in roe v. wade, the u.s. supreme court said we're going to base it on the concept of viability, survivability of the fetus as to an individual's right when it comes to making this decision as opposed to society's right or responsibility. and there have been a lot of debate over the years as to whether that roe v. wade decision was right or wrong. we've seen a lot of different efforts to change it, some successful, some not. and we've seen subsequent supreme court cases which redefine roe v. wade as well. now we have a group that believes that they can move forward on this in the state of georgia and the state of alabama. and what they've proposed is much different than what we had accepted as the norm for decad decades. they've eliminated, for example, any exceptions for rape and incest. most people understand that victims of rape and incest should be viewed differently as others, but in the state of alabama they eliminated those exceptions in the law that they just passed. why are they doing that now when fe

since roe v. wade. republicans and conservatives in particular have taken pages from the liberal activist playbook in order to make abortion and other social issues but we are obviously talking about abortion here, front and center for voters. this alabama issue and the way it's going to wind its way thereupon -- up through the federal courts could change that. getting gorsuch on the court, getting kavanaugh is something people understand. they know. it's not going to be a reality until they see it moving through the courts and have a real threat to people for whom the idea of having the option to have a legal abortion is fundamental to their rights. i believe it could change the discussion and the discourse in the 2020 election. >> some people arguing against this law in alabama were trying to put a human face on it, keep it from being a scholarly or legal discussion here. but just a discussion about lives. remember, this law bans abortion in the case of rape and incest. listen to this exchange, david.

laws that don't go exactly at roe v. wade.tance, at the supreme court right now, there's about three petitions pending. and those directs aren't directly challenging roe. one has to do with an indiana law that says you have to bury or cremate fetal remains. another is a louisiana law that says that doctors have to have admitting privileges. these are seemingly more innocuous, but critics say that what they're seeing is courts and maybe the supreme court beginning to chip away at abortion rights, before getting to roe v. wade. >> how quickly could all of this be decided by the supreme court? >> el, that's what's interesting. here you have john roberts trying to keep the supreme court out of the fray. he's sitting on these particular petitions and maybe trying to slow walk even these less-restrictive law. but just earlier this week, we had an interesting occasion, there was another opinion that came out, having nothing to do with abortion. but the majority, the conservatives on the court overturned some 40-year-old precedent in

and roe vs wade would be one of the litmus tests? >> i do.ll changed all the rules when it comes to appointing justices. when mitch mcconnell decided president obama was not entitled to his supreme court justice, where merrick garland was denied a hearing and a vote, they changed the rules. president trump made clear he's had a litmus test. frankly, i believe in precedent, settled law. this is not just some regulatory issue. this is a basic fundamental human right of every female in this country. and you are telling them that men in legislatures across america should get to decide when they have children, how many they have, and what types of health care they may have access to. we are rolling back the clock decades. if they were doing this on any other issue, you would see a ground swell of outrage. i'm telling you, women have been marching against this president since he was inaugurated. global women's marches. for years now. you saw women turn up to the polls in 2018, flipping the house of representatives because bold women ran across this

ironically, justice ginsburg auid that roe v.might've been a mistake b states were moving towards pro-choice laws, and when the supreme court intervened there was a rollback. so my assumpon is that the vast majority of states will continue to protect abortion. jane: jonathan turley, thank you very much for joining me. it has been six months since a peace deal for yemen was reached in stockholm, and some of the measures in thbe agreement has implemented. the u.n. says the pullout of ee key forces from t ports on the west coast of yemen has been carried out, but a lot more work needs to be done our chief international correspondse doucet reports. lyse: the houthis say they have left. their fighters filmed as they piled into pickups at ports on yemen's west coast. the pullout took four days. the first step towards peace after four years of war. now the coast guard is in charge of t ports. it will run this lifeline with the u.n. almost all of yemen's imports come through here, vital for a nation on the brink of famine. today at the s

roe. we must do more to address the epidemic of suicide among veterans in this country and we can start by ensuring all service members have the mental health support they need. currently most national forward, coast guard and reserve members are precluded from receiving readjustment counseling services at vet centers. guardsmen and reservists often face channel degree employments to natural disasters, drug interdiction missions, national emergencies or civil disorders that can have serious mental health consequences. this bipartisan legislation is an important step in closing the mental health care gap for those service members who compose four of the 0 veteran suicides we see each day in this country. . as we continue to see veterans turn to suicides, often on the guards of v.a. facilities, we must have an all hands on deck approach, and this bill can play a critical role in this effort. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. the gentleman from california. mr. t

enshrining roe v. wade.that in congress bypassing a bill that protects women's reproductive rights and make that the federal law of the land. >> you are running for president and there's politics here. the supreme court did use this to overturn roe before the presidential campaign, do you think that would help the democratic nominee, whoever it would be? >> there are issues that i will not look at through a lens. regardless of what i was doing. i think we have an obligation to just think very fundamentally. does a woman have the right to control her body or do politicians have to dictate to her? do you know how extreme this is? it says in the cases of rape and incest, that a woman, it is still illegal for a doctor to perform an abortion. so this is outrageous. an assault on human rights, human dignity. freedom to control your body, which has been a fight going on from the founding of this country. and i cannot in any way sit comfortably while this is going on. and this is a time in american history that mand

roe v. wade? >> i am concerned. i think some states have done a better job than others in terms of how they made contraception and reproductive choices available. they want to make sure that any kind of right is cemented and that could be by court or legislation. right now you have a situation where you are not even in that territory because you have got a republican party that is basically trying to reverse roe v. wade for the purpose of banning abortion. that's clear by the cases that they are setting up and the bills they are passing. we have to look at this as the reality. we have been trying to talk about the nuances of this. the reality is what we saw today with that bill that was signed into law in alabama that takes away completely a woman's right to choose. this is no longer nuances about third term or what they are trying to say. no, no, no. they did it in georgia with the six weeks and they did it in alabama. >> thank you very much. amy klobuchar of minnesota running for president. many other 2020 democra

that's significant what it could mean for roe vs wade. terry collins makes no bones about it, called it a direct attack onhe 1973 u.s. supreme court ruling. she says it is about challenging the decision, protecting lives of the unborn. a message shared by other republicans in the state senate. >> a life is a life and even if it is in very difficult situations, that life is still precious. life is a gift of our creator, and we must do everything that we can to protect life. >> you might imagine, he is one of the people that voted for the bill, one of the men that voted for the bill. only men voted to support the bill, it is not sitting well with democrats in the alabama state senate taking issue with the 25 men in all. here is one of the opponents of the bill. >> republicans, y'all, you guys used to say we want the government out of our life. we want them out of our business. we want them out of our bedroom. now you in my womb. i want you out. you don't control this. you don't own this. >> does seem to be heading toward a showdown in the s

they want to keep roe? sign this resolution, and we can get a majority and get it on the floor of the senate. we're going to put heat on them. and the good news is there were 400 demonstrations across america to preserve roe. the women of america are outraged that this hard right group, the federalist society is running the courts at donald trump and all our republican senate colleagues' behest. and leonard leo, the founder of the federalist society's goal is to repeal roe. america is rising up. they will feel the heat. they will feel the heat ahead of time, and they feel the heat in 2020. they have made this issue an issue that americans now are roused about because they see the danger. once they got five justices on the supreme court who are anti-choice, the hard right pushed in the legislatures, and now america sees that roe is actually in danger. >> do you think that the supreme court, when they get whichever one of these laws they choose, when they get the chance, do you think that within the next year

we'll never get a heartbeat bill until roe v.ople are concerned the court is ready to overturn the decision that was made more than 40 years ago. >> the chinese government is leaving the door open for more talks. >> we are having a little squabble. i think it will turn out well. >> this is coming down to can these two individuals get in a room and cut a deal? i'm not optimistic about it >> donald trump, jr., agreeing to sit down to be questioned. >> this is a significant change. there is a question of what the interview will look like >> he testified under oath. if i were his lawyer i wouldn't put him back in this circus. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> good morning. welcome to your "new day." overnight a milestone in the battle over abortion. alabama lawmakers passed the strictest anti-abortion bill in the country, effectively banning abortion there. what makes the law important is it was specifically designed to push the supreme court to reconsider roe v. wade, the landmark 1973 case tha

they are saying we know thesef laws are in cct with roe. n did this because we want you to overte flatley once and for all. >> the supreme courted when they had this option in front of them have been careful to thread a needle and not try to challenge the overall right flat out. why the qf dense now-- confidence now when you have f tks frmy laren to pat robertson saying these laws are tooextreme as ty are written today. >> two word, brett kavnaugh. the antiabortion folks think they have a five vote majority on the coulter. now that kavanaugh has replaced justice kennedy to yefer turn roe. the only justice who explicitlyt said i w to overturn roe is cearence thomas but reading what some of the jussaid in the past, they believe they now have the votes to at least have a plausible chance not just to accommodate roe with restrictions but flatley overturn it and this five majority in the past has been fairly willing, if not eagero overturn other long-standing precedents in favor of policy decisions they prefer. s enivasan: and there was a case j

then we will look at a post-roe america would look like. the president trump overhauling the nation's immigration system to favor high skilled workers over i immigrantnts who hahave y ties to the united states. preses. trump: demococrats are proposing open borders, lower wages, and, frankly, lawless chaos. we're proposing an imimmigration planan that puputs the j jobs, , and safety of amameric workers first. amy: we will speak with two immigran r right activists who faceced possible deportation due to theirir activism. all that and more, coming up. wewelcome e to demococracy now!, democracynow.org, the war and peace report. i'm amy goodman. president trump has unveiled plans for a new so-called merit-based immigration system that would prioritize highly-skilled and english-speaking workers, while further restricting asylum seekers and immigrants who have family living in the united states. trump announced his plan in the white house rose garden thursday. pres. trump: my plan expedites relieve for legitimate asylum-seekers by y screening ot

or against roe?ition. and the pressure will mount from the states. now these senators who could control what happens are hypocrites. why? some of them have said they don't agree with the alabama decision. they don't agree with the georgia legislation. that's with the one hand. and with the other hand, they vote every time for judges whose goal it is to overturn roe. i just want to read this to you, rachel. voted for leonard, they voted for amy cohen barrett who said roe was erroneously decided and called the birth control provisions an assault on religious. wendy vitor says planned parenthood killed 150,000 people and contraceptives kill people. and they just voted on steven clark, and he said roe v. wade and dred scott were similarly awfully decided cases. we are putting the heat on them. hypocrites. oh, you don't agree with the court legislation? you don't agree with the georgia legislation? then why are you voting for judges that do it? and then we are asking them where will they sign this resolut

they believe ultimately overturn roe v. wade, the 1973 decision that gave women the constitutional right to choose to end a pregnancy. i did an interview with her a short time ago about her believes in this bill, about the support and this is what she had to say. >> in the last few years, i have carried a heartbeat bill. but what i have seen in the nation is that no legislation is is making it to the courts because of the roe v. wade decision. >> what that i camakes this dec? >> baby in the womb is not a person. this bill is the reasoning that was behind the decision made in roe v. wade. and so we believe in alabama that baby in the womb is a person. that's a part of our life. >> reporter: unlike those cases that you mentioned that are being challenged as early as today by lawsuits filed by the likes of the aclu, here in alabama, they defined the moment that an abortion would be illegal when a woman learns that she is pregnant. so that could be weeks into a pregnancy, months into a pregnancy. by not having that fetal heartb

board and roe v.ous cases that involve the constitution living up to its promise of equality to all people and they involve an actist lawyer model in the middle of the last century that the conservative legal movement has spent its entire tenure trying to undo. both are in the cross hairs. >> it's very interesting that, you know, senator richard blumenthal, michael, is saying that he believes that these nominees are being instructed by the trump administration to avoid that question. but, you know, is it an open question right now as to whether trump judicial nominees feel bound by precedent even in very well established cases like brown v. board and roe v. wade? >> well, i think they're suggesting that they're not. they should be. we have a principle called starry decisis. most justices, including chief justice john roberts, seem to appreciate that principle, they've talked about being an institutionalist and respecting the court, respecting the precedent. but it seems like some of these nominees wan

the chiefjustice roe vs wade would fall into that. chiefjustice had made an effort to make this court more consensual, overturning roe vs wade it would be a very dramatic thing, it would be a thing that the court —— the roberts court would be known for, does he wa nt court would be known for, does he want that? he was in no majority at this week. he is not a hearing to presidents for president sake. we have to respect our prior courts. you could be the deciding vote with kennedy gone, we willjust have to see where that land. legally, it is arguably on shaky ground in terms of the right itself. so the court could go either way. thank you forjoining us. go either way. thank you forjoining us. were, thank this does not mean that abortion would be totally banned in the us but it would become more limited. more democratic states, california, new york states would be the states that would allow abortion and you would have to tell to the states to get one. so not a total reverse but a slow stomach it seems to me this has the potential to inf

supreme court decides that roe v wade needs to be overturned you know obviously if the u.s. supreme court decides that women in this country no longer have the right to make reproductive health decisions it's a major change for the worse for women in the united states we are going to fight to ensure that that does not happen we've had 50 years of a recognized right in this country for women to make those decisions for themselves with their doctors and with their family and this supreme court even with this change composition we think we'll recognize that this you know this development is not something that was predicted when donald trump won the presidency it's really it's been almost a sleeper event that has now erupted but he has been spending the past 2 years packing the court with conservative judges as well as 2 supreme court judges i mean that's where the power is at the end of the day you really do you don't have anything to contest that if you did you see this coming. i think those of us who care deeply about women's rights and reproductive choice have been worried a

incremental decisions and offering hints at roe is not long for this world and getting rid of roe slowlyre like a death of uta thousand. >> nawaz: any sense of a time line of when that could happen? >> we don't knowco. id start soon, or the court might want the stay out of abortion altogether.s i would gun the next five years, but it's unpredictable. it's possible the c courtld uphold a law like the alabama law. i wouldn't put opinion ont t, 's not out of the question. i think we're looking at a series of judicial conditions over a number years, not something that would happen in gle next 12 months. >> nawaz: mary zi of florida panhandle, anne galloway from vermont's "vt digger" and brian lyman, thank you for being here. >> thank you. >da> nawaz: and an on this story: moments ago, alabama governor kay ivey signed the abortion bill into law.ay >> nawaz: st with us, coming aw on the newshour: 44 states file ait against the leading generic drugmaker over price inflation. and why a few minutes of music can be a useful tool to calm students. there's no lack of images and powerful video when i

on the one hand, missouri is acknowledging, we know this is unconstitutional under roe and roe will have to be overturned in order for it to come into effect. that's descriptively true. on the other hand, legislatures are not supposed to pass laws under existing law. some supreme court justices might hold that by itself raises constitutional questions. other justices would say, well, everyone is allowed to say that roe v. wade -- roe is wrong and therefore they can impose this condition, but i haven't seen it before, either. and it poses novel and interesting new legal and constitutional questions. >> i suspect that means you'll be back for more of this conversation. jeff, always a pleasure to see you. jeffrey rosen is president and ceo of the national constitution center and a professor at the george washington university law school. >>> coming up, house judiciary committee chairman jerry nadler says president trump is making it impossible to rule out impeachment. we're going to hear more from him after the break. you're watching msnbc. him after the break. you're watching msnbc. i got

i think it is well within our concern to think that roe v. wade could be ovoverturned in te nenext several years. amy: we're going to end with a video that went viral just a few months ago. it is georgia democratic state senator jen jordan speaking against the abortion ban on the georgia state senate floor in march. times of myok is life have occurred in ththe prpresence of an with mymy physician. i have been pregnant 10 times. i have seen what many of you in your have called a heartbeat 10 times. but i've only given birth twice. i have lost seven pregnancies at varying points of times. one after five months. her name was juliet. i have laid on the cold examination table w while the doctor desperately looked for a heartbeat. i have been escorted out the back door of my physician's office so as to not upset the other pregnant women in the waiting area. my grief on full display and uncontainable. i have been on my knees time after time in prayer to my god about my losses. i have loved each and every single one of those potential lives, and my h

anti choice, trump legislatures that are driving this to overturn roe. i think what's most important here is the number you started with. 79% of americans believe that roe v wade should stand as law of the land as it is today, and so for the moment of galvanizing, i believe what happened yesterday in alabama, what happened last week in georgia has ignited a new fire across this country in so many women and men who care very, very deeply about this and want to ensure that women have access to reproductive justice. they are trying to ban abortion completely. that is not where the american people are and i do think this will be a major issue in the 2020 election and we're talking about election that i believe could be an electorate of 54% women and i think we're going to see higher turnout over this. here is the bigger point. it not just about politics. women are getting hurt. right now in states where there is barely any access already and we have to really think about the policy makers sitting at our decision making tables making these laws and it's for u

by it i mean roe v. wade and planned parenthood versus casey and reaffirmed many times, casey is precedent on precedent which itself is an important factor. >> so to me i listen to what they say and it sounds purely descriptive. it is quite clear you had donald trump promising explicitly during the campaign that he would appoint supreme court justices that would overturn roe v. wade and the precedent planned parenthood versus cavanaugh is the case that was referred to. this is what was promised to the babe so we're going to believe they're going to turn around and not do that when, in fact, these are the signals they had to give to be nominated, both gorsuch and kavanaugh and down the line you're constantly seeing the supreme court overturn precedent and that just what happened too led breyer to cite an abortion case where he didn't have. to he was sending a signal, look, today the supreme court is overturning a precedent. it already has overturned precedent when it comes to labor unions and voting right

it's the most restricted since roe versus wade was passed.t would criminalize doctors for up to 99 years in jail. no exception for race or incest and put the doctor that's performing abortion care, which is health care in for jail longer than the rapist. make no mistake that this is part of a koords nate coordinato have one objective which is to ban all safe, legal abortion and the consequence is women's health. alabama, missouri, georgia have some of the worth health out comes for women already in the country. alabama, highest rate of cervical cancer. missouri, a thousands percent increase in syphilis. these politicians should not be calling themselves pro-life when they are doing everything they can to take away access to health care for women and families in their own states. we'll get into whether or not that is intention to get to the supreme court to undermine that. we're talking about really stopping legal abortions and forcing women to go as they had to go when i was a kid to illegal means which is a threat to their health and leads t

bakers hope the law could leave to the over turn of roe v.us outrage after alabama passes a law essentially banning abortions by penalizeing the doctors who perform them. it cleared the senate 25-6 making it a class a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion at any time. many are hoping they challenge it in open court hoping to put it in supreme court. >> it's designed to be just that. we were trying to keep it just as it was which is direct the issue that roe v. wade was decided on. >> reporter: even some democrats are willing to roll the dice believeing the courts will strike down the measure without touching roe v. wade. >> i think the bill has too many flaws in it. maybe it's the best thing it goes up there. >> reporter: the issue is sure to permiate the 2020 election cycle. kamala hair vice calling out republicans for inconsistency when it comes to women's health. >> the same kind of people who stand in the way of what women need to have access to issues like prenatal care. >> for more on this issue we're joined now by a professor of l

it's an extreme law and they want to challenge roe v.e, but my humble view is that this is not the case we want to bring to the supreme court because i think this one will lose. >> now, it's important to remember what's at stake. in 1972, the year before roe, 39 women died from illegal or self-induced procedures. that's the reality that people are afraid of going back to, back alleys, desperate days potentially as more than a dozen states try to further curtail access and opportunity when it comes to reproductive rights. as much as we may like to think that the courts are not political, elections have consequences. this president has been appointing federal judges at a record pace in the process the right managed to reshape american courts. now, that's why laws that seek to further restrict access rather than outright almost ban abortion like the alabama law may now have a chance of actually getting through the district courts, maybe even the appellate courts. but, again, going all-in like we're seeing in alabama, that is likely an overr

but roe stands -- as long as roe stands, you can't do anything nearly as blunt as what they're passingthese states, clearly. >> absolutely right. the lower courts have to follow. >> they're constrained by that precedent. >> absolutely. we're challenging a 15-week ban in mississippi. the trial judge was outraged that the mississippi legislature had even done this and that they have to follow the law. only the supreme court can reconsider roe versus wade. >> okay. and so they think they can get the supreme court to reconsider roe versus wade with these extreme laws. what do you make of their logic? >> i mean they've been encouraged by the president who said he was going to put justices on the court who would overturn roe versus wade. but you know, roe versus wade is not a standalone case. it stands after 50 years and 50 years beyond it of the protections of personal liberty under the constitution. these personal decisions about our family. i think that the court has again and again since roe versus wade reaffirmed that core right for women like other people in the united states to make t

wade right now. >> in other words, roe v.e is more threatened by accessibility issues like the louisiana law, than the alabama law which probably -- alabama runs so afoul of roe versus wade, that i believe will be ruleden constitutional through the appellate process. and the court will deny the opportunity to get involved. meanwhile, the other issues that you're raising they may effectively strike roe versus wade through other means? >> you're absolutely right, michael. and these restrictions on access will have the greatest access on poor women. right now, abortions are not meaningful available in states passing these laws. louisiana and so forth. clinics will close and it will be harder for poor women to get abortion. women of means can already go to other states in those areas. but the slow chipping away at roe will have serious implications for reproductive rights and access. but the core right in roe, mainly to choose abortion before fetal viability. >> 13 years ago for "the mraeptsmraepts plante iplantic" you wrote, the

by it, i mean roe v.nd planned parenthood versus casey. >> do you view roe as having super precedent? >> well, senator, super precedent -- >> in numbers. 44 -- >> it has been reaffirmed many times. i can say that. >> yes. >> yes, dozens. >> and there is nothing in my personal views based on phat or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the courts under principles of stare decisis. >> if you listen to that, then roe is not at risk, but there are risks in listening to that. >> don't just listen to what they say, watch what they do. i'll use brett kavanaugh as an example and i'll say something about the chief. brett kavanaugh, before he said that at the senate confirmation hearings, had voted on the d.c. circuit to roll back abortion rights. he was in dissent, but he essentially took a very, very narrow view of roe v. wade. so that's why i say, watch what they do along the way. now, the chief justice, who has never cast a vote in support of abortion rights is now in this new pos

: but national polls show 70% of americans don't want roe versus wade overturned. one in four american women have had an abortion before the age of 45. in recent days, some hollywood actresses started sharing stories of their abortions, using #you know me. >> it's horrifying that we're in a place in our country today that i could be even talking about this. >> reporter: milla, famous for movies like "resident evil", and "the fifth element", posted her story on instagram yesterday, describing how she had an emergency abortion two years ago. >> abortion is a horrible experience. and if we can ease that experience for women in this nation, in any way, to ease the trauma, we need to be able to do that. we need to have them be in safe circumstances, where they feel that they're getting the best help possible. >> reporter: statistics show that the vast majority of women getting abortions are already mothers. nearly half live under the poverty line. >> i truly believe that is her constitutional right. and we can't move backwards, and we can't allow men to tell us what to

. >> we will never get a heartbeat bill until roe v. wade is reversed. >> this is a court that is ready to overturn the decision made almost 40 years ago. >> we are having a little squabble with china, we've been treated with he unfairly. >> farmers in the midwest have been hurt they hard. i am not in agreement with that he's willing to take these risks. >> nobody wants tariffs. >> sometimes it's a necessary resort. >>> after days of push back, donald trump jr. will come in in mid-june. >> they want him to testify again. i have no idea why. it seems very unfair to me. >> you will see members of the committee want to get to the heart of the matter about the june 9th meeting at trump tower. >> announcer: this is "new day" with alisyn camerota and john berman. >> and good morning everyone. welcome to your new day, it is wednesday, may 15th, 8:00 now in the east. we begin with breaking news. the most restrictive abortion bill in the country just passed in alabama. the state's lawmakers effectively banned abortion making virtually every sing

roe v.on safety board is investigating the cause of the crash. the coast guard responded to yesterday's crash after a cessna aircraft went down into the water. >> alabama public television is banning an arthur episode because it depicts a same sex wedding. >> they have one point, kids who watch arthur are too young to learn about weddings. well, kids, when two people love each other very much, they make all of their friends fly to nantucket, but then get on a bus to go to some lilac field to take an hour's worth of pictures that may make each other wear full suits and gowns in summer and get drunk in a barn full of mason jar lights. >>> i'm anthony mace within gayle king and tony dokoupil. the largest processing facility for migrants along our southern border has stopped taking in detainees for now because of fears of a serious flu outbreak. the 16-year-old from guatemala carlos gregorio hernandez vasquez died monday after coming down with the flu. he had been processed at that facility in m

a vehicle to get this law and tissue of roe v wade before the supreme court. it's unenforceable because a lower federal district court will follow roe v wade and its following cases like planned parenthood v casey that holds a law like this would place an undue burden on the right to dhoorks right to choose an abortion. for that reason to law will either be struck down or an injunction issued or something to prevent it from going into effect. the only court that does not have to follow roe v wade and its following cases is the supreme court. the supreme court can choose whether or not to apply sta stare decisis and choate down roe v wade. >> justice roberts cares deeply about the reputation of the court. could he be a bullwa rx against this? >> not the underlying justification, even people on both sides of the argument will concede roe v wade stands on shaky legal justification. so while yon roberts has indicated that he may let precedent stand, there are occasions where precedent should not stand. if the social mores or customs or understanding of people's ri

the whole showdown is over whether roe v. wade will stand.w signs that donald trump's business empire is struggling because of its association with the trump name. so we'll get into all of that. we begin

if you like roe and you like the outcome of roe, you should hate row. has kept pro-abortion advocates wondering if this could be overturned. it can be overturned. >> as you mentioned, you're in georgia, where a fetal heartbeat bill was passed. it's not as restrictive as alabama's. do you think other vorgss of alabama's bill would be able to overturn roe v. wade? >> i don't think we see roe v. wade being overturned. i think the lower courts will strike down the laws. they're unconstitutional. the lower courts will be striking down these laws. and i don't think we're going to see the supreme court deciding to actually hear these. i think they let the lower courcour courts decide it. they decide they're unconstitutional. then, it will be, are we going to abide by the laws? >> ashleigh, thank you both. >>> we're getting started on this sunday. at the top of the hour, it's "up with david gura." and david has a look at what's coming up. >>> we're going to be joined by another contender for the presidential contention. bill de blasio has faced criticism for jo

and violate roe.the strategy they are pursuing in terms of the legal fight here? >> well, you know, i think clearly they kind of mistook the tale for a how-to manuel. they are trying to land this directly at the supreme court. it sort of -- they did used to go around it and pretend what they were doing was just reasonable limitations when they always have been aiming at the heart of roe. right now, they are coming out of the darkness and doing it in broad daylight and saying that that's what they are all about. they want to overturn roe and want the supreme court with donald trump's nominees to do it for them. >> but i guess the question in a more technical sense and maybe this is a boring but i just -- like there is a district court, go to a district court. someone will sue. a judge will strike it down, and then what happens? >> well, i mean, they go to an appellate court stacked with right-wing judges of donald trump and on the express train to the supreme court. they indicated and we know that's wh