that was the first big supreme court test of roe versus wade, and roe survived. the ruling was close, 5-4. one vote the other direction roe would have been overturned. you heard the democratic leader in the senate george mitchell say that is too close for comfort. it is time to take the whole issue of protecting abortion rights out of the hands of the supreme court. it is too dangerous there. so he said in june 1992 that rather than leaving it up to the court, congress should make an end run around the court. congress should just pass a federal law that would protect a woman's right to have an abortion in all 50 states. he promised he would bring the full united states senate to a vote on the freedom of choice act, which would enshrine abortion rights into federal law. in the end, he did not follow through on that promise, but the idea of doing that, the promise to do that, has stuck around in democratic politics ever since in weird and kind of frustrating way. go back to the 2008 presidential campaign. barack obama, then a candidate, said if he were elected pres

roe v.t exists on paper and not as a matter of fact. >> and briefly and practically, for people who are thinking about funding efforts, donating to efforts, contributing personally to efforts, volunteering to help women in abortion ban states get to states where abortion is still legal so they can have the procedure done elsewhere, are these laws designed to target people who provide that kind of help? >> you know, i've seen that answered both in the affirmative and the negative today. npr was reporting earlier today that the law will not reach out and get you if you are simply writing a check to help somebody get out of state. it will not touch you if you are in fact treating someone out of state. but larry tribe writing in "the guardian" today suggested otherwise. i think the truth is that the law is sufficiently vague, rachel, that we're going to have to test it and test it and find out. one of the points, the very purpose of this law is to chill people not just abortion providers in texa

roe v. wade was first decided by the supreme court in january 1973. and it's not like we know now that roe was a big deal, but at the time they didn't recognize it. no. at the time they knew it was a huge deal. abortion was a very controversial thing that is it is now. in 1973 abortion was illegal in most states in the country. but the road decision came down like a lightning bolt, and roma all of the sudden, overnight, legal abortion everywhere, for all american women, it was a huge deal. and they knew it was a huge deal when it happened. i was expecting one thing when i went back and looked in the archives as to nbc news was like that night. i was wrong. given one a big deal it was, and how big the deal they knew it was at the time, i will tell, you i was shocked to learn, that that supreme court decision, january 1973, did not come up in that night's neck were news broadcast, until 11 minutes in. 11 minutes into their 30-minute broadcast. and then, even when they tried to bring it, up it

if roe weren't in the way, if roe weren't blocking any significant expression of pro-life sentiment incountries, states around the country, you would flatly restrict abortion. a work around caused by extortion from the supreme court, there's no right to abortion in the constitution. the left is used to using that spurious decision as a way to block democratic deliberation and action on this. i don't know if roe will go or not, it will be eroded. democrats have to get used to winning it in the small d democratic arena rather than running to the courts. >> claire, is the answer to get roe codified in congress? >> i have to tell you, my heart is beating so fast now. it is very hard for me to stay calm, to acquit the false claims act, setting extreme anti-abortion factions after young girls raped because they didn't know they were pregnant until after six weeks i found outrageous. this is not a work around. it shouldn't be a tip of the hat. it should be condemnation that they are trying to take 50 years of supreme court precedent and throw it out by creating a private police that can invad

"roe v. wade." it actually prevents abortions, not the size of the hallway in an abortion clinic or the distance from something. it actually says after six weeks, no abortions. >> yes, good morning. thank you for having me. a 15-second history of "roe v. wade" is the author was a republican appointee. this was a bipartisan issue. but pat buchanan when he was working for richard nixon realized that demagoguing about abortion in a time when there was deep anxiety about women's changing roles would allow them to peel off some catholics to the republican party and make an alliance of evangelicals and catholics for traditionalist values including restricting rights around reproduction. that came to a head in the 1980s. their most cherished goals of bans abortion entirely, and for the past few decades a movement has laser focused on not just overturning these decisions and passing as many opportunities in the states as they can to give the court an opportunity to overturn it, but to make sure ideal

you don't know her view on roe v. wade. >> i don't know. >> donald trump a stupid man in many ways but with good political instincts, understanding he doesn't want roe v. wade on the ballot. but he pointed out he only appoints justices who oppose roe v. wade. so the conservative court under justice john roberts, that court has had a few main projects, one of them protecting corporations from government regulation, and that may mean rolling back the sort of jurisprudence, they've been laser focused on rolling back voting rights, and making abortion more difficult. they've been laser focused on that agenda from the beginning. do not believe anyone who tells you that's not what they're doing. they are either idiots or lying to you. now we have arrived at this moment in which the wolf is at the door. i mean, if you don't like abortion rights, it's not the wolf, it's the present you have been praying for. all the people who learned about this court trying to overturn roe, don't worry, they were wrong. so the question is ho

but, this decision has the effect of ending roe v. wade without actually performing the ceremonial burial. >> i want to get your opinion on what house minority leader said overnight threatening these telecommunication companies that have gotten request from the committee investigating january 6th saying essentially if they comply, they have hell to pay potentially for republicans to take the majority. >> one of the thing you learn as an assistant u.s. attorney, these telecommunication companies have entire offices devoted to responding to subpoenas. it is completely routine for verizon and company to answer subpoenas. the idea that they somehow have the obligation, much less the legal right, to simply say to a valid subpoena, we're not complying is incredible to me. now, it is true. it is somewhat more unusual for a congressional committee to subpoena records than it is for an assistant u.s. attorney for the department of justice, but it still has happened before. so i really have no idea what legal basis kevin mccarthy has to make th

we believe roe versus wade was wrongly decided.aw, we respect the law, and we work through the legal process to get the law correct. that's what we're trying to do. all right. now, you've just nodded to the essence of the bill. i think many people call it the heartbeat bill, because at the centre of it is this idea that an abortion in texas becomes unlawful, or at least anybody involved in it becomes prone to civil legal action, after the so—called heartbeat moment, which you define is at around, i think, six weeks when a heartbeat can be detected. now, the implication, it seems to me, of what you're doing with that focus on the heartbeat is to imply that there's some sort of viability to the foetus when a heartbeat of some sort — of course, the heart is hardly formed at that point — but you seem to be suggesting there is some sort of viability at that stage. of course, that's absolute nonsense. so, why all this focus and importance attached to the so—called heartbeat? well, two points on that. there was expert medical testimony fr

by roe, i mean the essential holding of roe. i am wondering if anyone on the panel has a similar assessment. >> i would not say casey reaffirmed roe. would you agree with that? >> i think that is a big part of their argument. almost like, we do not have to explain it or rationalize it because roe was reaffirmed in casey and casey has been around for 30 years. i think to go to your second one, it will be very interesting to see whether or not that comes up, either at oral argument -- you said we do not need to consider roe versus wade and casey, and this is what most of your brief is about. they have dismissed for that. >> one of the interesting things about roe, i get the sense that people who are pro-choice will have a hard time defending that decision. casey replaces the trimester framework of the opinion. i do not see roe with the jurisprudence matter having that many defenders. >> i have the opposite reaction. i thought both briefs were really well done, both as briefs and making tactical moves. i think mississippi's brief,

when i hear that, i think of roe v. wade itself, which was a dead of night decision by the supreme court without oral argument, without significant greased back-and-forth to the court. the court did not rule on the substance. we do not know where the court is going to go. it is going to say the new law brings controversy. they found eight people in none texas to sue none of them have , done anything to effectuate the statute. i think it is premature to judge it. mississippi and his 15 week limit which is a liberal limit on abortion. i think we've got some distractions going on. host: let me ask you both to explore the enforcement provisions. there is an opinion piece this morning in "the wall street journal" that headlines and says the court was right not to interfere for now but the , statute will not survive. they say the law sets an awful president that conservatives should hate. but california allow private individuals to sue individuals for hate speech? nan aron? guest: just imagine the repercussions from this law.

wade. >> we will go back to washington and will be putting roe v. wade codification on the floor of the house. to make sure women will have access to reproductive health. i say that as a mother of five children. i respect everyone's decision. >> do you expect any republican support? >> i really don't speak for the republicans. i think i get that, right? so do i. what's [laughs] >> also important news about the house committee investigating january 6th. republican congresswoman liz cheney has been promoted to vice chair, number two position on the panel. tonight the new york times reports that the house select committee once social media and telecommunications companies to preserve records of republican house leader kevin mccarthy and others for possible use in the inquiry. mccarthy has said that he did speak to president trump during the riot. as for the suspects themselves, the guy on the right here, known as the qanon shaman, is expected to plead guilty tomorrow in connection with the riot. let's bring in our lead off guests, shannon pettypiece, a

we need to codify roe v. wade.pass my bill with julie chu, abolish the filibuster, expand the courts and repeal hyde. not necessarily in that order but all of those things must happen. >> congresswoman ayanna presley, thank you so much for your time tonight. >> thank you, chris. >>> next, the unbelievable scenes of destruction as the remnants of hurricane ida battered the northeast. secretary of energy jennifer granholm joins me to talk about the urgent need for climate infrastructure ahead. introducin. it's fast, powerful long-lasting relief with a revolutionary, rollerball design. because with the right pain reliever... life opens up. aleve it, and see what's possible. your skin isn't just skin, it's a beautiful reflection of everything you've been through. that's why dove renews your skin's ceramides and strengthens it against dryness for softer, smoother skin you can lovingly embrace. renew the love for your skin with dove body wash. renew the love for your skin you need an ecolab scientific clean here. and you

never mind roe. joining us now is nancy northrup, president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. her organization led the emergency request asking the supreme court to block the texas law. just in the last few minutes, they've filed a new reply in that petition tonight. thank you for being here. i appreciate your time. i know this is a very intense time for you. >> it is an incredibly intense time. we have been back and forth with the fifth circuit and then going up to the supreme court yesterday and again just filed our reply at 8:00 eastern time tonight. again working to get an injunction from the supreme court to block this, as you said, dystopian law that will go into effect at midnight tonight if the supreme court doesn't step in. so thank you for covering this because it is a very intense news time on important issues from afghanistan to the hurricane in louisiana. but this is also so critical because the constitutional rights of people in texas are on the line tonight. >> nancy, what

for decades, roe v. wade has guaranteed everyone the freedom to access safe abortion care, regardless of background. and for decades, anti-abortion extremists have been devising new ways to put that right out of reach. that's left many, mainly low-income people of color, left to fear that every new anti-choice law could be the one that finally puts abortion access out of reach for them or their daughters. well, it's time to put a stop to these attacks once and for all with today's historic vote. we are ensuring that access to abortion care is a right from texas to california. this bill respects our right and the freedom to make our own choices about our bodies, and it leaves those decisions up to us and our doctors. it's time to take control of our bodies out of the hands of extreme right-wing politicians. it's time to pass the women's health protection act. the speaker pro tempore: the woman's time has expired. the gentleman from new jersey reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. mrs. r

wade. >> we have no idea if will overturn roe v.nothing happening there. >> donald -- >> and you don't know our view on roe v. wade. >> ten nights our guess all

i think overturning roe v. wade would have the opposite effect of diminishing their ability to work when they want to work to space their children when they want to space their children. but if there if there's interest in furthering women's participation in the workforce, there are a range of policies that actually do that like childcare, for example. >> representative howard, do you have anything to add? >> i would agree with what was just said. the fact is that as i said in my opening, i came of age before roe v wade and i'm well aware of the obstacles that women had in making educational and employment choices for themselves if they found themselves pregnant and did not have many options other than to carry that pregnancy to term it. it prevented them from their very destinies. >> well, she goes on to say that women will be more empowered because there are numerous laws enacted since roe adjusting pregnancy discrimination requiring leave time assisting with childcare more. i would be really surprised frankl

as of today, roe v. wade is functionally dead, in the state of texas, third largest state in, second largest state. the right to an abortion as recognized by the supreme court in 1973 with decades of precedent, reviewed and reviewed over and over, decades of jurisprudence, that right is effectively gone in the second most populous state in our union. it did not come with some reason pronounced meant from -- as decisions usually do, instead, it came with just total absence, silence as the court failed to rule on a request to block the new law passed by texas republicans, and signed by governor greg abbott. the law went into effect today, banning all abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy. it also, and this is key, allows private citizens to sue abortion providers and anyone who helps a woman obtain an abortion, including those who give a woman a ride to a clinic or provide financial assistance in obtaining an abortion. now, the law is obviously unconstitutional under the courts current jurisprudence

>> will look this isn't about roe v. wade. it's just a way around roe v. will come before the supreme court and this is an attack by the right end for the first time you are seeing some creative legal weapons being utilized by the right instead of them always playing defense to the left and the eroding social marmots and taboos. i think it's a good sign that there is a renewed vigor to aggressively use the law to renew conservative positions but also joe biden places double game where he's catholic and being in abortion enthusiasts he pretends he's not really a catholic president he's just a catholic who happens to be president but in this case he has weighed in actively against it. in that case -- and the other case it's reinvigorated the left. gerry: again and we don't know there's another case before the court this year if the court does strike down roe v. wade does that fundamentally change the politics of this issue or as miranda says in bold and progressive's? >> i don't think the court will ever strike down roe v. wade per se. but what they will do

they can get rid of roe v.tates can put in legislation that does allow for abortion. >> eugene, want to ask about reporting we've had, associated press talking about september 18th gathering at capitol, talking to frank figliuzzi about this, the fears of more violence at the capitol. madison cawthorn threatened bloodshed over fictitious rigged elections this week. congressman liz cheney said in response using language that seems intended to incite violence, i think every member should condemn that, would like leader mccarthy to clearly condemn it and explain how dangerous it is. i don't think should be holding our breath but this is serious, member of congress saying this. >> liz cheney is right, kevin mccarthy should condemn, denounce and perhaps think about some sort of censure for cawthorn but he won't do any of that. we know kevin mccarthy, he simply won't do that. over the years we've had a lot of incendiary and sometimes over-the-top rhetoric from a lot of people in congress, but the context now is post j

to act like it's an assault upon roe v. wade is something the president is doing to distract from his other issues. it's clearly not an assault -- by the way, i'm pro-life. the facts are this is about standing, nothing else. the supreme court will decide how to affect standing before all these other things play out. >> you don't think it signals the court is prepared to undo roe v. wade now? >> we can always talk about eventualities. we can talk theoretical. it makes good fodder. i'm in the middle of a state where 700,000 people don't have electricity, where we have a disastrous withdrawal from afghanistan and where the administration is pushing a $3.5 trillion bill which will be to inflation what the withdrawal was to afghanistan. i don't think about theoreticals. i think about things before me. that's what i focus on. >> let's talk about the reconciliation bill. senator joe manchin's statement this weekend, does that kill the bill? does it worry you the bipartisan bill, the smaller infrastructure bill you support, will al

not only is roe v.ade still valid law under the supreme court, but remember the idea of a plaintiff who might have to have something that they cannot reverse in the form of having a risk of imminent harm by a law, they can't now go to the courts to redress their grievance. they have doctors who now can't perform what is legal under roe v. wade. the only option now essentially is for the supreme court to either say, look, the fifth circuit has to say that the lower court actually gets to decide at this point in time whether the law is actually unconstitutional, or the supreme court can do it themselves. but the idea of under the cover of darkness, without lifting a finger, without writing an opinion, without hearing oral argument, without having it fully briefed, and there is presently a case on the docket, they could essentially say, you know what? all the hard work is done. and then imagine what would happen in other contexts here. what if another state were to adopt a law that said a private litigant

. >> when we come back, we will be putting roe v. wade on the house to ensure that women everywhere have access. i say that as a mother of five children. i respect a woman's decision. >> do you expect the republican support? >> i really don't speak for the republicans. they might think that way. so do i. >> liz ceney has within promoted to vice chair. the house select committee wants to preserve records of republican house leader kevin mccarthy among others for possible use in the inquiry. mccarthy has said he did speak to former president trump during the riot. as for the riot suspects themselves, the one -- the guy on the right here known as the qanon shaman is expected to plead guilty tomorrow in connection with the riot. with that, let's bring in our lead off guests on this thursday night. shannon is a veteran journalist and our senior white house reporter. jeremy bash is the former chief of staff of the cia and the pentagon and the former chief council to the house intelligence committee. live tonight from lake tahoe, nbc news c

this is a full-throated overturning of roe, and i lived through the years before roe and i saw women suffer. i saw -- i had a friend, i wrote about it in my book, who i almost lost her. why? her boyfriend said, here is $300, go to mexico, and she barely came back from that. before we -- before we had penicillin we had thousands of women die every year. once we had antibiotics it is hundreds of women. women will die if they can't afford to leave that state and that vigilante state. it is just breaking my heart, and we have to fight back hard. >> you know, erin, i knew that the republican party had no use for, really respect for women, you know, when clarence thomas got in. now two of the nine members of the united states supreme court and two of the six conservative members or one-third of the conservative members have been accused of sexual misconduct and they have lifetime appointments on the court. i think it is pretty clear the way the right in america feels about women so it doesn't surprise me they would go this far, but i have to get you to comment on the vigilantism aspect of

this summer they overruled roe v.wasn't enough, jonathan mitchell, the architect of texas's controversial abortion bill jumped on the bandwagon asking the court in an amicus brief to overrule two landmark lgbt rights cases along with roe, you know, while they're at it. in the brief he wrote that same-sex marriage and abortion rights are, quote, judicial concoctions. with me now is barbara mcquade, former u.s. attorney and legal analyst for msnbc. barbara, in the wake of the supreme court's ruling regarding the texas abortion bill there's this ominous feeling attached to the mississippi case coming up. is there a chance the court will actually overturn roe v. wade for real? >> this ominous feeling you're sensing is a genuine fear. there are a couple of reasons in the tea leaves that we see. one is there were five justices, which is all you need to make a ruling, saw fit to let this texas abortion law stand while they worked it out, meaning that constitutional right under roe is being violated every day as it goes by. l

that, of course, is the landmark roe versus wade decision. that law blocked states, any state in the country, from banning abortion. it said american women have a right under the united states constitution to get an abortion if they want one. and that right can't be infringed even if politicians in individual states feel differently. after that ruling in 1973, the very first abortion clinic to open its doors in the great state of texas was a clinic in the city of mcallen. mcallen is a small city on the very southern tip of texas, right on the border of mexico. the first abortion clinic in texas opened there? 1973, and it served women in the rio grande valley in that part of south texas for decades. even as anti-abortion republicans started to cement their control over the government in texas and year after year they devised ever more creative and draconian ways to make abortion as hard and as dangerous to get as possible in texas, that clinic in mcallen kept going. and republicans really did keep passing more and more restrictive laws, making

the supreme court stopped the operation of roe v. wade in texas.ix weeks which expert says and many people already know is a period of time, the person who may exercise what the supreme court says is a personal choice and right would not know they are pregnant and able to do so. there are no exceptions for rape or incest. florida's lawmakers are considering the new law. meanwhile, donald trump of course put three conservative justices on this court and one of the arguments that you may remember even if that happens, roe is a quote, super president. that's what we were told. meanwhile, in the year of covid battles, we hear a lot of liberty and smaller government and personal freedom, where are the republican libertarians on this personal freedom? where are they wanting to make very big decisions for other people while going around saying you can't tell them to even put on a mask when they are on a restaurant. we are witnessing not only hypocrisy and the party of right-wing big government. we are witnessing the basic roll back of roe v. wade on plain

i think roe v. wade is in jeopardy. i think women around this country need to understand that today is a huge wake-up call for us to talk to our senators, talk to our congress people, talk to the president of the united states because at this moment it is not clear to me that women will be able to make reproductive choices about their bodies because men, primarily men but legislators like those in texas and other states, have decided that they know better as it relates to what women should be able to do with respect to their body. as laura said, the hypocrisy is just nauseating. you can't wear a mask but you can decide that a woman can't make choices about her body. this is a wake-up call for women and men all over this country. >> laura coates, areva martin, we don't even know the ramifications of what's happened in texas today yet, but thank you very much for walking us through what we saw today. >>> all right. so any moment president biden will meet with the ukrainian president, zelensky, at the white house. we have

if the law takes affect, what does that mean for roe v wade. i said it could end roe v wade.he point of roe v wade is states cannot ban abortion. if texas bans abortion in 87 minutes, that means that roe v wade is not good law anymore. and look, this is a model that texas has set up that the other red states, if this works, will follow quickly. >> okay. laura, i want to hear what you have to say because it bars abortions for as you heard jeffrey say for many woman member during the time they don't even know they're pregnant. it would effectively out law 85% of abortions in texas. talk to me about what you think and whatpponents if there are a? >> you can't over state this enough. this would allow, if the supreme court decides to allow this to go into effect at midnight central time, they could essentially overturn roe v wade in a state without lifting a finger, without saying a word on a shadow docket, not even addressing it, hearing an oral argument that stood the test of time for decades and decades. talking about up ending the trimester frame work of roe v wade and talk ab

three roe v wade. are many people who think... three roe v wade-— roe v wade. that's right.at's right. for half a century, the supreme _ roe v wade. that's right. for half a century, the supreme court - roe v wade. that's right. for half a century, the supreme court has - roe v wade. that's right. for half a l century, the supreme court has made clear the us constitution protects the fundamental constitutional right to end a pregnancy. but if you are pregnant in texas today, that is not the reality. right now, if you need an abortion after six weeks, you cannot get it. there are thousands of texans as we speak who are sitting around their kitchen table trying desperately to crunch the numbers and figure out how it could be possible for them to travel 250 miles or more out of state in order to access time sensitive medical care. ., ., ., , care. under the law, who would bring a case against — care. under the law, who would bring a case against someone _ care. under the law, who would bring a case against someone who - care. under the law, who would bring a case against someon

roe v.e. >> states have passed laws that many elected officials are openly saying are specifically about trying to overturn roe v. wade. nearly all of them immediately entangled in legal proceedings and now everyone is watching and waiting for this case over mississippi's law to be argued to the supreme court this fall. that law bans nearly all abortions in the state after 15 weeks. and no matter how the case is decided, it's likely that the underlying issue for the most part is going to revert to the states. many of them have already passed laws saying that the right to abortion is secured. now, others have these so-called trigger laws meaning it the if the actual underpinning of roe v. wade is overturned, there will be no right to abortion in those states. this court, as we know, under the guide dance of chief justice john roberts has been reticent to issue big sweeping decisions. i would expect most likely whatever comes down from that mississippi case could be very narrow, bret? >> bret:

chuck, 63% of america supports roe v. wade.guarantee you 80% of america does not want this law with vigilante embraced by the supreme court to become the way of life in america. i really think they've gone too far, and i will not accept both sides on this. this is one party that is doing this, not both parties. this is not the place for, oh, both sides are a problem. no. one side is a problem. i got re-elected because of an extreme position on abortion. i believe a lot of democrats will get elected over this. >> former congresswoman barbara comstock, do you accept that, that this is being driven more by one party at this time, that you can't have the both sides conversation on this particular topic? >> well, this is obviously a polarizing issue, and this is a polarizing bill. as someone who is pro-life and has always wanted to change hearts and minds and focus on creating a culture of life and respecting the dignity of women and the children, i don't think this is a good bill and i agree with the "wall street journal" editorial

pass the laws, protect roe. make it the law of the land everywhere. >> amen. senator elizabeth warren. thank you. you can get an amen for every single word for that. >> there is sort of the sum of all fears. talk about what this will mean for women in texas. >> well, so far it's been pretty dramatic here. you have a lot of really desperate women that we have seen and have been beyond the limits. this has been going on now for a few days. the phone calls have been heart wrenching and we were trying to accommodate as many women as possible before today. we were disappointed to not get a ruling from the issue ream court. we woke up to that and had to face another day and face women who are desperate and need our help and we're not able to help them. as elizabeth articulated and you as well, it's the women of means who will have access who can travel and the women without means will have access to unsafe medical care. it's hard to believe it's 2021 and we're facing this now. the war on women just continues and in texas, they're screaming about my body, my choice a

is this the beginning of the end of roe v. wade. >>> what diplomatic sources are telling us about getting americans out of afghanistan and how the taliban worked with the u.s. in the final days of america's longest war. >>> plus the new threat coming from the house republican leader. kevin mccarthy's warning sparked by the january 6th commission, what he says a would-be gop majority will not forget. i'm hallie jackson in washington along with julia ainsley, nbc news senior political editor mark murray, former u.s. attorney and msnbc legal analyst barbara mcquaid joins us as well. julia, let's start with the law out of texas, the most restrictive abortion law in the country. here's what it can you see, not just bans abortions after the fetal heartbeat or roughly six weeks which is before many women know they're pregnant, only a couple weeks after a missed period and has no exceptions for rape and incest and gives private citizens the power to sue anyone who helps somebody who is going to get the procedure, that means somebody w

harold, how much trouble is the precedent of roe v.ade which basically protects women's rights to have an abortion -- stated women's rights to have an abortion at least up to viability. how much trouble is roe v. wade in right now? >> there are certainly going to be questions. i think the trouble will have to see how the court decides. i do think chief justice roberts whose respect for precedent is not only long admired by some, but is certainly established. i think politics of this unfortunately is just so bad on one side for democrats and perhaps good on the other. bad in that there are democrats fuming still over the way some of the supreme court justices were rushed through the system, but the other side is you have a virginia governor's race and you have a speaker of the house where this issue is going to play prominently. as you look at some of the opponents of the texas law, i would agree with jonah's assessment of muddying the waters, even those who oppose roe, which i don't, but those who oppose roe have issue with this texas

. >> as a matter of reality, roe v. wade is a dead mother in texas today. >> and the supreme court lets the law stand for now. >> a child is a child. this person is a person. >> my guests this morning, former democratic senator claire mccaskill of missouri and former republican congresswoman barbara comstock of virginia. >> also, long term power outages in louisiana. record rainfall and flooding in the northeast. what hurricane ida tells us about the threat of climate change. joining me for insight and analysis ariamec alcindor, "washington post" columnist matt buy, betsy swan, and brandon buck. welcome to sunday. it's "meet the press." >> from nbc news in washington, the longest running show in television history, this is "meet the press" with chuck todd. >> and a good sunday morning. the u.s. enters this labor day weekend suffering from two viruses. covid and polarization. it is not an exaggeration to say we are more divided than at any time, perhaps since the 1960s and frankly maybe since the civil war. as one of our