>>> with roe v. wade in the balance, an historic leek, and a crisis of legislate mat si at the court, this week on "firing line." it was a supreme court shocker, an unprecedented leek of a draft opinion that would overturn the decision that legalized abortion in america. justice samuel elito writing that roe v. wade was wrong from the start. >> if this draft resembles the final draft, this will be probably unnecessarily polarizing. >> she is a legal historian and constitutional law professor. she's written four books on the history and politics surrounding roe and signed a b in the fall. >> she spends pages and pages identifying roe's defects, but roe just made it up. >> he's a conservative legal thinker and commentator. and he coed itted several volumes of the work. with backlash building -- >> how dare they tell a woman what she can do and cannot do with her own body. >> and cases mounting about what the decision might mean, what do they say now? >> "firing line" with margaret hoover is made possib

in 1965, eight years before the roe v. wade decision, illegal abortion accounted for 17%, 17% of all deaths attributed to pregnancy and childbirth. that past could soon be our present. so, madam president, you see, this supreme court decision doesn't just turn back the clock on precedent. it turns back the clock on public health as it strips women of their reproductive freedoms. and in a world where roe has been overturned, as you drive across our great country, your rights will change from state to state as you cross each state border. that's the result of taking away a constitutional right, and that's why polling shows the great majority of the american people do not want the supreme court to take away the rights under roe v. wade. now, i'm proud to represent a state that has codified a woman's right to reproductive choice. in fact, during my very first campaign for public office the right to reproductive choice was the defining issue in my election to the maryland general assembly. it was another time when there was gre

codified the roe v. wade above anything the court can put in or take, away but that's going to require majority vote in the house and senate. i think that they should break the filibuster for it, i think if this draft opinion becomes the law, it is a huge list step back for women in decades, for reproductive justice and for reproductive feed him. i think here, lawrence, is the most telling facts in this draft opinion, if it does become the law, it upholds the mississippi law. the mississippi law, had no exception for rape or incest. codified the roe v. wade above anything the court can put in or take, away but that's going to require majority vote in the house and senate. i think that they should break the filibuster for it, i think if this draft opinion becomes the law, it is a huge list step back for women in decades, for reproductive justice and for reproductive feed him. i think here, lawrence, is the most telling facts in this draft opinion, if it does become the law, it upholds the mississippi law.

roe v. wade in their confirmation hearings began after robert bulwark made the mistake of telling the truth. >> for his wall against connecticut, which established, or adopted a privacy right on reasoning, which was utterly inadequate. and failed to define that right, so we know what it applies to. row against weight contains almost no legal reason. we are not told why it is a private act. there are lots of private acts that are not protected. why this one is protected? we get a review of the history of abortion, and we get a review of the opinions of various groups like the medic and medical association. and then we get rules. and that's what i object about the case. it does not have legal rejoining and it that proves the right to abortion unconstitutional materials. >> and that is almost word for word what appears in samuel alito's draft opinion overturning roe v. wade. samuel alito was watching that confirmation hearing of robert berke and television and the reagan justice department wher

abortion didn't begin with roe v. wade. abortion existed long before roe. it has existed for all of eternity. it's simply before role, it was illegal, and it was unsafe, and young healthy women died routinely. i heard this from planned parenthood doctors all the time. young healthy women died in emergency rooms across this country. i cannot believe that is what the republican party wants to take us back. and just one other, point, lawrence because i know there's discussion about what else will happen. even safe states, even states like new york, like california, that have been passing more progressive laws guarantee you, this republican party takes over congress this november. if that should pass, i can guarantee you house bill one will be an abortion ban in the state. make no mistake about it. they say it's about states rights, but it's not. it's about taking away the right of women to make their own decision about pregnancy. and they will not stop. >> wendy davis, this is the product of our politics. a vote for republicans. at every level. state legislatu

when you ask about roe v. wade, that's roughly the response you are going to get no matter who is polling it. when you start to break this down a little bit more, that's where you see variance. this was an ap poll that came out less than a year ago. take it in a different -- a couple different levels. when the question is asked, in general do you think that abortion should be legal in most or all cases or illegal in most or all cases, this is what it looks like. 56% on legal. 43% on illegal. then when you start breaking it down by timing, by trimester, that's where you start to see shifts. look at it this way. abortions in the first trimester, strong support there, 61% for legal abortion in the first trimester. 61% to 38%. move ahead to the second trimester and that's where public opinion shifts. now you have 34% who say abortion in that time frame should be legal in most or all cases. you have two-thirds basically saying, it should be illegal in most or all cases. then you move to the third trimester, you see

if roe v. wade is overturned, we have to assume there is more to come. the question is, what will these right-wing republicans target next? will they have the supreme court overturned griswold so they can prevent american women from contraception? they may say, we wouldn't do that because of precedent. why would anyone believe them anymore? will they have the supreme court overturn obergfel sol they can prevent same-sex marriage. they may say, we wouldn't do that because of precedent. why would anyone believe them? it is clear they will try to turn back the clock to a time when women, people of color, lgbtq people, our second-class citizens. i do not believe the hard right will succeed. i firmly believe in my very bones the story of american democracy is the story of progress. democrats are going to fight this decision all the way, for as long as it takes. we will not relent. we will not about. we know history is on our side and we are determined to preserve this precious rights -- these precio

the supreme court set to overturn roe v. wade if a leaked draft court opinion stands politico released that document late last night, and almost immediately a protest broke out, outside that courthouse behind me. protesters still out here tonight. the conservative justice, samuel alito, wrote the draft majority opinion. and according to politico, it has support from at least four other justices alito writes roe was egregiously wrong from the start its reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. and far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, roe and casey have inflamed debate and deepened division. casey refers to another case that came about nearly two decades after roe v. wade. it's called planned parenthood versus casey it largely reaffirmed abortion rights we're here today because of a case out of mississippi. it centers on a state law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy there that is a direct challenge to roe. the supreme court heard the case

with the 1973 roe vs. wade case and abortion being widely debated and discussed in the nation today american history tv is looking back to see what the nine justices who are currently on the supreme court had to say about roe v wade in their confirmation hearings. we begin with justice samuel alito the author of the new leaked draft opinion which seeks to overturn the row case his nomination hearing was held in january 2006 you conceded the fact that we have free speech because it's explicit in our constitution protected constitutional, right? and yet when senator schumer asked to repeatedly do you find that roe versus wade established and recognized a constitutional protection for a woman to make this most private decision? you wouldn't answer you wouldn't give a direct answer. on two supreme court cases griswold and brown now you have said just right there as we started this hearing that you believe there is a constitutional basis for this protection and for this right and yet when with the 1973 roe v. w

i think roe v.from its inception. >> let us choose what we want to do with our bodies. >> reporter: voters heading to the polls to cast their ballots on who they want to see face off in the midterms. this contentious race could impact control of congress. and it's one of the first tests of former president donald trump's influence over republican voters. j.d. vance's win solidifies trump as a republican kingmaker. >> we're going to do it, ladies and gentlemen, god bless you and thank you again. >> this win probably doesn't happen without donald trump. the campaign got a boost of energy. he became the consensus trump choice. >> reporter: at issue, trump's endorsement power and his grip on the republican party. hoping to take back the house and the senate come november. but first, finding the best candidate with the highest electability to replace retiring republican senator rob portman of ohio. >> and seven months from now, the people of ohio are going to vote to fire the radical left democrats. >> t

let me ask you this -- >> roe v. wade and -- together legalize abortion up until the moment of birth. that's why you see in states like new mexico and colorado, where women can actually obtain abortions into the ninth month of pregnancy because those two decisions were issued on the same day in 1973. >> there are certain exceptions there certainly, but let's talk about the mississippi law at the center of this decision, providing one exception, if the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother. it does not provide an exception for rape or incest. do you think there should be exceptions for rape or incest in state laws if this does go to the states? >> i don't think that we should issue birth certificates with rating systems based on how someone was conceived. a birth certificate notes one thing, the unique whole, living human being has come into existence and is living in our world. as i said earlier, i think msnbc needs to speak with my friend -- i have several friends who were conceived during a sexual assault. so

host: if roe v. wade is returned to the states, are there other issues you believe to be returned to the states to decide , the idea of contraception and the availability, is that something you think should be returned to the states? guest: i have never heard anybody say that contraception should be illegal or harder to get. they are currently available pretty much everywhere, bathrooms and maybe school bathrooms. if that's one tactic that proponents of abortion are using because they want to scare people, contraceptives are not going anywhere and they will be just as easily accept -- accessible as they are now. host: for those who are unsure, hendersonville, north carolina. caller: good morning. host: turn down your tv and talk through your phone. caller: i called in on the unsure line because i am pro-life but i am unsure about a lot of the questions that have been brought up. i just wanted to say that in 1973, after abortion was passed, i got pregnant at the age of 17. i went to a clinic and it wa

the future of roe v. wade. i have got news for you. roe v. wade does not have a future. dozens of states have trigger laws and a lot of states in the southeast and midwest in this country have a higher maternal mortality rates than any developed country. -- have trigger laws, and my other question is why would alito and the supreme court not go after a form of birth control like plan b? one a fully fledged human person -- should be locked up and everyone made a big deal about how trump was saying, there should be some form of punishment for women who have a termination pregnancy. it is not a big lie. they are prosecuting miscarriages these days. these radical anti-choice forced birth proponents have no ideological consistency. why not make contraception more accessible? no, that goes against our ideology. mr. stohr: the texas law is in effect right now. and it comes to the supreme court, they refused to block it. they allowed a small avenue for a challenge to go against it, but the lower courts said that avenue does not exist so the law is in full effect right now. that

by it i mean roe v. of the union." i'm jake tapper. our panel is here. hilary rosen and carrie, happy mother's day to both of you. hilary you. so she wouldn't go so far to say perjury, what do you think? >> first of all, nice to be here on mother's day and defend mothers but people who are not mothers and don't want to be mothers today. look, i think these justices have made senate confirmations to the supreme court a sham and that is to bad. i don't know what can be done about that other than senators have to pay much more attention in the future to what they're saying and have to hold them more accountable in these hearings. look, one of the problems we have is this general level of uncertainty and fear about not just this decision but how far it goes, and i think that's the unknown that we're worried about most and as we see the impact of this decision, like i would ask you, where are you going to go after this? once you get this decision, what are you going to do? are you going to go after other unen

look, think what roe says.e says what all basic main mainstream religions have historically concluded, that the existence of a human life and being is a question, is it at the moment of conception? is it six months? is it six weeks? is it quickening like aquinus argued? the idea that we're going to make a judgment that is going to say that no one can make the judgment to abort a child based on a decision by the supreme court i think goes way overboard. >> thank you. thank you, guys. >> the midterms, what does this mean for the democrats' argument in the midterms? >> i haven't thought that through yet. >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this, if this decision holds? >> i beg your pardon. >> do changes need to be made to the court in light of this? >> we just have to choose t titi -- look, they refuse to acknowledge that there's a ninth amendment. thi they refuse to acknowledge there's a right to privacy. there's so many fundamental rights that are affected by that. i'm not prepared to leave t

that before roe v.cess to safe and legal abortion. >> i'm going to finish my point also. the reason that abortion was rejected historically in our nation is there was an understanding that in every abortion, every crisis situation there's a mother and a child to be cared for, assisted all along the way and walked with. so when i was very pro choice, i did not see two people in every decision. but most of america sees two considerations every time a woman is pregnant. when you hear somebody is pregnant, it's almost always congratulations, unless you decided that's something other than another human being. thaps the fundamental question before us. every state should have the right to allow consensus to make its way into law. the reason we have not had this is that the supreme court took away that right because the abortion argument could not win in the court of public opinion. it's been held for the court for that long and now hopefully we'll have the chance. >> you raise the court of public opinion. acco

the roe v. wade standard be enshrined and embodied in a statute much as connecticut did in its state statute in 1990, a law that i championed when i was in our connecticut state senate. in lieu of well-established supreme court precedent, justice alito relies on a 17th century english jurist who advocated for marital rape and who tried women for witchcraft. this isn't just judicial activism. this is extremism. this is fringe. history cloaked in a judge's robe. and you know what is conspicuously absent from justice alito's radical draft opinion? what's absent is women. justice alito gives absolutely no credence to the beeral evidence before the court -- empirical evidence before the court. the ways in which women have relied upon abortion access to make decisions about their health, their lives, their careers and their futures. instead, he gestures at the fact that women have the right to vote as evidence. they don't need the right to control their lives and their own bodies. i'm sorry, but the r

[laughter] roe v.ade, in its power, has protected a woman's right to make decisions about her own body for nearly half a century. if the court overturns roe v. wade, it will be a direct assault on freedom. on the fundamental right of self determination, to which all americans are entitled. roe projects the right --pro tax --roe protects a woman's right to abortion. it also protects the right to make decisions on what she does with her own body. [applause] so, to the friends, i say we have always been clear, but today, we know our purpose. we know also what we are up against. we have been on the frontlines of this fight for many years, all of us in this together. and now, we enter a new phase. there is nothing hypothetical about this moment. let me be clear. this fight requires the work of this very organization, emily's list, to elect [applause] pro-choice democrats to congress. [cheering] now, at this very moment, roe v. wade remains the law of the land. but let's talk about what a world without roe l

that would overturn "roe v. wade" and reverse a constitutional right that's been in the books for 50 years. today the chief justice confirmed this is a real draft. within weeks we will see some version of some ruling come out. we will continue our special coverage here on msnbc. you've been watching "the beat" with ari melber and "the reidout" begins now with vice president kamala harris speaking at an emily's list gala. you're watching msnbc. >> good evening, everyone. we gyp "the reidout" tonight with a giant step backwards for women as free people in america. 50 years ago progress was made when the supreme court announced their decision in "roe v. wade." >> major story today, aside from the death of lyndon johnson, the tragic death and the hopes for peace in vietnam, is the decision of the united states supreme court. it handed down an historic decision about abortion. the court said in a 7-2 decision that in the first three months of pregnancy only the woman and her physician may decide whether she may have

decin overturning roe vs.the all new deluxe three cheese and bacon omelette, you get a smile on your plate. only from ihop. join the rewards program and earn double pancoins with any omelette purchase. bonnie boon i'm calling you out. everybody be cool, alright? with ringcentral we can pull bonnie up on phone, message, or video, all in the same app. oh... hey bonnie, i didn't see you there. ♪ ringcentral ♪ >>> to the american people, i say this. the elections this november will have consequences, because the rights of 100 million women are now on the ballot. to help fight this court's awful decision, i urge every american to make their voices heard this week and this year. call your members. write them. call your senators. write them. email them. text them. and most of all, cast your ballots this november. >> hi again, everybody, it's 5:00 in new york. under the anger being felt by many americans across this country today in light of a leaked draft majority opinion that the united states supreme court has vote

>>> tonight, the future of roe >>> tonight, the future of roe versus wade. the supreme court confirming the leak is real. the draft ruling that would overturn roe versus wade. so, what can this country expect in the final ruling from the court in the coming weeks? tonight, demonstrators on both sides of the issue at the court. the unprecedented leak. the draft majority opinion written by justice samuel alito, saying the 19734 case was wrongly decided and, quote, must be overruled. tonight, chief justice john roberts calling the leak an egregious breach of trust. what does this mean for women if roe versus wade is overturned? the 26 states that would likely quickly ban abortion. and the new abc news poll tonight, where do americans stand on this issue? the telling numbers tonight. terry moran live at the supreme court, rachel scott traveling the country. the states where the changes could be immediate. >>> president biden calling this draft ruling radical. if the supreme court strikes down roe, the president with an urgent warning, saying this will go beyond

i'm answering a lot of questions about roe and scholars across the spectrum says that doesn't mean roebe over while ever ruled but descriptively it not a case that everyone accepted and doesn't call for it over ruling. >> as a judge, it is an important precedent of the supreme court, by it, i mean row vark v wade, casey is precedent on priest dent, which itself is an important factor. senator, as the book explains, the supreme court of the united states has held in roe versus wade that a fetus is not a person for purposes of the 14th amendment and the book explains that. >> do you accept that? >> that's the law of the land. i accept the law of the land, senator, yes. >> so -- yeah. and you -- what do you think? what do you think of the responses? what do you think -- were they telling the truth in that moment? >> well, when they're saying it the law of the land and they arguably use this to convince certain senators to vote for them, i think that is a major problem. he said it was the law of the land. they are talking about the fact that it's been affirmed time and time again and that'

roe v. wade has protected women's rights, yeah it is powerful. roe v. wade in its power has protected a woman's right, her right to make decisions about her own body for nearly half a century. if the court overturns roe v. wade it would be a direct assault on freedom. on the fundamental right of self-determination to which all americans are entitled. roe v. wade protects the right to access abortions it also protects a woman's right to make decisions about what she does with her own body. but to the friends i say, we have always been clear but today we know our purpose, we know also what we are up against, we have been on the front lines of this fight for many years. all of us in this together and now, we enter a new phase. there is nothing hypothetical about this moment. let me be clear, this fight requires the work of this very organization emily's list. to elect pro-choice democrats to congress. now at this very moment roe v. wade remains the law of the land but let's talk about what a wo

roe v. wade, a 1973 decision by the supreme court that stripped power away from the american people, stripped their opportunity to make decisions regarding abortion at the upper level of government. to have those decisions made by their own elected lawmakers rather than by unelected, unaccountable judges who went irrigated to themselves the almost exclusive prerogative to decide how, when, whether to what extent abortions may be regulated. what lies before the supreme court is the test of weathering the storm of political opinion. the line has been drawn and in roe v. wade, appears to be on the verge of being overturned. should this draft opinion become the official holding of the court, americans will once again have the opportunity to debate and discuss these issues with the american people deciding within the respective state what terms and conditions ought to apply, what restrictions ought to be imposed, to protect human life. now, , this should give us all hope that america is not doome

the first was roe v.ade, which says the interest in regulating abortion changes is the nine months progress. in the first three months, there are very few regulations. in the second trimester, there are increasingly more regulations that are permissible. in the final trimester, there are pretty broad abilities to prohibit abortion altogether. that was the rule for 20 years. 1992, with casey, casey was a weird decision. there was no single majority opinion. there was a controlling opinion that garnered three votes. justices o'connor, kennedy and souter. they said they will keep the right of abortion, but get rid of the trimester framework. instead they will draw the line at point of viability. prior to the point of viability, the state cannot impose substantial burdens or obstacles on the right to an abortion. usually people ask what is liability, what is that line? it varies based on science and whatever the available technology is. in a big city with access to a large hospital, viability is here. in a po

it would codify roe.ould s for those who care about not just reproductive rights, but reproductive justice, roe doesn't go far enoughut this would be incredibly important, the passage of the women's health protectionct. it is sound legislation. it is important that legislation is enacted, absolutely. but to your first question, which is whether there might be a justice that could potentially change his or her mind. there is the potential for that to happen aft first drafts of opinions. there e times in which justices that are moved to the other side of the vote. will thahappen with these particular justices? you know, amy, i think it is important that of the conversation that justice alito authored another important decisionhat was extraordinary and it was the hobby lobby case. in that case, justice alito also did similar dance, which is to say it is only abo thi particular decision, we can't look at iteyond. that was striking down part of the affordab care act, essentially, saying organizations, for-prof

roe was egregiously wrong from the start. it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. let's begin this morning with cnn justice correspondent jessica schneider. she is outside the supreme court. so far the supreme court predictably quiet on this leak. do you expect any comment on this? >> reporter: it remains to be seen, jim. i was immediately in touch with the court when this news broke last night. there was a simple and strict no comment. it will be interesting to see if they changed their tune. you know, we were outside chief justice john roberts' house this morning. our producer, nicki robertson shouted two questions at him, asked about the leak itself, asked if there would be any investigation about this leak. the chief justice not responding in any kind. we'll see if the supreme court ultimately issues something here. while we wait, though, this is really a stunning breach of secrecy at this court. this is a court that you never hear anything, any inkling

this of course is the vision of a post-roe america. this is why overturning roe matters. what happens next with regard to abortion will be determined by the people of the 50 states through their elected leaders as our constitutional command of federalism demands. some states like utah already have laws in place to protect the most vulnerable among us the moment that roe and casey are overturned. i hope and pray that many innocent lives will be saved not just in my state but all throughout our country. and i pray for all nine justices' safety and for our country. we all know and we have to remember that the laws adopted in one state will be different than the laws adopted in another. part of living in a pluralistic society, part of living in our constitutional republic requires us to accept the idea that people have different opinions. they have different views. regional differences appear from one state to another. i predict that the laws of utah with regard to the protection of preborn human life may differ considerably from those of vermont, that the laws of massachuset

if roe v. w

roe v. wade only added to growing perception that the supreme court is just one more partisan institution, now a creature of politics, no longer about. the leaked decision for conservatives who worked decades for this moment and it was a shock to millions of americans who have never lived in a world without abortion rights. in this morning's special edition, we're going to cover this story from all angles. the real world fallout, the confusing checkerboard of state laws that would soon be in effect along with real questions about whatever rights might be in jeopardy. the political fallout. many democrats believe the issue will help them in the midterm, but the idea that overturning ro ex would energize democratic voters has another been tested. it will be now. plus the court itself and the broken confirmation process manipulated most recently by mitch mcconnell to manufacture this conservative majority that appears ready to overturn roe in a country that apparently wants it preserved. with 5

we need to make roe vs. wade the law of the land so that a woman in alabama has the same right to health care as a woman in my state of colorado. we can't have a two-part system, and we're not going to have it because -- i just want how can you tell a 12-year-old insist victim in alabama that she can't have the health care that she deserves? -- incest victim in alabama that she can't have the health care that she deserves? how can you tell a woman in of courses who has five children -- a woman in texas who has five children and is working three jobs to feed them that she can't have the health care she needs? and how can you tell a woman in mississippi who has severe fetal deformities that she can't have the health care that she needs? we're not going to tell them that. we're going to work every day, we are going to work every way to make sure everybody in this country has the health care that they need. as you heard, the house has acted. we passed judy chu's women's health protection act to put roe v. wade i

roe was egregiously wrong from start. it is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. justice alito writing the opinion, but joined crucially by four conservative-leaning justices. justice clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, brett kavanaugh and amy coney barrett. notably justices have changed their votes in the past. it could happen again. this draft opinion was circulated on february 10th, so a lot could have changed. but if this opinion holds and if it was ultimately released by the court, this would be a 5-4 decision overturning roe v. wade, and jim and erica, we're already seeing states react to this. democratic governors, republican governors, crucially there are estimates that about half the states would ban abortion if roe were overturned. we have seen many states already acting to enact legislation that would ban or severely restrict abortion. a lot at stake as we see what the court and how the court responds to this. guys? >> we do expect a statement from t

he wrote "roe was egregiously wrong from the start.ts reasoning was exceptionally weak and the decision has had damaging consequences. we now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. -- representatives." the political report said shortly after the court heard oral arguments about a mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, five republican nominated justices voted to overturn roe. that would be a seismic shift both legally and politically. 26 states are certain or likely to outlaw abortion according to to the guttmacher institute, which supports abortion rights. michigan is one them. but today, the state's attorney general said she would not enforce the law. >> what i see happening is just basically not having any abortion providers at all in the state of michigan. and my grave concern is that you are gonna have women who are going to die for aumber of different reasons. john: in the capitol, senate majority leader chuck schumer vowed to hold a vote on a federal law prote

this bill doesn't just codify roe v. wade. it goes far beyond the abortion policies among other countries, like those in europe, for example. in most european countries, abortion access is restricted after a certain point in the pregnancy. in sweden, it's 18 weeks of pregnancy. in france, it's 14 weeks. in germany it's 12 weeks. in portugal, 10 weeks. each of these limits are more restrictive than the current law in a number of american states a. including blue states like massachusetts and nevada. abortions are restricted after 24 weeks. in california, washington and illinois abortions are restricted after viability, an arbitrary line roughly 20 weeks of gestation, 20 to 23 weeks of gestation. but under this extreme bill, one health care provider could stop an otherwise constitutional state law protecting the life of this unborn child in its tracks. even though most americans oppose late-term abortions, our democratic colleagues are running full speed ahead in order to permit it under this extreme bill. they're so desperate t

the court in 1992 was one vote away from overturning roe. that goal was a republican campaign promise. with justice clarence thomas on record opposing roe, from george w. bush nominated alito. a decade later after the death of justice antonin scalia, then- majority leader mitch mcconnell blocked president obama from filling the seat, giving former president trump the opportunity to nominate gorsuch, and later kavanaugh and barrett. like with every other supreme court confirmation hearing since roe, all were pressed for their view. >> "roe v wade" is an important precedent of the supreme court. >> it has been reaffirmed many times. >> so if i express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether i say i love it or i hate it, it signals to litigants that i might tilt one way or another in a pending case. >> reporter:se are plate answers for appellate judges obliged to follow supreme court rulings. as justices they can rethink them, and arguments in the mississippi case last december it seemed they were ready to rethink roe. >> o'donnell: a

roe is still the law of the land. this was a leaked opinion, but we faced a believability gap for a few months now, for about six months, since the oral arguments a lot of us have been out there shouting it's very clear what's coming. the court didn't intervene in texas, as you noted. emboldened states like oklahoma, idaho, arizona, florida to take on additional bans. and a lot of americans, to their credit, couldn't believe that the court would reverse such a fundamental protected right. so what happened yesterday has really, as you told the story so beautifully, really a claire yan call, a wakeup call for folks who care about these fundamental freedoms and it might be the thing we need to really fight back. >> let's talk about this believability gap because it's obviousab and it's widespread there are reasonable people who just have not been around long enough to understand what it was like for women who couldn't get abortions, who looked for al aerntives in many cases alternatives either unsafe or unaffordable. and