's rights advocate resets i think they did it the right way because in this particular instance when this family i think they did it the right way bec

court gave control bills to be donated to another couple but the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos and rose to put a bill bilbao about good that we're going to win since the pill bill that he'll though is arguing arguing the. human lives lost lives i mean you know it's going to on the side of soft light of my life if all the side of death that's the real issue here. it's all the side of death that's the real issue here. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over the embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy. we discussed this sensitive story with former judge joseph so colette and with women's rights we discuss this sensitive story with former judge joseph's a colette and with women's rights advocate resurfacing i think they did it the right way because in this particular it advocate resurfacing. i think they did it the right way because i

changed his mind and called for the embryos to be donated to another couple for the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bilbao goodwin appeal is arguing the embryos are court gave control of the embryos to bilbao goodwin appeal is arguing the embryos are human lives are we going to err on the some human lives are we going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue here i have life all the side of death that's the real issue here it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy owns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy and i discussed this sensitive story with a former judge joseph's a kohler and women and i discussed this sensitive story with a former judge joseph's a cola and women's rights advocate reese everson i think they did it the right way because in this particular instance when did barely know

husband changed his mind and called for the embryos to be donated to another couple hour the connecticut supreme court gave control of the embryos to bilbao goodwin's appeal argues ambrose our human lives on the hill argues ambrose our human lives are we going to end on the side of life old the side of dennis that's the real issue. on the side of life old the side of dennis that's the real issue. it's clear that embryos are not treated as a legal posts interest. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy we discuss this sensitive story with a former judge just have to see we discussed this sensitive story with a former judge just of sakwa and also with women's rights advocate reese everson i think and also with women's rights advocate reese everson. i think they did it the right way because in this particular instance when this family or when these this couple did it the right way beca

court gave control of the embryos to bilbao who wins appeal connecticut supremes court gave control of the embryos to bilbao who wins appeal argues the embryos are human lives but argues the embryos are human lives and we're going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue and we're going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal posts. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights and precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy that hawkins discussed the issue with the former judge joseph said of privacy and hawkins discussed the issue with the former judge josephs acoa and also women's rights advocate reserves . and also women's rights advocate 3 says. i think they did it the right way because in this particular instance when this family or when these i think they did it the right way because in this p

i mean, the justices let stand a landmark decision by the connecticut supreme court which said the familiessandy hook victims could sue remington, that's the manufacturer of the rifle that was used in the massacre. now, the gun industry had actually asked the justices to get involved saying it had broad immunity from these kind of lawsuits. so today's order, letting that lawsuit go forward, that was a big win for those families, norah. >> o'donnell: all right, jan, thank you. tonight, we are just hours from the first public impeachment hearings against president trump. and a new cbs news poll shows a deep divide on the issue. 43% of americans say the president should be impeached over his dealings with ukraine. 40% say no. 17% say it's too soon to tell. nancy cordes now on what we can expect from the first witnesses and how republicans plan to fight. >> reporter: this was a day for last-minute strategy sessions. >> it feels sober. there's a gravity to this that i simply can't exaggerate. >> reporter: the two witnesses testifying tomorrow have a combined 51 years in foreign service. ambassad

court's decision not to take up the case lets stand the connecticut supreme court's decision to allow the family's lawsuit to move forward. and in more legal news, a federal court in boston has ruled u.s. authorities warrantless searches of people's phones and computers at airports and other u.s. ports of entry violates the fourth amendment. the american civil liberties union and the electronic frontier foundation, which filed the suit, celebrated the ruling as a victory for privacy rights. in more privacy news, the health and human services department has opened a federal inquiry into google's "project nightingale" program, which seeks to collect health dadata n mimillions of americans. project nightingale is a collaboration between google and ascension, the second-largest healthcare provider in the united states. in a video posted online, a whistleblower who works with the program says the cache of medical data includes the full names and medical details of millions of americans. newly released government data shows the u.s. government has detained a record number of migran

canet and change his mind and call for the embryos to be donated to another couple over the connecticut supreme court priem gamecock in watergate can touch of the embryos to bill bill but. goodwin goodwin's of pigs appeal argue argues that he has the embryos are human lives. are he in a lot lives. are we going to err on the side of life all the side of death that's the real issue. of life all the side of death that's the real issue here it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy urns over what that would mean for procreative rights and the rights of privacy. are discussed the sense this story with former judge josephs of color and with women's i discussed the sense this story with former judge josephs of color and with women's rights advocate. reese as. i think they did it the right way because if it didn't it's for the writing that way because in this particular if you look at our instance

donated a to eat enough to another couple called couple ever however the connecticut supremes supreme court gave control of the. 2 people back to your bag wins. and use the human embryos are human lives. not. part of life. i'm going to on the side of life all this all i do that's the real issue. it is. it is clear that embryos are not treated as a legal person precisely fully or that's. not a good as a legal person precisely for those concerns over what that would mean what the. rights of rights and the rights of proof are of a sissy. we discussed this sensitive story with the former judge josephs acoa and also. with the former judge josephs acoa and also with women's rights advocate that we have a system. i think they did they did it the right the right way because in this in for this particular in stick and killer instance when what is this family's pm little window when these east this is the couple quick up to went to the clinic to mimic to you know do cho fertilization to show genuine they throw 1st subtle lines a ship into the side of the caribbean track to green who wants to de

the connecticut state court ruled this could, proce this lawsuit could proceedptnder that exn to federal law. now the supreme has said that the lawsuit in connecticut can go ahead by not hearing the case appeal. william: help me understand, walk me through the argument as it follows through. the families argue thatse t hyper-macho masculine ads the mpany was running somehow entices people who are violent minded to buy the weapons, andth that is someho problem? robert: it extols the weapon's destructive capabilities. there is a great deal of firepower that the companies, the weapon like, the ar- is a semiautomatic weapon but it can receive large capacity magazines. you can fire many rounds. medical professionals will tell more harm use even the human body than other kinds of firearms. this kind of invocation, litigants argue, constitutes a threat because the, appeal these weapons are so destructive. therefore, this is a violation of what they call in the connecticut law negligent entrustment. that breach, that claim is the center of the lawsuit. william: the supremeemourt deniedgton's appeal which means the c

be subject to prosecution, and the connecticut state court ruled that this could prowceed, this suit could proceed under that exception in the fedel law. now supreme court has said that the lawsuit in connecticut can go ahead by not heanghe case appeal. >> brangha back to this issue of these ads, help me understand. walk me through th fargument as llows through some the families are arguing that these the company was rning somehow entices people who are violent-minded to buy these weapons and that tha somehow the problem? >> well, it extols e eapon's destructive capability, and certainly there is a great deal of firepower that accompanies al weape the ar-15. it is a semi-automatic weapon, but it can receive large capacity magazines. rounds. fire off a great many medical professionals will tell you that they cause even more harm to the human bny tha other kinds of firearms. and this kind of invocation the litigantare arguing constitutes an actual threat, precisely becae the appeal is, oh, these weapons are so destructive, ad therefore this is a violation of what they call in the connecticut law "negligent entrustment."t that breech, taim is the cen

you represent connecticut, of course. the supremet by the sandy hook families. that means the families of those killed in that unspeakable 2012 school shooting, they get to move forward that claims remington's marketing that inspired that gunman to carry out the shooting. what does that mean going forward? what does it mean for the sandy hook community? >> the parents and loved ones of the 20 beautiful children and six great educators who were killed in sandy hook are bringing this action against the gun manufacturer, saying they promoted negligently and illegally these assault weapons. their only person is to kill and maim human beings. they've encountered an obstacle. it's a pretty unique obstacle that almost gives xlo s complet immunity. guns have this kind of immunity. it's the result of a statute, sweetheart deal with the gun manufacturers. i've introduced legislation that would appeal it. these families are in court seeking very simply access to the justice system and the manufacturers are invoking this statute. our connecticut

that was actually the united states supreme court's decision to let stand the connecticut supreme court'shook victims could sue remington for making the ar-15 and the -- you know, washington has tried for many years to shield gun makers from any liability for negligence or anything else. this is an extraordinarily important decision for several reasons. one, gun makers can't operate with reckless abandon anymore. they actually have to be responsible in the products that they make and be responsible for damages that come from those products. secondly, it also tips the hand of what the united states supreme court thinks about military style assault weapons. there has been an argument among extreme -- extreme second amendment supporters that somehow the supreme court is ready to push heller forward, heller which protects people having handguns in their homes and shotguns, that that will be pushed to military style assault rifles. there's nothing to suggest that and, in fact, this ruling yesterday, willie does just the opposite. you don't allow a decision to go forward that would lead to liab

supreme court? it's allowing the movement in connecticut where sandy hook families are holding the makers of bushmaster, remington, liable for the gun used in the shooting at that school. >> i'm glad that the sandy hook families are going to get their day in court. it's an abomination that in the 2000s at the height of the nra's power they got a law passed through congress that effectively protected the gun industry from liability. today if you make a toy gun, you have more product liability than if you make a real gun. the sandy hook families have found a way to court, the supreme court is allowing the lawsuit to go forward. maybe the makers of these assault weapons are going to be finally held accountable in a court of law. >> if 90% of the american public supports a background check bill and that is not taken up in the senate, do you think that that alone along with the shootings we've seen, will be enough for the voters it to change the balance of power in the senate in 2020? >> i mean, you saw about 30 seats change hands from republicans that were a rated by the nra to democrats who are voting for

connecticut school. the family koss go forward and this could have huge financial implications for gun manufacturers. cnn supremeeporter ariane de vogue is with me on this case. what happens today, what are the next steps? >> interesting. as you said the supreme court dealt a lot with the gun manufacturers and all they did deny an appeal. they didn't take up particular appeal. so that means this unusual lawsuit can go forward in the lower courts. let me tell you a little about it, because it is brought by family members and victims of sandy hook, and they're trying to hold the arms manufacturer responsible. as things stand, federal law prohibits them bringing a wrongful death lawsuit against the gun manufacturer. so it looks like they're trying to find a new way to get at this problem, and what they did is they're attacking the gun manufacturers marketing strategy. they said that the gun was marketed sort of with extolling its military qualities, and they said that goes against a state law having to do with marketing. so the lower courts are allowing this to proceed and remington raised to the supreme court to t

this horrific tragedy in connecticut, to understand how things like this happened which will always be known for this. a history of americans is being written tonight. the supremehis country heard arguments. it's happened after four campaigns of promising to enter a presidential campaign, donald trump has made the leap at least into the first debate. the election is of course and donald trump will be the next president of the united states. proving all the polls wrong trump racked up victories in states like pennsylvania, wisconsin, ohio, and florida. well, today was a day of history. the country's top investigator of an american president shifted the verdict on the president's guilt or innocence to the u.s. congress. as i said earlier in the show the question now is to impeach or not to impeach? today the united states speaker of the house made the decision to initiate impeachment proceedings against the president. and that's "hardball" for now. thanks for being with us all these years. "all in" with chris hayes starts right now. >>> tonight on "all in." >> in the best interest of my client to unravel the corruption in ukraine. >> rudy giuliani's quote campaig

will be heard a couple blocks down, at the supreme court that involves sexual orientation and gender identity, and as you know two female runners in connecticut have filed a complaint with the eoc about gender identity issues with sports, now my daughter is an all american division one athlete, i have talked to her about this issue, she cannot understand how you can possibly have come pleading with women in a medical sport like this. so let's talk about research, a lot of times you said it's important you study men and we study women, so it is a very simple question, if you have a transgender woman would like to participate in a study, are they going to be assigned to the man or the woman, and doctor collins the first question is to you because sex is genetically determined, that is what i learned in medical, school maybe i'm wrong, gender may be different but when you are doing this research is it sex or gender that is important, where are the differences in how would you do that? and in fact if you were to say i'm not gonna a sign that person, is in that gonna be discrimination, where does this stand at the nih? >> very important issue and