"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 idealogica

what do you think it means for the future of roe v. wade. >> certainly it means that in texas, roe v. wade is no longer applicable. it will make it impossible, nearly impossible for women in that state to access abortion. it will ban abortion after six weeks. equally reprehensible, it will encourage anyone in the state or out of the state to sue a doctor, an abortion provider, anyone who lends money to a woman to get an abortion, an uber driver, encourage them to sue those people with a cash prize of $10,000. this was an act by the supreme court, which was incredibly cowardly. it was made in the dead of night. no lengthy substantive opinion. no oral argument. it was simply an order handed down by the court, which will affect the lives of millions of women and, make no mistake, women will die because of this, because of this action. i will also say that while texas is certainly the target today, other states, south dakota, florida, arkansas are also considering enacting similar laws. this has huge implications for women in this country, the

after that, it is a direct attack on roe v. wade. i think we saw a few days ago where the supreme court is heading and certainly if that supreme court upholds the mississippi law, we will have effectively overturned roe v. wade for the entire country. i should also make a point that has not been mentioned. this law in texas affects everyone. rich or poor. it will fall most heavily on those women without the financial means to go to new york, california, or another nearby state. it will fall heavily on black women, latinos, lgbtq women, indigenous women. this law is going to punish women at the margin without the finances to be able to get on a plane, drive a car, to get an abortion. it is that evil. host: the law is called the texas fetal heartbeat law. it went into effect on wednesday. it will ban abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected. there are no exceptions in the -- exemptions in the cases of rate and incensed --incest. we welcome your questions for nan aron and charles donovan. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202

. >> we have no idea if will overturn roe v. wadeng happening there. >> donald -- >> and you don't know our view on roe v. wade. >> ten nights our guess all

>> 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 i

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 how a m

is an incredibly difficult thing. >> meanwhile, speaker pelosi promised to take steps to codify roe v. 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 ri

you don't know her view on roe v. wade. >> i don't know her view. >> donald trump, understanding that he doesn't want roe v. wade on the ballot, you don't know, although remember that he pledged he would appoint justices opposed roe v. wade. >> okay, the conservative core under chief justice, according to polling, liberals think highly, of which i find mind-blowing, that court has had a few main projects, one of them protecting corporations from government regulations and that may mean rolling back the jurisprudence around that free new deal era, they've been very invested on rolling back voting rights, laser focused on that, and making abortion more difficult. they have been laser focus on that agenda from the beginning. do not believe anyone who tells you that is not what they're doing, they are either idiots or lying to you. now we have arrived at this moment at 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've been praying for. all of the people who warn

to receive constitutionally guaranteed healthcare. >> this is exactly the same situation as if roe v. wade had been overturned. because if roe v. wade is overturned that means it will be up to each state. so, you know, virtually all the red states will ban abortion. but, new york, california, many other blue states will not ban abortions. so the question will be, if you want an abortion in a red state, can you somehow make it to a blue state? do you have the economic resources? do you have the time? or, can you get what's called a medical abortion which is now -- which is -- an increasing way women are able to terminate their pregnancies through medication. but believe me the red states are doing their best to ban that again. >> this is a road map for how they can do it which is why i say as of this moment 7:05 eastern time today roe versus wade has been up ended in texas, jeffrey. i'm curious because the supreme court did not step in overnight. and they could have. and as i said to laura jarrett before, doing nothing was doing something here. this is a statement. how am i supposed to read

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 got p

three roe v wade. are many people who think... three roe v wade-— roe v wade. that's right. t'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 someone

i think the point of roe v. wades that states cannot ban abortion. >> mm-hmm. >> if texas ban as 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 women during the time that they don't know their pregnant. it would effectively outlaw 85% of -- what are the options now for opponents if there are any? >> look, you can't overstate 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 oral argument on an issue that has stood the test of time for decades and decades. we're talking about upending the trimester framework not only of roe v. wade but subse

is because of the increase in science and how much more people know about the viability. >> is roe v. wade> i disagree with chris. this isn't about the science. this is about women being able to make a choice. i'm concerned how it will further divide the country. reversal of roe v. wade doesn't eliminate abortion in this country. it will eliminate a national right for abortion. now blue states like california, new jersey, new york, all of a sudden say we believe in a women's right to choose. we believe women have that choice with their doctor to make this decision. you're going to see a further polarization of this country of human rights and women's rights. this is extraordinarily dangerous. >> if that's what we call the system our founders set up, if the right is not enumerated in the constitution, it reverts to the states to decide. each state should be able to make that decision otherwise we might as well have an all-knowing federal government that gets to decide every question in this country. i don't think that's what we want. i don't think it's what our founders wanted. >> kristen,

if the law takes affect, what does that mean for roe v wade. i said it could end roe v wade. e 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 abo

they can get rid of roe v. wade 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 januar

the expectation is that they will continue to be hostile to roe v. wade. just note that without saying a word, they were able to effectuate what is presumed to happen if they do decide the next case on roe v. wade. this is not how it's supposed to go. imagine if you will somebody in another instance says, you know what, i've got a problem with guns being purchased. let's have a state law that allows any private citizen to have a $10,000 fine and can sue anyone on anyone who aids and abets gun ownership in this country. people would be coming out of the woodwork in opposition, angered by what the supreme court has already said and individual rights and talking about the second amendment. but when it comes to women and their uteruses and reproductive rights, all bets are off. >> reva, this is put in legal no-man's land right now which is maybe the supreme court passed on taking it up. but what does this mean for roe versus wade? what does this mean for next month when the supreme court re-examines all of this? >> yeah, alisyn, i think the supreme court by not

v. wade. >> 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 co

there are five justices now who are ready to overturn roe v wade. that's the reason you didn't get a stay or emergency order last night because this is what they're going to do. roe v wade is going out the window. >> this arises in a backdrop of a new emboldened conservative majority. think of the other signals we've been getting from this supreme court about mow integrity matters, how public confidence in the supreme court matters. chief justice john roberts is constantly telling people that just as steven briar gave a speech about how they're not junior politicians. well this kind of action or inactioning suggests they have a political agenda. i'm sure they'd say, oh no we don't. think of what people in texas believe right now on both sides that the supreme court has implicitly accepted reversal of roe v wade. >> a senior director of a women's health clinic is saying the clinic is going to have to start turning patients away today. i'm hearing the justices could still intervene. >> they could do what they should have done last night, offer some cla

so the conventional wisdom is roe v. wade is very much in jeopardy. if they don't officially overrule roe v. wade in had mississippi case, there could be five votes to seriously undermine it, make it easier for states to pass restrictive abortion laws in the future. >> amy, thank you for that excellent explanation. really appreciate it. joining me to talk about what options congress has to protect abortion rights, democratic congresswoman debbie dingell of michigan. that's for joining us on this sunday. we appreciate it. is there any pathway forward, congresswoman, to codify roe v. wade? >> well, i think people have been talking about that for a long time. certainly the speaker has made it clear that the house will vote on this when we return, come back the week of september 20th. i think it will be a narrow passage, but i think that the house will probably pass it. the problem is the united states senate. i think joe biden's made it clear that he would sign it, but as any -- the united states senate [ inaudible ] roadblock than it is to [ inaudible ].

but what is not complicated _ roe v wade. but what is not complicated is _ roe v wade. that poll - roe v wade. but what is not j complicated is that poll after poll of many years she was majority of americans believe in a women's right to choose. your party seem to be determined to fight a cultural war on this issue. why? hf determined to fight a cultural war on this issue. why? if you believe that _ war on this issue. why? if you believe that life _ war on this issue. why? if you believe that life is _ war on this issue. why? if you believe that life is sacred - believe that life is sacred from the beginning to the end if you that the government should have some say about when life begins when it ends that were taken away by a court decision. i don't know what you believe about when we become who we are, at what point in time in the development of the human being that you actually have an individual identity. there are a lot of americans who are pro—choice and don't like the idea of late term abortion. right? later in the birthing process abortion becomes less popular.

roe v. wade, that was 24 weeks but this - in the state. roe v. is is - in the state. roe v. wade, that was 24 weeks but this is known as the heartbeat bill. has the situation changed with technology? is this the right tactic for those who are anti—abortion? tactic for those who are anti-abortion?- tactic for those who are anti-abortion? ., , , ., anti-abortion? there has been a coalescing _ anti-abortion? there has been a coalescing around _ anti-abortion? there has been a coalescing around the _ anti-abortion? there has been a coalescing around the idea - anti-abortion? there has been a coalescing around the idea of. coalescing around the idea of viability as a weak point because that changes as technology improves and depends on the resources of the hospital in question. viability has also been questioned by bioethicists who do not believe that that maps when we attach to our life in the womb view. at the same time, if you are anti—abortion and movement, there is considerable risk with this when most americans favour access to legal abortion and

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. rodger

now, ever since "roe v. wadein 1973, it's been the law of this country that states cannot pass laws that unduly restrict the right of a woman to get an abortion. texas went ahead and, as you said, passed a very restrictive law that essentially makes it impossible and they used this bizarre system where private citizens can sue anyone who has anything to do with an abortion. this week the supreme court denied an emergency stay. they left that law in place even though it directly violates "roe v. wade." now, what they said is, this is just a procedural ruling in part because of that strange private bounty hunter provision. but it's impossible to ignore that there's an ideological split here. the five justices who said let's leave it in place, all conservatives. on the other side, you have the three liberal justices joined by chief justice roberts. technically this was just a procedural ruling, there's more ahead on this texas case, but you have to look at the signal it sends and it's not a good signal for the futur

yes, the same supreme court that agreed to hear a direct challenge to roe v. wade only a few months ago. dahlia's piece explaining this at slate.com today is headlined "the supreme court has until midnight to decide the fate of roe v. wade," and she's right. and it's not like the supreme court is expected to issue a ruling at midnight that says, we hereby overturn roe v. wade. i'm sure they'd be shy about that. they're going to wait until the mississippi case to do that. instead, they're going to take, in all likelihood, the easier path, if they want to. they may yet grant that injunction. but if they don't, it's sort of game over. i mean all the supreme court has to do to effectively end the protections of roe v. wade, to allow abortion bans to go into effect, all they need to do is do nothing tonight by midnight eastern, 1:00 a.m. central time. otherwise, texas bans abortion effectively starting tonight. never mind roe. joining us now is nancy northup, president and ceo of the center for reproductive rights. her organization led the emergency request asking the s

if that were so, roe v. wade at least acknowledged our people's legitimate abiding interest to protect innocent life before a child is born. the law that passed in the house of representatives, though, last week allows abortion to occur up until the very moment of birth. 40 weeks or even beyond. displaying a grotesque indifference to the most vulnerable times of human life. >> you can see the rest of this hearing on our website c-span.org. right now, we take you live to the house of representatives which today is considering legislation to suspend the

yes the same supreme court that agreed to hear a direct challenge to roe v. wade, only a few months ago. this piece, explaining this, as sleet.com today, headline the supreme court has until midnight to decide the fate of roe v. wade. and she's right,, and it's not like the supreme court is expected to issue a ruling at midnight, this is we hear by overturn roe v. wade. they'd be shy about. that the way till the mississippi case to do that. instead they are going to take, in all likelihood, the easier path. if they want to. they may yet grant that injunction. but if they don't,, it's sort of game, over all the supreme court has to do, to effectively and the protections of roe v. wade, to allow abortion bans to go into effect, all they need to do, is do nothing, tonight. by midnight eastern, 1 am central time. otherwise texas bans abortion, effectively starting tonight, never mind roe v. wade. joining us now is nancy northup she's president and ceo for the center for reproductive rights, it led the -- to block the texas law. just in the last few minutes they have f

this law is patently unconstitutional based on roe v. wade. roe v. wade so that government can't interfere before a fetus is viable about 22 or 23 weeks. this is six weeks. it clear lly violates roe v. wade. this law is so bad, it is unprecedented. it delegates enforcement to private citizens which is why it made it tricky for the court to handle it. the descends all of them wrote which reminded me of bush v. gore. this is not as big as bush v. gore but it is a turning point to the court. it is all made possible by what happened one year ago this month when ruth bader ginsburg suddenly passed away and donald trump was able to name amy coney barrett to the court. this was not a cautious order. if there are legal questions here, it will not harm the clinics for women in texas to have this take in effect. we know this happens, people are driving elsewhere. what happens when they are expected to rule soon on the mississippi law that bans most abortions after 15 weeks. >> right, you are right to bring it up. that's the case where they actually accepted a c

the question, is this about texas or the first step towards overturning roe v. wade? what we learned in this order last night is the fragility of roe v. wade, right. so this 5-4 order, it comes down at midnight, and basically this texas law is one of the most strict across the country. there is no other law like that, any federal court has ever allowed to remain on the books. and basically we saw the chief justice john roberts, no fan of abortion, right? >> yes. >> reporter: joins with the liberals here, and the liberals were just furious about what happened. this is what justice sonya sotomayor said in descent. she said, the court's order is stunning presented with an application to enjoin a flagrantly institutional law to prohibit women from exercising their constitutional rights and evade judicial scrutiny, a majority of justices have opted to bury their heads in the sand. >>> so there you have the liberals, really calling out not only the texas legislature for passing this law that was put on the books because they knew it would be so hard to challenge, but she's

so realistically can the court of roe v wade roe v wade in the next three years? they can avoid anything they are pretty good that the challenges? given with the states are doing. >> i would not underestimate the courts interest to broker a compromises that refraining many components. >> but then you see the medical so i went underestimate we frame the entire test so that framework is still something. >> and then to come up with john roberts with guns and abortion on the docket what are his biggest concerns? >> i think it is interesting because there are sose many similarities of how state street those two things. those states that don't like guns will literally pass anything they can to keep and bear arms if they don't like abortion the same equally intense to do everything they can to suppress whatever the scope whatever it outup to be at the moment they don't seem to care. the resolution to your question may be a readjustment i think a lot this is the standard of review causing these problems. and then you theory and then you theory and with guns it is the same

, as per my understanding of the court decision, roe v. wadea decision allowing the right to abortion, while this law only brings regulation to the abortion. i believe that i should also comment on my opinion of roe v. wade in that i simply wish to say that jane roe later recanted and said that she was encouraged by her friends to lies so that she would have the right to abortion. however, under roe v. wade, she herself was not permitted and abortion. that is my thought on the matter and i thank you for taking my call. host: this is the lead opinion piece from "the new york times" this morning. "is this how roe v. wade dies"? host:host: that is from the -- of lauren kelly, new york times. duncanville, texas, go ahead. caller: i believe this bill has everything to do with race. like greg abbott and dan patrick, they are concerned about race and the white population dwindling and decreasing. that's what the whole bill is about. they want the numbers, they want the white population to increase. that's what this is all about. that's my opinion. hos

it doesn't overturn roe v. wade, because the court can do that, but it upends roe v. wade in texas. it more or less makes it newly. in texas, at least as we sit here at 8:03 eastern time, 7:03 central time where texas is, it doesn't exist, roe v. wade isn't operable in texas this morning based on this law because roe v. wade, of course, would say that a state can get in the way of an abortion somewhere around 22 to 24 weeks based on that ruling in other legal precedent. that's out the door in texas as of this minute. >> keep in mind, this conservative court with three of president trump's nominees, this term is actually hearing a case, oral arguments, briefs, the whole nine yards on a mississippi law that bans abortion at 15 weeks. so we're seeing the court not act here, allowing this one to go into effect, but then later in the term they are going to have this big dispute with oral arguments and opinion by the end of the term. >> if it goes another day or two or three without any action from the supreme court, i mean it already speaks volumes this morning. but those volumes go even

roe v. wade 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: we w

and let me tell you what, if they overrule roe v. wadethe minute roe v. wade is sent to the states, it's illegal in our state. we are months away from women all over the south not having an option. and you know what that means? that means rich women, my kids, have an option because they can just fly to california or new york or massachusetts. but poor women have no options and these people don't care at all. and if you ever wonder about that, read the dissenting opinion of kavanaugh in the abortion case that came up to him when he was a federal district judge. no empathy for poor people. they're trying to overrule roe v. wade and they have effectively done it in texas and they're going to do it in this country. everybody better call their congressperson and get on the move to get a federal law. otherwise, poor women have no choices. >> this is going to ignite something extraordinarily polarizing. >> as it should, as it should, given what they're doing to us. >> thank you so much for weighing in. appreciate that. >>> so it's a scene of cou

the whole idea of legislating roe v. wadeored for a long time, is something that is going to happen in the house, but it feels like it will die in the senate. even if it were passed, the court that just a little while ago, in 2007, said that the congress power, the power of congress is brought, enough so that congress can ban a particular late term abortion procedure, they probably will turn around and say, oh but now we've discovered new power. they can't do. that just imagine if we were talking about a right that conservatives, liked like gun rights. suppose massachusetts, the state relives, decided to disregard the supreme court precedents about guns, and made it a crime, for any private citizen to own a pistol. without special government permission, without showing the flagrantly unconstitutional. and if they didn't have public prosecutors in forcing it, and had an army of citizen vigilantes, making sure that nobody could have a gun at home, do you think this court would've applied its logic to say, oh will let that go in

the future of roe v. wadeng effect there essentially banning all abortions after six weeks in that state. there is no exception, we should be clear, for rape or incest, none. the supreme court and a federal appeals court decided not to take up emergency requests to op

as of midnight, last night, roe v. wade is now a dead letter, it's in operable in the state of texas at least, hold women's health is along the texas reproductive health advocates who pleaded to issue an injunction last night to stop this new law from taking effect, this new texas law that makes abortion effectively illegal, but the supreme court just didn't respond, they did nothing. they sat silent and let the ban go into effect and in so doing, as of right now, they've essentially led the protection of roe v. wade come to an end. the law in effect in texas right now bans abortion after about six weeks, most women don't know if they are pregnant, something like 85% of abortions take place after six weeks, so this -- of abortions. there is no exception for rape or in says, you've probably seen that today in reading or seen the news, with that means is a stark thing. it means a woman, who is forcibly impregnated by a rapist, that woman will be forced to bear the rapists child against her will. because conservatives like sma

and in doing this this is the biggest threat to abortion rights weave seen since 1973 when the roe v. wade decision was first made. yamiche: and women of color in particular when you think about as susan said the biggest athlete threat since roe v. wade will be impacted with this. women who don't hav the money to go to another state. talk about the implications for the most vulnerable among us? anita: yeah, it's women of lor your also seeing young women, teens and women that live in rural communities you know, people forget how big texas is. get to a clinic or a facility, you have to drive miles and miles and miles, hundreds of miles in some cases anwhat your seeing there this week is that women are not realizing how far along they are. so of them don't realize their pregnant. and so what's happening is their calling up -- we're wait inning line hours to go into a clinic on the day that this law -- the day before the law went into effect what their trying to figure out now is where can they go? how can they do this? yamiche: and now what are democrats going to do? anita: we don't really kn

harold, how much trouble is the precedent of roe v. waderights to have an abortion -- stated women's rights to have an abortion at least up until viability. how much trouble is roe v. wade in right now? >> well, there are certainly going to be questions and i think the trouble -- we 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 it certainly established. i think politics at this unfortunately is just so bad on one side for democrats and perhaps good on the other. bad and that there are democrats fuming still over the way some of the supreme court justices were rushed through the system but the other side as you have a junior governor's race and you have a speaker of the house where this issue is going to play prominently. and 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 row -- which i don't -- but those who oppose have issues with this texas law and aga